Gardner to Vikes?

[diehardskin2982]

Although most people on this forum hate him, and feel he has no trade value he is getting some interest else were. Others have mentioned sandiego, houston, Tampabay among others.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/503/5275717.html

I really have to commend the Redskins staff this season, their offseason strategy is coming into focus and working very nicely.

[Daseal]

That's yet to be seen - we could be left with some gaping holes!

[diehardskin2982]

Originally Posted by Daseal

That's yet to be seen - we could be left with some gaping holes!

I think Gibbs's goal this offseason was to weed out the real players commited to the team from those commited to their own personal benefit. In the case of players like pierce or coles the goal for them seemed to be for the almighty dollar and their own personal stats, so i say good ridance to players like that. They may be good but they are not skins.

Trotter was to me a true eagle because he could have taken the big pay day in Kansas city but chose to stay an eagle for cheaper. We need players loyal to the frachise like that. Smoot is not getting the attention he thought he would get, so I do see him maybe coming back and he'll be better because he'll have a chip on his shoulder. Is he a true Redskin? that is left to be seen becasuse he still wants a big pay day. The last thing players want to do is upset fans, thats bad for business. So I don't even listen to what players may say in the media, like I want to come back and so on, becasue obviously their actions speak louder than words

[BossHog]

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

Trotter was to me a true eagle because he could have taken the big pay day in Kansas city but chose to stay an eagle for cheaper.

No. Trotter knew that he fit into PHIs defensive scheme and that's very important to his success in the NFL. He probably would've resembled the Trotter circa Redskins tenure if he signed with KC. And that would've led to his 'release' given the amount of money he would've recieved.

I commend Gibbs giving Coles the ax, but not at this cost. I was going to ask the question, "how taking a $9 million cap hit (actually $6 million) and aquiring Moss who will demand a new contract next year better than just releasing Coles and saving $5 million and bidding on Moss, the FA (assuming Moss is released when Coles is signed by NYJ)?" Look at it like this. Either way Coles is out. If we had to sign Moss as a FA, his contract would've been close to having a $5 million signing bonus if not more. Now what if Moss doesn't live up to his contract? We'd still be on the hook for his signing bonus. So ideally, we get Moss this year on a 'free' trial basis. Now will the Redskins re-sign Moss before we see how productive he is?

[bigm29]

its a lot easier to have loyal players when you make it to the super bowl

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by bigm29

its a lot easier to have loyal players when you make it to the super bowl

It's alot easier to make the Super Bowl with loyal players.

[Bozzy]

yeah, exactly.

[monk81]

I like what Gibbs is doing fine so far......we upgraded at center with Rabach, we needed a replacement for Gardner at WR, we got Patten and Moss, if Coles had remained a happy camper we would have more cap room of course....but considering it all, if we re-sign Smoot and manage to get a DE thru the draft or Gardner trade.........I think the offseason was a success.......

[MTK]

If Gardner to the Vikes means we have a better shot at Williams I'm all for it

[Gmanc711]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

If Gardner to the Vikes means we have a better shot at Williams I'm all for it

Maybe we can trade Garnder for a contractual agreement that they wont take Williams or Edwards if they are there at #7. :headbange

[BrudLee]

Why not Gardner and the 9th pick for the 7th? If he's worth no more than a third round pick, that's a steal for us.

[Daseal]

Because we'd have to pay more to most likely the same player?

[BrudLee]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Because we'd have to pay more to most likely the same player?

We'd pay more, but have Gardner's salary off the cap. We'd also have a better chance at the player we want, rather than the "best available" at a position.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

So the Vikes might think that Gardner is their WR of the future? Tee hee. Hell, that's fine with me. You pick him and we'll take Williams.

[e16bball]

If we are trading Gardner to the Vikes, I don't see any reason to make it the 9th and Gardner for the 7th, and this is why: If we trade them Gardner, they won't take a WR anyway. Thus, we gain nothing from moving up to 7, since the Cardinals assuredly won't take a WR. At 7, we would still be behind the Bears, Bucs, and Titans, all of whom may be threats to take a WR. We would be much better off taking a 3rd rounder from them for Gardner than moving up to number 7, if we did that trade.

I would still prefer a trade involving Gardner and the 9th going to Tampa Bay for the 5th. Even if we have to throw in another pick, it guarantees our guy.