Redskins trading out of the 4 spot?

SBXVII · 02-25-2010, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

While I think the idea of keeping Campbell around for atleast a year has some merit, if the Shanahans have decided that he's not the QB of the future, and theyre going to draft a QB of the future, then they need to move Campbell now. While i'd like to get more than a 3rd and a 5th for him, the reality is that if we draft Bradford at 4, Campbells trade value plumets. And if we kept Campbell until 2011, we wouldnt get anything for him at all. In the past, we've held on to guys too long and its come back to bite us.(Remember, the Dolphins offered us a 1st rounder for Ramsey. 1 season later, we let him go for a 6th, if i remember properly). If the decision has been made that Campbell is not the long-term answer here, then lets move him now. Better a year too soon than a year too late.

Ya know I didn't even factor this thought in. He won't have any value to us at all next yr since he will be a FA. I guess if I'm looking for more draft picks then moving JC is top issue. What bothers me is who would we bring in and would we be getting worse by trading out a Vet we already have for some one possibly worse.

Ruhskins · 02-25-2010, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Ya know I didn't even factor this thought in. He won't have any value to us at all next yr since he will be a FA. I guess if I'm looking for more draft picks then moving JC is top issue. What bothers me is who would we bring in and would we be getting worse by trading out a Vet we already have for some one possibly worse.

Which is why it doesn't make sense moving him for low compensation. At worst he can be a back up if he's yanked in mid-season.

SBXVII · 02-25-2010, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Which is why it doesn't make sense moving him for low compensation. At worst he can be a back up if he's yanked in mid-season.

I think we are on the same page. I'd rather see a low 1st round draft pick or second round draft pick for JC. Hell he was a starter and honestly his stats do look good. For teams who wish they could get a Cutler, JC has similar stats.

If the trade value is not good enough then instead of going out hunting down a Vet FA then keep JC and let the Rookie learn the play book better. But I get tired of the whole don't throw the Rookie in. Look at Baltimore their Rookie had an awsome season and did well last yr also, the Jets almost made it to the SB with their Rookie QB, the Falcons have had two decent years with a Rookie. I don't see any problem putting whoever we draft on the field if he is better then JC. Plus we have a back up plan if the Rookie does not work out.

Ruhskins · 02-25-2010, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I think we are on the same page. I'd rather see a low 1st round draft pick or second round draft pick for JC. Hell he was a starter and honestly his stats do look good. For teams who wish they could get a Cutler, JC has similar stats.

If the trade value is not good enough then instead of going out hunting down a Vet FA then keep JC and let the Rookie learn the play book better. But I get tired of the whole don't throw the Rookie in. Look at Baltimore their Rookie had an awsome season and did well last yr also, the Jets almost made it to the SB with their Rookie QB, the Falcons have had two decent years with a Rookie. I don't see any problem putting whoever we draft on the field if he is better then JC. Plus we have a back up plan if the Rookie does not work out.

I think you can throw a rookie to the fire under good conditions, and honestly I don't know if our team has it. I think each of the teams that you mention above have things that we don't have or things that I am not sure how they are going to workout such as:

- Great offensive lines (Jets, Ravens)
- Solid running games (Falcons, Jets, Ravens)
- Elite defenses (Jets, Ravens)
- Good receiving corps (Jets, Falcons)

I know Atlanta seems to be a bit of an exception to the rule, but both the Jets and Ravens had really good situations for their rookie QB to thrive in, and honestly a lot of those areas that I mentioned above are either questionable or not good enough to be able to help a rookie QB succeed.

GTripp0012 · 02-25-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I think you can throw a rookie to the fire under good conditions, and honestly I don't know if our team has it. I think each of the teams that you mention above have things that we don't have or things that I am not sure how they are going to workout such as:

- Great offensive lines (Jets, Ravens)
- Solid running games (Falcons, Jets, Ravens)
- Elite defenses (Jets, Ravens)
- Good receiving corps (Jets, Falcons)

I know Atlanta seems to be a bit of an exception to the rule, but both the Jets and Ravens had really good situations for their rookie QB to thrive in, and honestly a lot of those areas that I mentioned above are either questionable or not good enough to be able to help a rookie QB succeed.

Ryan also appears to be the strongest of the three as a player, although with that said, 2010 is going to be a really critical year for his career. Being ahead of the curve as a rookie only takes you so far.