Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=Lotus;546465]My guess is that Zorn will say no because he wants Thomas and Kelly to have more time on the field, not less.[/quote]

This, plus we have other needs that can be filled with the #13 pick.

WR is not a need at all for us. If the rookies step up as expected, we'll have 4 VERY capable receivers, aside from Cooley/Davis and Portis/Betts.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=Angry;546728]Anquan Bolden and Santana Moss are essentially the same type of reciever. Short pass= long run. The only real difference is the body type and the playmaking ability in the redzone. We would still need somebody to stretch the field and win "Jump Balls" much like Fitzgerald did for the Cards last season. I like Moss deep on occaision, but that is not his strength, though he can wheel a man up...quick.
[/quote]

I agree... and if we had two Santana Moss's I'd think we would have a much better WR crew. I'm not saying I want to pay the high price get Boldin, I don't think it is worth it, but I do believe that he would make the offense better if Moss stayed. Kelly or Thomas need to become that "jump ball" receiver for the redzone. If that happened, we would be set at the skill positions for a few years.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

Trading for Boldin would be a top 5 stupid move of the Snyder era.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

No thanks, how bout this for an idea, let's keep our draft picks and use them. Awww come on everybody's doing it..lol

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

Imagine if this was the offseason we had 10 picks like last year? He would send a 1st and 3rd for Boldin THEN do a 2nd and 5th for Edwards.. Lol, imagine the message boards then!

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=celts32;546826]Trading for Boldin would be a top 5 stupid move of the Snyder era.[/quote]

Out of curiousity, what are the top 5 currently in your opinion?

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=Angry;546728]Anquan Bolden and Santana Moss are essentially the same type of reciever. Short pass= long run. The only real difference is the body type and the playmaking ability in the redzone. We would still need somebody to stretch the field and win "Jump Balls" much like Fitzgerald did for the Cards last season. I like Moss deep on occaision, but that is not his strength, though he can wheel a man up...quick.

Essentially what I am saying is that whether we have Moss, Bolden, or both we would still have a need for another reciever that is more of a typical deep threat/ jump ball kind of guy.

With that being said, I do not think that it would be a wise decision to proposition any type of trade for Anquan Bolden whether it be Moss and a first rounder, or a first and a third, or whatever. I like Boldin alot, but we would not be adding much more with him offensively and we have other needs that need to be addressed more than the recieving corps.[/quote]

I probably have more faith in our WR developing than most fans but I think in Thomas we have someone who is Boldin/Brandon Marshall-lite. He's got the size, hands and power to get good RAC, occasionally get down the field against one on one coverage and can get the extra few yards against a CB trying to tackle him one on one.

Kelly projects to be a Colston/Fitzgerald type at his peak. I'm not saying he will match their production, but similarities in tools and skills. Not blazing speed but good enough. The main attribute will be the ability to go up and get the ball where defenders can't reach. He's not going to outrun many people deep or run away from many people after he gets the ball, but if he's running a seam or fade route, just put it up there and let him climb the ladder for it against a CB or S.

We need to see what we have before we can say what we want.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

Offensive line!!!!!!! Offensive line!!!!!!! Offensive line!!!!!!!!! We do need Boldin for sure, but what we really need is let's say it in unison an OFFENSIVE LINE!!!!!!! Can't give up our top picks anymore. Our two top picks are the ones that will be the only ones to make the team anyway probably.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=GusFrerotte;546917]Offensive line!!!!!!! Offensive line!!!!!!! Offensive line!!!!!!!!! We do need Boldin for sure, but what we really need is let's say it in unison an OFFENSIVE LINE!!!!!!! Can't give up our top picks anymore. Our two top picks are the ones that will be the only ones to make the team anyway probably.[/quote]

Have to agree. OL!!

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

Here's a question for you...lets say due to the Bills unloading a OT...that they grab one in the draft and all top 4 OTs are gone...plus other top talent...would you then consider trading that top pick plus a conditional 3rd next year for Boldin?...I might, if we have the cap room...we'd then have to get a FA tackle or use the 3rd...then bring back M washington

As much as I want an OT like the rest of you...the only major factor is age...remember, these same guys were great a year ago...prior to the season it was considered the strength of the team...if we miss out on all top 4 OT's...and we have no other options...it may make sense to get a major playmaker with that pick...after all that is what first rounders are supposed to be used for...however...if we didn't get the crap scenario...I say stick to plan A (the draft)

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=htownskinfan;546692]would you give up Thomas and Kelly for Boldin?[/quote]

without blinking.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=jsarno;546833]Out of curiousity, what are the top 5 currently in your opinion?[/quote]

1. Signing Jeff George
2. Signing DEION "!*%*&%$" SANDERS
3. Hiring Cerrato
4. Not firing Cerrato
5. Signing Randle EL to a sick amount of money...I could go on but I won't. It's too late for a rant.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;546714]I don't think Boldin goes anywhere. If this was the last year of his contract, then it is a strong possibility.

But he has 2 years remaining. And for a team to pry him away from the Cards, they would have to make an enormous offer.

The Cards say a 1st and a 3rd rounder. But that is where the bidding STARTS. It will take more than that to actually get the Cardinals to agree.

Then after 2 or more draft picks and maybe a player or two are dealt, the team that acquires him still has to sign Boldin to a contract. And he is looking for a big payday.

I think the price would be too steep for anyone.[/quote]

I agree. The Cardinals can hold the flame to suitors. He's under contract with THEM for two more years so he can piss and moan all he wants but it wont get him too far. If he bucks, they'll fine the poop out of him and he'll eventually show up to training camp and play. If someone antes up, then they should get a 1st or 2nd rounder ideally. The longer the contract the higher the compensation...just like baseball. Nobody wants to pay a high price for a 6 month rental. If nothing else, a team trading for him this year would have him for two years if he didn't agree to a fat extension.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=Eknox;546830]No thanks, how bout this for an idea, let's keep our draft picks and use them. Awww come on everybody's doing it..lol[/quote]

You're on it.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

I think Boldin is good, but will excel when put in a similar situation he is in now: an elite receiver that can take attention off him. He is more of a possession guy. I see him as a lookdown guy who can act as almost a RB for short passes and screens. hmmmm... the Bills just got an extra #1 pick...

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

Would I give up Thomas and Kelly for Boldin? In a word, YES!


Here is why that deal would never get done. Vinny would have to be wearing a mask and carrying a gun to get the Cards to agree to it.


Here is why Danny Boy won't even propose the trade. He does not want to hear from a sorry-assed franchise that his two prized young receivers aren't worth taking in exchange for a disgruntled receiver who wants out of Arizona.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=GusFrerotte;546917]Offensive line!!!!!!! Offensive line!!!!!!! Offensive line!!!!!!!!! We do need Boldin for sure, but what we really need is let's say it in unison an OFFENSIVE LINE!!!!!!! Can't give up our top picks anymore. Our two top picks are the ones that will be the only ones to make the team anyway probably.[/quote]

Alex Mack, Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=SFREDSKIN;547274]Alex Mack, Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack.[/quote]

I'm not sure who you want us to draft. :laughing-

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=Angry;546728]Anquan Bolden and Santana Moss are essentially the same type of reciever. Short pass= long run. The only real difference is the body type and the playmaking ability in the redzone. We would still need somebody to stretch the field and win "Jump Balls" much like Fitzgerald did for the Cards last season. I like Moss deep on occaision, but that is not his strength, though he can wheel a man up...quick.

Essentially what I am saying is that whether we have Moss, Bolden, or both we would still have a need for another reciever that is more of a typical deep threat/ jump ball kind of guy.

With that being said, I do not think that it would be a wise decision to proposition any type of trade for Anquan Bolden whether it be Moss and a first rounder, or a first and a third, or whatever. I like Boldin alot, but we would not be adding much more with him offensively and we have other needs that need to be addressed more than the recieving corps.[/quote]

Well put from start to finish.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=SFREDSKIN;547274]Alex Mack, Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack,Alex Mack.[/quote]

You mean the guy NFLDraftDog has as the 12th best prospect in the draft? You mean this guy? [url=http://www.nfldraftdog.com/2009_NFL_Draft/Alex_Mack.htm]Alex Mack, 2009 NFL Draft Prospect[/url]

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=53Fan;547282]You mean the guy NFLDraftDog has as the 12th best prospect in the draft? You mean this guy? [url=http://www.nfldraftdog.com/2009_NFL_Draft/Alex_Mack.htm]Alex Mack, 2009 NFL Draft Prospect[/url][/quote]

I love this part:[B] I don’t see any contest between Mack and anyone else for the title of best center prospect. In my opinion, Mack is the top lineman in 2009, period. [/B]

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=SFREDSKIN;547296]I love this part:[B] I don’t see any contest between Mack and anyone else for the title of best center prospect. In my opinion, Mack is the top lineman in 2009, period. [/B][/quote]

I like Mack a lot, but I've seen more than one draft guru with Max Unger listed as the better prospect at center. I personally disagree and think Mack is #1 at his position, but my point is that's not a unanimous notion.

Taking him at #13 is way too high, he won't be there when we pick in the 3rd round, so the only way this is possible is if we trade down. And of course that requires the existence of a another team who wants someone bad enough to cough up picks and move up to 13.

I personally think Rabach is more of a liability than an asset at this point, and I would love Mack in the B&G, but I think the chances are remote.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=GMScud;547301]I like Mack a lot, but I've seen more than one draft guru with Max Unger listed as the better prospect at center. I personally disagree and think Mack is #1 at his position, but my point is that's not a unanimous notion.

Taking him at #13 is way too high, he won't be there when we pick in the 3rd round, so the only way this is possible is if we trade down. And of course that requires the existence of a another team who wants someone bad enough to cough up picks and move up to 13.

I personally think Rabach is more of a liability than an asset at this point, and I would love Mack in the B&G, but I think the chances are remote.[/quote]

Trading down is probably the easier way to draft Mack but I reckon we could get very crafty and trade up from the 3rd to get him. Personally I prefer this option if it doesn't include giving up future picks. In fact I'd happily see our 3rd, 5th and 6th packaged for Alex Mack. Keep the 13th overall though so we get a legit impact player like...u guessed it REY REY!

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=GMScud;547301]I like Mack a lot, but I've seen more than one draft guru with Max Unger listed as the better prospect at center. I personally disagree and think Mack is #1 at his position, but my point is that's not a unanimous notion.

Taking him at #13 is way too high, he won't be there when we pick in the 3rd round, so the only way this is possible is if we trade down. And of course that requires the existence of a another team who wants someone bad enough to cough up picks and move up to 13.

I personally think Rabach is more of a liability than an asset at this point, and I would love Mack in the B&G, but I think the chances are remote.[/quote]

Unger is good but he's no Alex Mack. I've watched both in college and Mack is more polished and better overall and can also play Guard. Of course I would trade down and get him in the low 20's. You watch, whoever drafts him how much better that OL will be overnight with him in it.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=The Goat;547304]Trading down is probably the easier way to draft Mack but I reckon we could get very crafty and trade up from the 3rd to get him. Personally I prefer this option if it doesn't include giving up future picks. In fact I'd happily see our 3rd, 5th and 6th packaged for Alex Mack. Keep the 13th overall though so we get a legit impact player like...u guessed it REY REY![/quote]

I'm assuming you mean a 3rd, 5th, and 6th to move up to the 2nd to get Mack. Which would leave us with a 1st, 2nd, and nothing else until the 7th.

Does anyone know if Mack is even on our radar? There is pretty good center depth out there, with Max Unger, Eric Wood, Antoine Caldwell, Jonathan Luigs, and AQ Shipley. I know Mack is damn good, but I'm not so sure we should package 3 picks for him.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=GMScud;547309][B]I'm assuming you mean a 3rd, 5th, and 6th to move up to the 2nd to get Mack. Which would leave us with a 1st, 2nd, and nothing else until the 7th.[/B]

Does anyone know if Mack is even on our radar? There is pretty good center depth out there, with Max Unger, Eric Wood, Antoine Caldwell, Jonathan Luigs, and AQ Shipley. I know Mack is damn good, but I'm not so sure we should package 3 picks for him.[/quote]

That's exactly what I mean and my thinking is a couple of immediate impact guys are far better than another handful of projects, which it seems to me Vinny tends to draft beyond the 1st or 2nd round. Looking at last year's draft we basically have a single guy who played well enough to hold a position and Horton was one of our last picks. The other 8(?) picks were projects to one extent or another. I know we need more depth at several positions but really what is a dominant C/G worth in the big picture? I think trading up would be worth it. And your point GM about other talent is well taken; however from the experts' consensus I believe only Mack, Unger and Wood are considered legit rookie starters...and I bet they all go in the 2nd. I would just prefer Mack that's all.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=SFREDSKIN;547307]Unger is good but he's no Alex Mack. I've watched both in college and Mack is more polished and better overall and can also play Guard. Of course I would trade down and get him in the low 20's. You watch, whoever drafts him how much better that OL will be overnight with him in it.[/quote]

Mack is a stud, but Bugel loves Rabach, and we've showed no signs of wanted to replace him anytime soon. Plus Rabach can't play guard, so drafting Mack with a high pick would mean we'd either bench Rabach and his $3.6M salary, or bench our 1st round pick. O-lineman drafted in the 1st round pretty much never ride the bench. I suppose we could cut Rabach (would only cost us $1.3), but let's be honest, that's not happening.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=GMScud;547301]I like Mack a lot, but I've seen more than one draft guru with Max Unger listed as the better prospect at center. I personally disagree and think Mack is #1 at his position, but my point is that's not a unanimous notion.

Taking him at #13 is way too high, he won't be there when we pick in the 3rd round, so the only way this is possible is if we trade down. And of course that requires the existence of a another team who wants someone bad enough to cough up picks and move up to 13.

I personally think Rabach is more of a liability than an asset at this point, and I would love Mack in the B&G, but I think the chances are remote.[/quote]

While I think the chances of drafting Mack are remote, I blame that more on the lack of the FO to understand what builds a strong team and being more interested in "glitter" than anything else. At the bottom of the article it makes some very good points. Who did the Jets get the best value with? LT Ferguson at #4, or center Mangold at #26? Mangold has had as much impact on the Jets line as LT Jake Long who was drafted #1 has had on Miami's. The center has his hands on the ball for every snap and basically tells the line what to do on every play. I do doubt we'll get him, but If we're looking for someone who will have a big impact on the line, not just this season, but for many seasons, I think he's worth the 13th pick. I think the impact a player makes is more important than just the position he plays. Of course all this is based on my belief that Mack is better than the rest at his position and will be a perennial probowler. I do believe the center position in this draft class is deep, but if you can get the best at a position, especially a position of need, why not? I'm all for getting the best [B]football players [/B]we can and I would rather have someone like Mack instead of the 2nd or 3rd best DE or LB available. I feel like he would make our o-line and therefore our offense much better and therefore what would it matter if he were taken at #13 or #32? Or in the Jets case with Mangold, #4 or #26? But you're right, we probably won't get him. Danny would rather have someone like Sanchez.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=53Fan;547322]While I think the chances of drafting Mack are remote, I blame that more on the lack of the FO to understand what builds a strong team and being more interested in "glitter" than anything else. At the bottom of the article it makes some very good points. Who did the Jets get the best value with? LT Ferguson at #4, or center Mangold at #26? Mangold has had as much impact on the Jets line as LT Jake Long who was drafted #1 has had on Miami's. The center has his hands on the ball for every snap and basically tells the line what to do on every play. I do doubt we'll get him, but If we're looking for someone who will have a big impact on the line, not just this season, but for many seasons, I think he's worth the 13th pick. I think the impact a player makes is more important than just the position he plays. Of course all this is based on my belief that Mack is better than the rest at his position and will be a perennial probowler. I do believe the center position in this draft class is deep, but if you can get the best at a position, especially a position of need, why not? I'm all for getting the best [B]football players [/B]we can and I would rather have someone like Mack instead of the 2nd or 3rd best DE or LB available. I feel like he would make our o-line and therefore our offense much better and therefore what would it matter if he were taken at #13 or #32? Or in the Jets case with Mangold, #4 or #26? But you're right, we probably won't get him. Danny would rather have someone like Sanchez.[/quote]

You are right. Excellent example there with Mangold. If you want to build a dynasty, you have to use the draft well. And the best long-term draft strategy in terms of value is to take the best football player available when you pick and not worry too much about position.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=The Goat;547304]Trading down is probably the easier way to draft Mack but I reckon we could get very crafty and trade up from the 3rd to get him. Personally I prefer this option if it doesn't include giving up future picks. In fact I'd happily see our 3rd, 5th and 6th packaged for Alex Mack. Keep the 13th overall though so we get a legit impact player like...u guessed it REY REY![/quote]

Ever since you brought up the very remote possibility of getting Rey [B]AND[/B] Mack, I've had to tell myself to calm down. I would absolutely, totally, freak-out if that were to happen. I would not be able to contain myself for days and would probably drive everyone I know crazy with how the Redskins are going to be the [B]Baddest[/B] MF***g team in the NFL!

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=53Fan;547328]Ever since you brought up the very remote possibility of getting Rey [B]AND[/B] Mack, I've had to tell myself to calm down. I would absolutely, totally, freak-out if that were to happen. I would not be able to contain myself for days and would probably drive everyone I know crazy with how the Redskins are going to be the [B]Baddest[/B] MF***g team in the NFL![/quote]

Given what we have to work with, that would be a very good draft.

Of course, the problem there is the limited number of players which we would score. We would really not be adding any depth, a perennial Redskins problem. And we would still have OT issues. I'm not disagreeing with the draft strategy as much as I am lamenting the paltry number of picks which we have to work with.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=Lotus;547331]Given what we have to work with, that would be a very good draft.

Of course, the problem there is the limited number of players which we would score. We would really not be adding any depth, a perennial Redskins problem. And we would still have OT issues. I'm not disagreeing with the draft strategy as much as I am lamenting the paltry number of picks which we have to work with.[/quote]
I agree but unfortunately some of the starters we have are better suited for depth than starting positions. :(

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

Here's a scenario that hasn't been mentioned yet: we trade next year's first rounder to get into the second this year. maybe we score another pick but then again, maybe we don't.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=53Fan;547333]I agree but unfortunately some of the starters we have are better suited for depth than starting positions. :([/quote]

Which brings us back to the point that we really shouldn't package multiple picks to move up and get anyone, Mack included. Any draft day trading for us should involve acquiring more picks, not shedding them. Unless we somehow think we're going to hit the June 1st lottery with FA. Sadly, that wouldn't surprise me.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=John Denny;547335]Here's a scenario that hasn't been mentioned yet: we trade next year's first rounder to get into the second this year. maybe we score another pick but then again, maybe we don't.[/quote]

Just my opinion but I would veto giving up any pick next year, especially the #1. And trading a #1 so that we can get into the second round is not very good value, like spending $20 today so that I can get $10 back next week.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=John Denny;547335]Here's a scenario that hasn't been mentioned yet: we trade next year's first rounder to get into the second this year. maybe we score another pick but then again, maybe we don't.[/quote]

Trade next year's 1st for this year's 2nd and what else? Trading a 1st for a 2nd straight up would just be dumb. Especially if we end up having a losing record this year and end up in the top half of the 2010 draft.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=GMScud;547339]Trade next year's 1st for this year's 2nd and what else? Trading a 1st for a 2nd straight up would just be dumb. Especially if we end up having a losing record this year and end up in the top half of the 2010 draft.[/quote]

I'm not saying it's smart. I'm just saying I wouldn't put it past Cerrato.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=John Denny;547340]I'm not saying it's smart. I'm just saying I wouldn't put it past Cerrato.[/quote]

You mean you wouldn't put it past Snyder. I am currently convinced that Vinny Cerrato is Dan Snyder's hologram - a creation of the Tiny Meddler to impose his will undercover. It would explain those odd bug-eyes on Vinny.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=GMScud;547336]Which brings us back to the point that we really shouldn't package multiple picks to move up and get anyone, Mack included. Any draft day trading for us should involve acquiring more picks, not shedding them. Unless we somehow think we're going to hit the June 1st lottery with FA. Sadly, that wouldn't surprise me.[/quote]

Well another way of looking at it would be, are we going to get any starters the caliber of Mack with the later picks? I'm all for getting more picks but I doubt we would get a starter in the later rounds. Mack would probably start. If not right away, then very soon. It's possible we could get another Horton, but I would'nt put him on the same level as Mack. As much as I would like depth, I'm more concerned about fielding a starting team that can move the ball.

Re: Boldin a Redskin?
 

[quote=GMScud;547336]Which brings us back to the point that we really shouldn't package multiple picks to move up and get anyone, Mack included. Any draft day trading for us should involve acquiring more picks, not shedding them. Unless we somehow think we're going to hit the June 1st lottery with FA. Sadly, that wouldn't surprise me.[/quote]

You make an excellent point, GMScud. It may be that, given our many needs, coming out of the draft with just two studs, however studly they may be, is a luxury that we cannot afford.

I am correct that the June 1st secondary free agent date has been eliminated from the NFL calendar? I could be wrong but it seems to me that I read it somewhere.

Oops - edit - I meant a question - Am I correct...