Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

Ok i haven't heard anyone talk about this angle on the T.J. Duckect trade.
I hate to bring more bad news to this nightmare season but here it goes.
from Greatbluedraft report it explains that if our first round picks are signifficantly different than Denver we would exchange them :( check it out.
[URL="http://www.gbnreport.com/trades.htm"]Great Blue North Draft Report[/URL] if the season ended we would be like pick 5-6 and they are at about 28. Id say thats signifficant. If this happens I think whoever is in charge of player management needs to be fired. Even if it doesnt they need to be fired for stupidity. Denver must be laughing at us soo hard right now!

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

sorry it posted twice

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

F*&k !!!!!!!!!!

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

Gay town!!!!

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

[quote]
Denver will receive compensation from Washington as their part of a deal in which the Broncos sent WR Ashley Lelie to Atlanta and the Falcons sent RB T.J. Duckett to Washington. [B]Depending on how the Broncos and Redskins finish in the final standings, the two teams could exchange first-round picks outright if Denver has a significantly lower pick than the Redskins[/B]; the teams could flip-flop their first-rounders and the Broncos get a fourth-rounder in 2008; the teams flip-flop their first-rounders and the Broncos get a third- rounder next year; or the Broncos get a third-rounder in 2007 and a fourth-rounder in 2008.
[/quote]

If by lower they mean "later", then Washington is going to end up with a basically useless first round pick, but it's hard to tell from the wording of the article. If by lower they mean lower draft number, that could work in Washington's favor.

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

I'm thoroughly confused about this.

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;249889]I'm thoroughly confused about this.[/QUOTE]

me too...

wtf?

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

Am I in a time-warp? Isn't this issue like 6 months old?

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

Heres what happens:
If we end up with a pick that is anywhere near denvers pick we exchange, for instance, if we ended up with the 21st pick and denver had the 29th we would exchange to make up for the duckett deal, we owe denver 260 points on the draft value chart, since we most likely will end up with a top 5 pick or top 10 pick we will not exchange picks because it will go way over the value we owe them, so most likely the difference will be made up with our 5th round pick in 07' and our 3rd in 08', so dont worry about exchanging picks with denver in the first round, there is absolutely no chance this will happen.

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

If we are the 7th pick or better in the 3rd round, that is all we have to give them

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

Our front office is a joke. Even if its only a 3rd round pick it wasnt worth it. The trade for TJ shows how panic stricken Danny and Vinny were when portis got hurt. We need to pursue a full time general manager. These thing might not happen with this much regularity if we had proven a Gm. The Danny proved how little he knew about personnel decisions in 2000 and Vinny and Gibbs proved how little they know about personnel decisions this season. If you look at the teams that are consistent in the NFL they dont have big free agent spending sprees and dont trade away draft picks.

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

The thing is, getting a backup for Portis turned out to be smart since he ended up being hurt the whole season. Not playing that studly backup is what I don't understand (I'm the first person to point out that we should be playing TJ right?)

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

did we really need a backup at the expense of a possible 3rd round pick? Correct me if i am wrong but i think we were deep enough at rb without Tj....rock, mike and ladell...i think that was sufficient...but the real truth about tj is we signed him just to keep him from a divison rival...another example of our poor front office team.

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

Sellers isn't a RB, and Rock is, at best, serviceable. Given CP's injury, Duckett is a good move.

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

[QUOTE=vaoutlaws2006;250027]did we really need a backup at the expense of a possible 3rd round pick? Correct me if i am wrong but i think we were deep enough at rb without Tj....rock, mike and ladell...i think that was sufficient...but the real truth about tj is we signed him just to keep him from a divison rival...another example of our poor front office team.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and keeping him from Philly certainly paid off handsomely, didn't it?!?! I'd rather have the draft pick, even now with Portis injured. That third round pick could end up being a starting DT for example. Even though Portis is now out for the season and TJ could play more (but doesn't seem to be for whatever reason) this is still a dumbass trade.

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

my point about the philly thing is, they run the ball about 15-20 times a game. westbrooke will get 10-12 of those carries. so we didnt want duckett running the ball against us, what, about 8 carries a game? last time i checked, he is not jim brown

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

[quote=vaoutlaws2006;250018]Our front office is a joke. Even if its only a 3rd round pick it wasnt worth it. The trade for TJ shows how panic stricken Danny and Vinny were when portis got hurt. We need to pursue a full time general manager. These thing might not happen with this much regularity if we had proven a Gm. The Danny proved how little he knew about personnel decisions in 2000 and Vinny and Gibbs proved how little they know about personnel decisions this season. If you look at the teams that are consistent in the NFL they dont have big free agent spending sprees and dont trade away draft picks.[/quote]

Snyder had nothing to do with it. He just writes the checks.

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

[QUOTE=vaoutlaws2006;250027]did we really need a backup at the expense of a possible 3rd round pick? Correct me if i am wrong but i think we were deep enough at rb without Tj....rock, mike and ladell...i think that was sufficient...but the real truth about tj is we signed him just to keep him from a divison rival...another example of our poor front office team.[/QUOTE]


If you have to make a major trade that early in the season because your featured running back goes down, then obviously your team is not set up correctly from the beginning. That's why you have backup players, and players capable of carrying the load until your intended player can return to the lineup. If you have to make a trade because a starter goes down, that certainly does not speak very well of your backups.

There were some who lend credence to the concept Duckett was signed to keep him from signing with a division foe. I would have no problem with that either if their intention was to keep him, and signing him to a new contract.

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

[quote=skinsfan69;250088]Snyder had nothing to do with it. He just writes the checks.[/quote]


You keep on living in your fantasy world. If you think snyder has no input you have another thing coming. He is in on everything......just remember the decision makers for this franchise they go in this order snyder, gibbs, cerrato. Snyder holds the tie breaking vote. So you do the math on that one.

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

[QUOTE=vaoutlaws2006;250192]You keep on living in your fantasy world. If you think snyder has no input you have another thing coming. He is in on everything......just remember the decision makers for this franchise they go in this order snyder, gibbs, cerrato. Snyder holds the tie breaking vote. So you do the math on that one.[/QUOTE]

My question is, what is this thing that he has coming?

Seriously, stop with the Snyder bashing. All the evidence that is available to us indicates that Snyder has bent over backwards to accomidate our revered HOF coach. There are only a few owners in this league I would rather have controlling my team than him. He wants to win and will pony up amounts of money for that that no one else will. The reasons for this team's lack of success have had less to do with him every year since 2000, and I would argue, nothing to do with him this year.

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

Regarding the author of this thread, as Brent Musberger would say, we should nickname you Scoop.

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

*bows*

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

[quote=djnemo65;250195]My question is, what is this thing that he has coming?

Seriously, stop with the Snyder bashing. All the evidence that is available to us indicates that Snyder has bent over backwards to accomidate our revered HOF coach. There are only a few owners in this league I would rather have controlling my team than him. He wants to win and will pony up amounts of money for that that no one else will. The reasons for this team's lack of success have had less to do with him every year since 2000, and I would argue, nothing to do with him this year.[/quote]


thats called a figure of speech. i am not going to debate this with you. we are stuck with dan snyder.

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

[QUOTE=vaoutlaws2006;250218]thats called a figure of speech. i am not going to debate this with you. we are stuck with dan snyder.[/QUOTE]

I am aware that it's a figure of speech, it's just one that you happen to be using incorrectly.

Re: Well at least we have a good first-rounder! Wait we might not!
 

[quote=GiantsSuck703;249904]Heres what happens:
If we end up with a pick that is anywhere near denvers pick we exchange, for instance, if we ended up with the 21st pick and denver had the 29th we would exchange to make up for the duckett deal, we owe denver 260 points on the draft value chart, since we most likely will end up with a top 5 pick or top 10 pick we will not exchange picks because it will go way over the value we owe them, so most likely the difference will be made up with our 5th round pick in 07' and our 3rd in 08', so dont worry about exchanging picks with denver in the first round, there is absolutely no chance this will happen.[/quote]
You just spared me a fucking heart attack. Thanks for your post.