Thoughts on Potential Draft Trade With Cleveland!!!

[freddyg12]

I could see us trading up w/Cleveland, then in turn trading the #3 to Denver for their 1st, 2nd & 3rd. This seems possible since the broncos seem to think they're a player or two away.

I don't know how much cash the broncos have left under the cap though.

[tazhog]

Originally Posted by SkinsFanSince91

trade down to where and to whom? That assertion is compleltly ambiguous, and this is under the assumption that the top d-lineman will be available!

They will be going fast in the first 15 picks. So past in the first 15 picks Adams, Anderson, Okoye, Branch, and Carriker are all poised to be gone!

I hear everyone, but I WILL BE NAMING NAMES of the warpath faithful who will bicker and complain about how many people we could have had after our first pick!!

Im telling you now it will suck, and I WILL be here to remind all of you if you do in fact complain or start any forums thereafter!!!

I love your passion... I've been a REDSKINS fan since 69' and I will always live and die with the decisions of our FO...
It will be interesting, to see how this develops!!!

[TenandSix:Unacceptable]

It's hard to call successful PA if other teams don't respect your passing game or when they don't get burned for biting on the run, so I don't agree with the thinking that WR's impact so few of your offensive plays. However, the KC offense that keeps getting referred to was an Al Saunders offense in large part, and they went for 2 rb's over having killer WR's. I'm sure we would all be happy if our offense could come close to matching the production of Saunders' KC offenses. I suppose his thinking and JG's thinking will ultimately determine whether or not a Betts and our pick for CJ would benefit the team or not. I would honestly not complain with any of our potential moves if we get to see a better product on the field and win some freaking games. Time is running out on Gibbs II and all we want is to see him and the team do well.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by TenandSix:Unacceptable

It's hard to call successful PA if other teams don't respect your passing game or when they don't get burned for biting on the run, so I don't agree with the thinking that WR's impact so few of your offensive plays. However, the KC offense that keeps getting referred to was an Al Saunders offense in large part, and they went for 2 rb's over having killer WR's. I'm sure we would all be happy if our offense could come close to matching the production of Saunders' KC offenses. I suppose his thinking and JG's thinking will ultimately determine whether or not a Betts and our pick for CJ would benefit the team or not. I would honestly not complain with any of our potential moves if we get to see a better product on the field and win some freaking games. Time is running out on Gibbs II and all we want is to see him and the team do well.

The difference between what Kansas City had under Saunders and what we had last year was 100% in the blocking. Our offensive line may be the best in our division, but Kansas City had a dominant blocking TE, and the best OL in football. They didn't even have a gamebreaker like Santana Moss, but were so consistent that it didn't even matter.

If we want to improve our offense, THAT is the blueprint to follow. Improve the OL even more.

The only other option is to leave the offense as is, accept the fact that we won't ever make it into the top 3-5 offensively, and try to build up the defense into a playoff caliber one by pouring all of our resources into it.

[TenandSix:Unacceptable]

If that's the blueprint wouldn't Saunders know it and why don't they go after it? Thanks to guys like Gibbs and Saunders you see how an extremely effective offense can revolve around your OL. What if they trade up to take that Wisconsin Guy? Move Jansen to the middle? That's honestly another part of our team that I could see us upgrading but with Samuels at LT we really need guards and someday soon a RT. I think in football that you need a dominant unit on each side of the ball, and then you scheme around the strengths of said unit. The ones that seem the most obvious are OL and DL. Give me a team with standout OL's and DL's and above average quarterbacking and you can't expect to lose more often than you win. CJ would give us standouts in the passing game, which is another rout to take. We already get average to somewhat above average OL play.

My whole thinking on this has been that Landry would give us a standout secondary, and CJ would give us standout WR's to go with Portis, Campbell and Cooley. The risk is that you really upgrade and sink money and draft picks into positions where football games are not ultimately won. If I were building a team from scratch, I would go for QB first and then build the lines, while keeping an eye out for one standout CB, WR, LB, RB and TE. Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury, because we are up against the cap with a dearth of draft picks and our roster is almost set. So, it's either shore up the DL knowing that the unit will most likely not become dominant overnight, or go bonkers at saftey or WR.

To me it's a Gibbs decision on a Gibbs time-frame, so he'll make the decision based on who helps him re-climb the mountain fastest. I guess we have to sit back, cavetch, and hope for the best.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The difference between what Kansas City had under Saunders and what we had last year was 100% in the blocking. Our offensive line may be the best in our division, but Kansas City had a dominant blocking TE, and the best OL in football. They didn't even have a gamebreaker like Santana Moss, but were so consistent that it didn't even matter.

If we want to improve our offense, THAT is the blueprint to follow. Improve the OL even more.

The only other option is to leave the offense as is, accept the fact that we won't ever make it into the top 3-5 offensively, and try to build up the defense into a playoff caliber one by pouring all of our resources into it.

I think the offense has the potential to vastly improve even if we leave it as is. We have bolstered our depth at O-line despite losing Dock, Portis and Betts will be healthy to start the season and be a great 1-2, and most importantly, Campbell is cemented as our starter. Despite Portis' injuries and inconsistent QB play, we still finished with the 4th overall rushing attack. Add a more experienced, comfortable Campbell to that equation, and I could see us having a top 5 offense potentially. Campbell has good weapons to work with.

I do agree that very soon we need to address an O-line who are all around 30-31. But I don't think it's a need so pressing that we have to trade up to get Joe Thomas. That line in KC under Saunders played well into their 30's and was still dominant. We can ride this line through the next 2, maybe even 3 seasons IMO, but we have to build up their replacements along the way.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I think the offense has the potential to vastly improve even if we leave it as is. We have bolstered our depth at O-line despite losing Dock, Portis and Betts will be healthy to start the season and be a great 1-2, and most importantly, Campbell is cemented as our starter. Despite Portis' injuries and inconsistent QB play, we still finished with the 4th overall rushing attack. Add a more experienced, comfortable Campbell to that equation, and I could see us having a top 5 offense potentially. Campbell has good weapons to work with.

I do agree that very soon we need to address an O-line who are all around 30-31. But I don't think it's a need so pressing that we have to trade up to get Joe Thomas. That line in KC under Saunders played well into their 30's and was still dominant. We can ride this line through the next 2, maybe even 3 seasons IMO, but we have to build up their replacements along the way.

I don't think the offensive line can improve anymore. Granted, players on the O Line tend to peak later, but we have a LOT of age on our offensive front.

We may not have the picks to do it this draft, but next year we have to start taking lineman early. The alternative is to watch the OL regress every year from 2007 on out.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't think the offensive line can improve anymore. Granted, players on the O Line tend to peak later, but we have a LOT of age on our offensive front.

We may not have the picks to do it this draft, but next year we have to start taking lineman early. The alternative is to watch the OL regress every year from 2007 on out.

I agree completely. But we didn't allow many sacks last year (I don't know the exact numbers), and our rushing attack was formidable. If the O-line keeps on par with last season and our passing game improves, we'll be in great shape (again, assuming the D gets better).

[skinsfan_nn]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't think the offensive line can improve anymore. Granted, players on the O Line tend to peak later, but we have a LOT of age on our offensive front.

We may not have the picks to do it this draft, but next year we have to start taking lineman early. The alternative is to watch the OL regress every year from 2007 on out.

Our O-line is in pretty damn good shape, no worries. Next year we have all of our picks, let's keep it that way.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I agree completely. But we didn't allow many sacks last year (I don't know the exact numbers), and our rushing attack was formidable. If the O-line keeps on par with last season and our passing game improves, we'll be in great shape (again, assuming the D gets better).

Our O Line definately improved over the course of last year, but I actually believe that this phenomenon may be a leaguewide effect.

I wouldn't call it any more than a longshot observation, but don't offensive lines in general tend to dominate defensive lines as the long season wears on? Isn't this part of the Colts SB winning formula, that their DL bucked a strong trend, giving them a decisive advantage over their opponents?

I don't see our offensive line dropping off much next year, I would expect a similar performance to 2006. From here on out though, any injuries to one of the sages on the OL could really destroy their effectiveness. I'm not sure Jansen is playing as well right now as we give him credit for--but he also plays the one position on the OL we have the personel to seamlessly replace if necessary.

Statistically--and take this with a grain of salt because lineman stats are really troublesome--we had significantly more success running behind Dockery than any other lineman last year. If Wade can't come in and do the job, we could see a turnstyle LG effect the whole year that accompanies a fall in the effectiveness of our rushing game. Boy, if Samuels or Thomas gets hurt, we could be in big trouble.

However if we can avert OL crisis for a second straight year, I think the dirtbags have one more really good year left in them before a slow, steady decline comes.

Getting a dominant blocking TE in the draft or via trade will mask a lot of problems.

[KLHJ2]

Here we go again!
Same old bullshit again!
When Draft day comes, it'l all be through!
I wont have to listen to you!
(Its a cadence)

What if we trade all of our draft picks, and half of our roster for the first three rounds of the Draft next year. Then we can have the youngest squad in the NFL! Of coarse Im not serious! Just let the damn coaches and front office do their damn jobs and stop speculating. Lets talk about what they have done already and comment on that.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by angryssg

Here we go again!
Same old bullshit again!
When Draft day comes, it'l all be through!
I wont have to listen to you!
(Its a cadence)

What if we trade all of our draft picks, and half of our roster for the first three rounds of the Draft next year. Then we can have the youngest squad in the NFL! Of coarse Im not serious! Just let the damn coaches and front office do their damn jobs and stop speculating. Lets talk about what they have done already and comment on that.

Dude,

You're on a discussion fourm. Speculation is the name of the game.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Dude,

You're on a discussion fourm. Speculation is the name of the game.

You're right to an extent. I jast feel myself getting dummer with every post and every click of the mouse.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by angryssg

You're right to an extent. I jast feel myself getting dummer with every post and every click of the mouse.

I hear ya.

Bad speculation is one thing. I do my best to offer insightful, somewhat plausible speculation. It's the least I can do.

[KLHJ2]

Here is the other thing. Why would we trade up in the draft if the so called value in the draft is later on?