Redskins Sign Grossman

SBXVII · 03-17-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Couldn't agree more.

So what if they trade Campbell and the #4 to St Louis? You are still stuck paying out a contract for a #1 overall pick, QB none the less who gets paid more than anyone. Take a look at past #1 overall QB taken, they get TONS of money. And if a franchise if not careful, it could set thier team back as much as 10 years. Case in point:

JaMarcus Russell
Ryan Leaf (ok he was the 2nd pick, but you see what I mean)

The #1 overall pick is scary enough to choose, but on a QB it is magnified ten-fold.

#1- Who gives a rats arse about how much he will make? There is no CAP.

#2- The Skins at like 78 mill tied up in players. We now are like 3rd cheapest I thought I read somewhere. Thats after releasing all those players.

#3- I don't see your point but how much farther back can we go then 4-12? Last in the division?

SBXVII · 03-17-2010, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

HORRIBLE TRADE FOR US!

Great deal for the Rams if they could pull off that highway robbery. This sounds like something Vinny would do.

Totally agree. We would be giving them possibly a pro bowl in a draft pick and a QB who's safe with the ball. Two starters for one. I agree. But some would lead you to believe that it's a bad deal for the Rams in regards to the whole points assigned to each draft pick.

I think if both Shanahan's want Bradford bad enough then there will or is a trade scenario already planned. The only sure spot in the draft to get the player you want is at #1.

Pocket$ $traight · 03-17-2010, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Totally agree. We would be giving them possibly a pro bowl in a draft pick and a QB who's safe with the ball. Two starters for one. I agree. But some would lead you to believe that it's a bad deal for the Rams in regards to the whole points assigned to each draft pick.

I think if both Shanahan's want Bradford bad enough then there will or is a trade scenario already planned. The only sure spot in the draft to get the player you want is at #1.

No disrespect but it would be an absolutely horrible move to give up Campbell (or anyone else on the team with value) in order to trade up to #1 from #4.

Seeing how fiscally prudent our FO has been with the offseason deals, I just don't see it happening.

SBXVII · 03-17-2010, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

No disrespect but it would be an absolutely horrible move to give up Campbell (or anyone else on the team with value) in order to trade up to #1 from #4.

Seeing how fiscally prudent our FO has been with the offseason deals, I just don't see it happening.

I'm not saying it's a fair deal or one I like. I'm just pointing out a few things.
#1- The only sure spot is at #1. Any spot after leaves you guessing if your pick gets taken prior to your draft spot.

#2- Giving the Rams our #4 for their #1 will not be an even trade.

#3- I'd prefer we didn't throw away 2 draft picks to move up.

#4- Because of #3 we would have to come up with a decent trade scenario.

#5- The Rams have need at QB and DL.

#6- It has been reported that the Rams owners were not happy with Spags and their season. Rumor is he's been given a second year to turn things around. Knowing this would Spags throw all his eggs in one basket for a Rookie QB? JC is not a franchise QB but he is safe with the ball and learns offenses pretty quickly. Plus when they need 2 spots they would get them both.

#7- We are not getting so it seems a lot of teams banging down our door to pick up JC or trade for him. Due to the high tender. My opinion I'd even think about giving the Rams JC, the #4 pick, and Carter. I know the love fest for Carter but he is up in age, doesn't like playing in 3-4 defenses, and we have Jarmin and now AH can be moved to DE. Carter is expendable.

Pocket$ $traight · 03-17-2010, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I'm not saying it's a fair deal or one I like. I'm just pointing out a few things.
#1- The only sure spot is at #1. Any spot after leaves you guessing if your pick gets taken prior to your draft spot.

#2- Giving the Rams our #4 for their #1 will not be an even trade.

#3- I'd prefer we didn't throw away 2 draft picks to move up.

#4- Because of #3 we would have to come up with a decent trade scenario.

#5- The Rams have need at QB and DL.

#6- It has been reported that the Rams owners were not happy with Spags and their season. Rumor is he's been given a second year to turn things around. Knowing this would Spags throw all his eggs in one basket for a Rookie QB? JC is not a franchise QB but he is safe with the ball and learns offenses pretty quickly. Plus when they need 2 spots they would get them both.

#7- We are not getting so it seems a lot of teams banging down our door to pick up JC or trade for him. Due to the high tender. My opinion I'd even think about giving the Rams JC, the #4 pick, and Carter. I know the love fest for Carter but he is up in age, doesn't like playing in 3-4 defenses, and we have Jarmin and now AH can be moved to DE. Carter is expendable.

I am guessing that you are not high on Campbell and must be star struck by Bradford.

Your points are good ones but if we actually traded Campbell, Carter and our #4 pick for a complete uncertainty along with the #1 pick's contract, the league should step in and start running our team. That scenario is crazy.

BigHairedAristocrat · 03-17-2010, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I'm still standing by my feelings that we are going to make a trade with the Rams for either their #1 spot or letting them pick Bradford at #1 and us picking whoever they want at #4 and giving them both JC and the #4 draft pick for Bradford. Just my gut feeling.

i dont think that would necessarily be a bad deal for us - IF Shanahan is confident that Campbell can't get it done here. In that case, Campbell has no value here anyways.

Larry Michael is Satan · 03-17-2010, 10:45 AM

If I was a coach bringing a new system to a team, I'd sign at least one veteran player at every position who knows the system really well, for teaching/learning purposes.

Trample the Elderly · 03-17-2010, 10:50 AM

Wow, just saw it. Hmm I don't want to jump the gun here. My first impression is, "why?"

I'm going to fold up my arms and let this one play out.

tryfuhl · 03-17-2010, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Wow, just saw it. Hmm I don't want to jump the gun here. My first impression is, "why?"

I'm going to fold up my arms and let this one play out.

Todd Collins replacement

I mean who expects a starter as our backup? At least the guy HAS started and had some success before.

Trample the Elderly · 03-17-2010, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Todd Collins replacement

I mean who expects a starter as our backup? At least the guy HAS started and had some success before.

I'd rather have all three of them fight over the starting spot. Perhaps they will?

celts32 · 03-17-2010, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I'm still standing by my feelings that we are going to make a trade with the Rams for either their #1 spot or letting them pick Bradford at #1 and us picking whoever they want at #4 and giving them both JC and the #4 draft pick for Bradford. Just my gut feeling.

That's not nearly enough to give the Rams. There is a 1200 point difference between the #1 pick and the #4 pick. 1200 points is equal to the 12th pick in the 1st round...there is not a person in the world that would give us any #1 pick for JC let alone the 12th pick.

Even if you assign JC a 2nd round value(which I doubt he's worth) you would still need to kick in at least the skins 2nd round pick.

Lotus · 03-17-2010, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by celts32

That's not nearly enough to give the Rams. There is a 1200 point difference between the #1 pick and the #4 pick. 1200 points is equal to the 12th pick in the 1st round...there is not a person in the world that would give us any #1 pick for JC let alone the 12th pick.

Even if you assign JC a 2nd round value(which I doubt he's worth) you would still need to kick in at least the skins 2nd round pick.

Maybe. Or maybe the Rams take the lesser value because they get a starting QB but save the #1 pick money.

SBXVII · 03-17-2010, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lotus

Maybe. Or maybe the Rams take the lesser value because they get a starting QB but save the #1 pick money.

Which is what I keep hearing. They wanted to can their HC after one year due to how the season played out. They decided to give him one more year to try and get it right. Rumor is no HC is going to bank his last ditch effort on a Rookie QB who might be a bust. Their HC is looking for a QB who can get the job done and although some of us have issues with JC he is safe with the ball which is most likely what the Rams need.

Another rumor I heard was they wanted to trade out of that spot cause they either didn't want to pay that price for a player or didn't think anyone was worth the money. If no one wants to trade or they can't get the value for the pick of course they will keep it and pick someone at a positon they need.

Trading with the Skins gives them a good QB who's safe with the ball and seasoned and a draft pick of their choice at at lower cost. Most likely DL which is both of their needs.

03-17-2010, 10:50 AM	#8
Trample the Elderly Playmaker Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Three Chopt Virginia Age: 48 Posts: 2,906	Re: Redskins Sign Grossman Wow, just saw it. Hmm I don't want to jump the gun here. My first impression is, "why?" I'm going to fold up my arms and let this one play out. __________________ A funny thing happened on the way to the temple. The moneychangers bought the priesthood.

03-17-2010, 10:45 AM	#7
Larry Michael is Satan Special Teams Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 123	Re: Redskins Sign Grossman If I was a coach bringing a new system to a team, I'd sign at least one veteran player at every position who knows the system really well, for teaching/learning purposes.

Redskins Sign Grossman

Locker Room Main Forum