Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[quote=Beemnseven;286334]We're not 100% sure Springs will be in that lineup. Plus, Taylor is a safety.

It's a question that needs to be asked though. Assuming Springs is no longer with us, of Bly, Smoot, and Rogers, who is the nickel?[/quote]

With the way GW rotates his corners I'm not sure there's any shame in being the 3rd CB. They see a ton of action.

Right now I think the 3rd is Smoot.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;286336]I understand your concern, but obviously they aren't comfortable with the thought of Smoot and Rogers at #1 and #2, with Jimoh the only other capable guy backing them up. And all of that hinges on whether Springs is willing to either take a pay cut or restructure. Additionally, if that's not settled before June 1, then who's going to be available at that point if Springs is no longer on the team?

Ultimately you have to look at it like this: Either we stick it out with Springs and HOPE he stays healthy, (along with his increased cap number) or spend nearly the same amount that you would have with a guy who's a couple of years younger in Dre Bly.

Of the two choices, I think you have to lean towards Bly and all the extra draft picks we stand to get.[/QUOTE]

They have Springs cap number fit in for this year even without a restructuring...so they would not have to cut him at all. I prefer to do a straight draft pick trade with Denver for all 4 of their day 1 picks and try and make it through one more year with Springs. Maybe we can find a younger #1 CB to give big bonus money to next offseason.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[quote=Beemnseven;286336]I understand your concern, but obviously they aren't comfortable with the thought of Smoot and Rogers at #1 and #2, with Jimoh the only other capable guy backing them up. And all of that hinges on whether Springs is willing to either take a pay cut or restructure. Additionally, if that's not settled before June 1, then who's going to be available at that point if Springs is no longer on the team?

Ultimately you have to look at it like this: Either we stick it out with Springs and HOPE he stays healthy, (along with his increased cap number) or spend nearly the same amount that you would have with a guy who's a couple of years younger in Dre Bly.

Of the two choices, I think you have to lean towards Bly and all the extra draft picks we stand to get.[/quote]

Totally! To many unknown things have to go................just right for this to work out in it's present configuration:

Can Springs stay healthy for 16 games + ?
Is Carlos going to step up this season?
Can Fred be a starter if either of the other two don't fly?

This is not to mention the added problems if we don't dramatically improve D-line, and/or D-ends.

TO MUCH RISK......as is

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection;286326]I'm fine with giving him that money as LONG as we have money for Cooley and Taylor towards the end of the year.[/QUOTE]

So then the question becomes is it more valuable to us to cut trade Springs or wait until June and cut him then

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[QUOTE=Hog1;286340]Totally! To many unknown things have to go................just right for this to work out in it's present configuration:

Can Springs stay healthy for 16 games + ?
Is Carlos going to step up this season?
Can Fred be a starter if either of the other two don't fly?

This is not to mention the added problems if we don't dramatically improve D-line, and/or D-ends.

TO MUCH RISK......as is[/QUOTE]

Everyone talks about Springs health on here and the reality is that last year was the only year that his health has caused us a problem. His 1st 2 years here he played 15 games each season. I don't think Springs or Bly are worth a big payday right now...Springs is already here and under contract.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[QUOTE=celts32;286345]Everyone talks about Springs health on here and the reality is that last year was the only year that his health has caused us a problem. His 1st 2 years here he played 15 games each season. I don't think Springs or Bly are worth a big payday right now...Springs is already here and under contract.[/QUOTE]

I agree that Springs' health concerns have been overrated.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;286349]I agree that Springs' health concerns have been overrated.[/QUOTE]

It's rediculous...it's becasue we all remember the most recent season. Since 1998 when he became a regular starter there have only been 3 seasons where he played less then 15 games, and as i said before we have only had one of them. I don't love Springs...I just don't see Bly as a huge upgrade and I don't think Springs health should be used as an issue to justify paying Bly.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

The type of injury that Springs is working back from is what's concerning to me, coupled with his age.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[quote=celts32;286345]Everyone talks about Springs health on here and the reality is that last year was the only year that his health has caused us a problem. His 1st 2 years here he played 15 games each season. I don't think Springs or Bly are worth a big payday right now...Springs is already here and under contract.[/quote]

I think the thrust of the post, and those like it, is that while Springs plays most of the time in years gone by, that's not 100% of the time. He missed most of the season last year. These things generally do not improve with age. Those things taken together paint a very real POSSIBILITY of him being out a signifigant part of the year (or nicked up and trying to play).
We can all agree that losing a starter of his quality has a crippling impact. The question is, are we willing to risk going through the season starting Smoot, and Carlos? I'm not, if another good oppurtunity is at hand.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

I see a lot of holes in his article..

1. It's nit-picky, but Bly is 29.

2. Above all we need quality players and depth. Making the trade adds a quality player and with the additional picks, adds depth. Accomplishes both goals.

3. So he thinks we'd be better than last year with Springs who has missed games virtually every season in the NFL, including most of last season and should have missed the last 4 of 2005 (muscle injuries only get worse and more frequent when you get older) and the #6 pick than with Bly, who has stayed healthy, plus additional picks where we can hopefully get Okoye which fills a need and also trade Springs for MORE picks? Isn't this contrary to what every 'expert' says?

4. I don't see an alternative other than 'just stand pat with what we have'. That puts a WHOLE lot of trust in the #6 pick coming in and being an immediate impact player.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[quote=Paintrain;286356]I see a lot of holes in his article..

1. It's nit-picky, but Bly is 29.

2. Above all we need quality players and depth. Making the trade adds a quality player and with the additional picks, adds depth. Accomplishes both goals.

3. So he thinks we'd be better than last year with Springs who has missed games virtually every season in the NFL, including most of last season and should have missed the last 4 of 2005 (muscle injuries only get worse and more frequent when you get older) and the #6 pick than with Bly, who has stayed healthy, plus additional picks where we can hopefully get Okoye which fills a need and also trade Springs for MORE picks? Isn't this contrary to what every 'expert' says?

4. I don't see an alternative other than 'just stand pat with what we have'. That puts a WHOLE lot of trust in the #6 pick coming in and being an immediate impact player.[/quote]


I guess Bly's age is a mystery to me. I heard, 30, 31 and...now 29. I guess he's about to be thirty??

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

I think to properly evalute Bly over Springs we would need to know how much money him and the Danny agreed to.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

We don't need Bly.

Pick a player at # 6 or trade down for equal value.

Keep Springs.

Have Rogers, Smoot, Springs battle for starting role.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[QUOTE=JDALY27;286365]We don't need Bly.

Pick a player at # 6 or trade down for equal value.

Keep Springs.

Have Rogers, Smoot, Springs battle for starting role.[/QUOTE] I feel more and more this is the way to go! I wanted Anderson DE and we could do that by trading down and getting Anderson and a 2nd or 3rd round pick to boot!

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[quote=12thMan;286360]I guess Bly's age is a mystery to me. I heard, 30, 31 and...now 29. I guess he's about to be thirty??[/quote]

He's 29, he'll turn 30 in May.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

If Okoye is the guy we decide to build our defensive line around in the future, then it's more important to get him now than try to grab a bunch of extra picks and just pick for need. Honestly at this point, no move is probably the best. Just take Branch or Okoye at 6.

If we can move down to 8 with Houston because Quinn falls that far and they want him, then we can pick up a second. This would be ideal. But we have no business picking outside of the top 20, we are just simply not going to get they guy we want, be it Okoye, Branch, or Carriker.

Of course if the impossible (sarcasm) happens, and the Raiders actually take Brady Quinn, then we aren't going to have many suitors for our pick. It's OK, it was us that traded our picks away. Lets not give up a shot at our defensive franchise player so we can make up for past errors.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

i think the #6 pick is much better than bly. we need a d-line that can hold the line.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

ive heard a lot of stuff about moving springs to saftey the same way the bills moved vincent to saftey late in his career as a way of extending his career after being slowed by injuries. Is this a serious consideration or just speculation? has springs ever said anything about being willing to move to saftey?

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[quote=Paintrain;286356]4. I don't see an alternative other than 'just stand pat with what we have'. That puts a WHOLE lot of trust in the #6 pick coming in and being an immediate impact player.[/quote]We can NOT look at any of our draft picks making an immediate impact. The whole build through the draft philsophy means we need to use the draft to [I]prepare[/I] for a day when our key players aren't here anymore. We wouldn't be drafting Branch/Okoye to play [I]next[/I] to Griffin, we'd be drafting them to make certain that we have a great DT situation [I]after[/I] Griffin becomes a cap casulity either next offseason or the one after that.

The first part of a rebuilding process is getting a [I]guy to build around[/I]. We should only look to trade down if we decide that none of the top rated D Linemen are the type we would WANT to build around. I really think they like Okoye, and I as I've been saying all along would be more than satisfied with Branch.

Using the draft to fill immediate needs IS NOT building through the draft. That's basicially building through free agency and using the draft to fill holes. Basically, its what weve been doing.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[quote=GTripp0012;286413]We can NOT look at any of our draft picks making an immediate impact. The whole build through the draft philsophy means we need to use the draft to [I]prepare[/I] for a day when our key players aren't here anymore. We wouldn't be drafting Branch/Okoye to play [I]next[/I] to Griffin, we'd be drafting them to make certain that we have a great DT situation [I]after[/I] Griffin becomes a cap casulity either next offseason or the one after that.[/quote]

What??

We picked up ST at # 5 who made an immediate impact.


If we select at # 6 they BETTER be starting this year and many more.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[quote=JDALY27;286415]What??

We picked up ST at # 5 who made an immediate impact.


If we select at # 6 they BETTER be starting this year and many more.[/quote]Do you honestly think we drafted him because it was in the best interest of the 2004 Redskins?

It's that kind of logic that put us where we are now.

It doesn't mean the No. 6 pick shouldn't start for us, it means that whether or not he starts as a rookie should not be among the factors considered when making the pick.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[quote=GTripp0012;286420]Do you honestly think we drafted him because it was in the best interest of the 2004 Redskins?

It's that kind of logic that put us where we are now.

It doesn't mean the No. 6 pick shouldn't start for us, it means that whether or not he starts as a rookie should not be among the factors considered when making the pick.[/quote]


At # 6 there is going to be an impact player that will start for the Redskins in 2007. What are you talking about??

Would you like us to draft a running back in case Portis or Betts goes down or gets traded? That would benefit the Redskins longterm based on your theory.

Bottom line, we draft the best available player for the most pressing NEED. We're lucky to have # 6 that will be a STUD player. Don't trade away that opportunity.....top 10 defensive draft picks are as close to sure things pending health problems.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[quote=JDALY27;286424]At # 6 there is going to be an impact player that will start for the Redskins in 2007. What are you talking about??

Would you like us to draft a running back in case Portis or Betts goes down or gets traded? That would benefit the Redskins longterm based on your theory.

Bottom line, we draft the best available player for the most pressing NEED. We're lucky to have # 6 that will be a STUD player. Don't trade away that opportunity.....top 10 defensive draft picks are as close to sure things pending health problems.[/quote]Would you like to tell us all who we should draft at 6 who would start for us from day one?

Neither Portis nor Betts are likely to be a cap casulty in the near future (within the next 2 offseasons). So no, RB would not be a good position to select.

I don't know what you are disagreeing with me for. The idea is to get the best possible player down the road. I think this will be Okoye or Branch, even though I think Griffin and Saleve'a should start at the DTs opening day. The pick should not play until he proves better than either of them. If you think we should select someone else, please explain why. Don't turn this into a pissing match.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

if you're picking in the top 10, immediate impact should definitely be a concern, since they're earning pro-bowl type money day 1. If you have to wait three years, and then they turn it on and you re-sign them, that's throwing a lot of money away.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[quote=That Guy;286442]if you're picking in the top 10, immediate impact should definitely be a concern, since they're earning pro-bowl type money day 1. If you have to wait three years, and then they turn it on and you re-sign them, that's throwing a lot of money away.[/quote]Generally, I would argue that immediate impact and eventual dominance go hand in hand, but there is really no decision when picking between them.

I hope this isn't the case, but it's hard to watch game film from last year and not feel like ST's best days are behind him. If (god forbid) his best days are behind him, then he obviously wasn't worth that 5th overall selection, despite his immediate impact.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;286413]We can NOT look at any of our draft picks making an immediate impact. The whole build through the draft philsophy means we need to use the draft to [I]prepare[/I] for a day when our key players aren't here anymore. We wouldn't be drafting Branch/Okoye to play [I]next[/I] to Griffin, we'd be drafting them to make certain that we have a great DT situation [I]after[/I] Griffin becomes a cap casulity either next offseason or the one after that.

The first part of a rebuilding process is getting a [I]guy to build around[/I]. We should only look to trade down if we decide that none of the top rated D Linemen are the type we would WANT to build around. I really think they like Okoye, and I as I've been saying all along would be more than satisfied with Branch.

Using the draft to fill immediate needs IS NOT building through the draft. That's basicially building through free agency and using the draft to fill holes. Basically, its what weve been doing.[/QUOTE]

All of this assumes the front office actually plans to [I]build up [/I]the defensive line. That hasn't exactly been their pattern.

And I don't agree with the notion that #6 picks shouldn't be expected to play. When it comes to Griffin, Salave'a and Branch/Okoye or any draft pick for that matter, the ONLY consideration is to line up the player that gives you the best chance to win.

Projects who aren't slated to start for another year or so are for the 4th round and beyond. If your draft choice in each of the first 3 rounds hasn't earned playing time in the first year, the red flags should go up.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[quote=Beemnseven;286454]And I don't agree with the notion that #6 picks shouldn't be expected to play. When it comes to Griffin, Salave'a and Branch/Okoye or any draft pick for that matter, the ONLY consideration is to line up the player that gives you the best chance to win.

Projects who aren't slated to start for another year or so are for the 4th round and beyond. If your draft choice in each of the first 3 rounds hasn't earned playing time in the first year, the red flags should go up.[/quote]The process of who starts at DT should stay SEPERATE of the draft process. Draft the guy who you can build your future around. Start the guy that gives you the best chance to win now.

It's pretty straightforward.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;286458]The process of who starts at DT should stay SEPERATE of the draft process. Draft the guy who you can build your future around. Start the guy that gives you the best chance to win now.

It's pretty straightforward.[/QUOTE]

I don't question whether your opinion is "straight forward". I just disagree with it.

You draft players based on how you think they can help your team. Some will start sooner than others. If, as in the case of Rocky McIntosh it takes them 15 games before significant playing time, then I think that could be a problem.

It seems that you believe there is some sort of mathematical formula that coaches MUST follow which determines when a player is best suited to make a contribution to a team. I think that's absurd. Coaches look at game tape, they watch the progress of a player through training camp, exhibition games, the film room, and practice. Then, they make their best determination as to when that player is ready for a starting role.

They can't possibly be able to make that determination on draft day in the War Room, as you seem to suggest.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

The more I read about this possible trade, the more I hope that it is just one of MULTIPLE options the FO is putting together to have ready on draft day. If I were them, I would get a long a list of suiters based on who will eventually might be available at six and see what happens. The "worst" thing that happens is we keep Springs and take our favorite defender at #6. The Bly trade really seems to have a, "What do we do with Springs if we get him?" contingency. I am sceptical we could get a lot for Springs (although corners are in high demand as always), and we do take a serious cap hit if he leaves. In many ways it makes sense to keep him since he is our BEST CORNER. However, age, injuries and his desire to play for us/the fact that he might have been bad mouthing the coaches are all factors that we cannot gage with certainty.

That being said, in my opinion, we would be best served to get as many 2nd and 3rd round picks as possible for the number six while still staying in position to draft DL help in the first round. If all of the top DL players are gone when we select later in the first round, trade back again and just get as many chances as possible to help improve the overall depth of the team without breaking the bank on any one player whether it be the #6 or Bly.

BTW, if we trade out of the first round completely, how many second, third and fourth picks could we net? One possible scenario that I have imagined is trading 6 to houston at 8. Then trading the 8 for a mid to late first, then trading that pick for even lower picks. Could we get 5 or six top four round players for the 6th pick?

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[quote=Beemnseven;286473]I don't question whether your opinion is "straight forward". I just disagree with it.

You draft players based on how you think they can help your team. Some will start sooner than others. If, as in the case of Rocky McIntosh it takes them 15 games before significant playing time, then I think that could be a problem.

It seems that you believe there is some sort of mathematical formula that coaches MUST follow which determines when a player is best suited to make a contribution to a team. I think that's absurd. Coaches look at game tape, they watch the progress of a player through training camp, exhibition games, the film room, and practice. Then, they make their best determination as to when that player is ready for a starting role.

They can't possibly be able to make that determination on draft day in the War Room, as you seem to suggest.[/quote]I think you just flipped positions on me. If you didn't, then I'm confused by your post.

Rocky McIntosh was selected (in part) as a quick fix replacement to Lavar's departure. The "build through the draft" philosophy states that we shouldn't have been counting on Rocky to make an impact for us in 2006. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't play him if he was the best man for the job (I believe he was), but that the no. 35 pick would have been better used on, say, a [U]left guard[/U], since Dockery's contract was about to expire, and we could have used the depth anyway. If we had a top of the draft class guard that we could plug in this year, our offense would be all but set for this year.

Of course they can't make the "who will start opening day?" decision from the war room. I'm pretty sure that's what I said. So you agree with me then?

Draft the player who projects the best for your team down the road. Play the players who are the best players at their positions right now. Do you or do you not disagree with this?

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;286478]I think you just flipped positions on me. If you didn't, then I'm confused by your post.

Rocky McIntosh was selected (in part) as a quick fix replacement to Lavar's departure. The "build through the draft" philosophy states that we shouldn't have been counting on Rocky to make an impact for us in 2006. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't play him if he was the best man for the job (I believe he was), but that the no. 35 pick would have been better used on, say, a [U]left guard[/U], since Dockery's contract was about to expire, and we could have used the depth anyway. If we had a top of the draft class guard that we could plug in this year, our offense would be all but set for this year.

Of course they can't make the "who will start opening day?" decision from the war room. I'm pretty sure that's what I said. So you agree with me then?

Draft the player who projects the best for your team down the road. Play the players who are the best players at their positions right now. Do you or do you not disagree with this?[/QUOTE]

Perhaps I'm misreading you, but here's the way I'm seeing your posts.

You seem to resemble the thoughts of Joe Gibbs back in the 1980's when he drafted quarterbacks. He selected them, then put them on injured-reserve for years before he'd let them sniff the grass of a regular-season playing field. We all know that you can't do that anymore because you have to find out sooner rather than later what kind of player you've got.

There's no formula set in stone for when a player is ready to start. I get the idea that you believe that general managers and front office guys draft players with the long-term crystal ball in mind -- that this year, we should be drafting a replacement for say ... Clinton Portis or Santana Moss -- that the process should be in place now to groom their eventual replacements.

My argument is that they aren't looking [I]that[/I] far ahead. The pick the guy who they think can best help their team [B]as soon as possible.[/B]

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

The Springs for Bly deal is a good one, on paper. We paid top dollar for Springs and Deion Sanders in thier 30s. Bly is still making plays. Springs is not.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[quote=Beemnseven;286481]Perhaps I'm misreading you, but here's the way I'm seeing your posts.

You seem to resemble the thoughts of Joe Gibbs back in the 1980's when he drafted quarterbacks. He selected them, then put them on injured-reserve for years before he'd let them sniff the grass of a regular-season playing field. We all know that you can't do that anymore because you have to find out sooner rather than later what kind of player you've got.

There's no formula set in stone for when a player is ready to start. I get the idea that you believe that general managers and front office guys draft players with the long-term crystal ball in mind -- that this year, we should be drafting a replacement for say ... Clinton Portis or Santana Moss -- that the process should be in place now to groom their eventual replacements.

My argument is that they aren't looking [I]that[/I] far ahead. The pick the guy who they think can best help their team [B]as soon as possible.[/B][/quote]I believe players that are [U]unusually[/U] slow learners are just that, [U]unusual[/U]. So [B]in general[/B] by drafting the best available player, you are also getting a guy who in theory will be a better player as a rookie than an inferior player. There is little to debate there.

The build through the draft philosophy assumes that ALL players value as a rookie is completely unpredictable. A player is, in theory, going to be a better player in EVERY season following his rookie year. That's why teams shouldn't count on rookies to play for them. If the player is good enough, he should be perfectly capable of beating out his competition and earning a starting role. But as you stated before, it's impossible to have that sort of foresight on draft day.

The key to the philosophy is to draft at a position that is going to create a problem for the franchise if left unimproved. For us, defensive tackle is this position. Griffin is a possible (probable) cap casulty at the end of the season and Saleve'a contract expires. We NEED to get a dominant player to play that position for next year right now. IF Okoye/Branch beats out Saleve'a this season, he should start as a rookie. But he might not beat out big Joe, and thats OK because he's a [B]rookie[/B]. He's only going to get better.

In player eval, if we take the player of the two who helps us more this year, and not the guy who is going to be the best NFL player, we have made a draft error. That's what I'm saying. If Sean Taylor continues to regress and Kellen Winslow continues to improve (God forbid), we've made a draft error. That's what building through the draft is.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[QUOTE=Hog1;286307]As has already been posted, we should be in the drivers seat on this one with Denver. It will be fun to see how it unfolds being on the other end of draft day trades[/QUOTE]

Don't count on it we should have been in the drivers seat for the Bailey Portis deal and that didn't happen.

Everyone in the league knows once we deciede we want a player we are willing to do just about anything to get them especially Denver.

The sooner we start making other teams squirm the better, what's Denver going to do keep a player who wants out and has said so? That's thier prob. I don't give up the #6 for Bly a #1 and a #2 if Denver can move up into the top 12 to 15 I might do it but would probably need more, I am perfectly happy with springs, and considering our ability to trade I doubt anyone is going to pony up with a high #2 for Springs. We could trade down a couple of spots and still geta 2nd rounder under the right scenerio [depending on wants and needs after the first 5 selections] we shouldn't do a thing until we are on the clock and teams start to get desperate for a particular player, there's a very good chance that could happen this draft with 2 QB's available.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[QUOTE=offiss;286488]Don't count on it we should have been in the drivers seat for the Bailey Portis deal and that didn't happen.

Everyone in the league knows once we deciede we want a player we are willing to do just about anything to get them especially Denver.

The sooner we start making other teams squirm the better, what's Denver going to do keep a player who wants out and has said so? That's thier prob. I don't give up the #6 for Bly a #1 and a #2 if Denver can move up into the top 12 to 15 I might do it but would probably need more, I am perfectly happy with springs, and considering our ability to trade I doubt anyone is going to pony up with a high #2 for Springs. We could trade down a couple of spots and still geta 2nd rounder under the right scenerio [depending on wants and needs after the first 5 selections] we shouldn't do a thing until we are on the clock and teams start to get desperate for a particular player, there's a very good chance that could happen this draft with 2 QB's available.[/QUOTE]
My feeing as well unless a team comes a calling with something better thenwhat Denver might give! Numbers need to add up!

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[FONT=Times New Roman]How is everyone today. I'm brand new to Redskins Warpath so I would like to start out by saying that I hope everyone is doing well and Hail to the Redskins![/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Beat Dallas![/FONT]

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

welcome

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[QUOTE=EXoffender;286483]The Springs for Bly deal is a good one, on paper. We paid top dollar for Springs and Deion Sanders in thier 30s. Bly is still making plays. Springs is not.[/QUOTE]

When exactly did Springs become a stiff? I missed that memo. The guy was hurt last year.

Re: Bram Weinstein: stay put at No. 6
 

[quote=celts32;286601]When exactly did Springs become a stiff? I missed that memo. The guy was hurt last year.[/quote]

I must have missed it to.