On the radar: Skins WR's

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Do you have any idea why we aren't pursuing VJ, especially now that we know he can be had for only a 2nd rounder? Next years draft is going to be crappy, so i cant imagine we're valuing that pick a ton.

I would think the hang up would be the monster contract he would demand and the character issues.

[mredskins]

Some think Bucs could provide next home for Haynesworth
Posted by Mike Florio on August 24, 2010 11:37 AM ET
We've been saying for the past few days that the Redskins likely are hoping that a 4-3 defensive tackle on another team tears an ACL in the near future, giving someone a need for Albert Haynesworth -- and the motivation to give up something more than a low-round pick for him.

Barring a season-ending injury to Kevin Williams or Tommie Harris, the Redskins could ultimately find a face-saving path out of the Haynesworth morass via the Buccaneers.

Appearing on a local radio station, Roy Cummings of the Tampa Tribune suggested Monday night that the a trade to the Bucs isn't as crazy as it sounds.

"It makes a great deal of sense and here's why," Cummings said, via JoeBucsFan.com. "Don't forget, the Buccaneers were the team that offered Albert Haynesworth more money than anybody else in the NFL last year. A lot of people forget that -- conveniently want to ignore that fact. . . .

'You know what, I think it makes all kinds of sense," Cummings said, seemingly warming up to the idea on the fly. "It's a ballsy move. I don't know if he's going to do it. They do want to be young here more than anything. But you know what, if Stylez White can't wake up in these last two preseason games and show them what he's got, why not? Go give it a shot. I mean, money really is not an issue. People don't want to believe that here. Everybody, you know, on your end of things here in Tampa Bay wants to keep talking about money here and money there and how much the Glazers are or are not spending. I can tell you right now, if they think can get Albert Haynesworth, and it ends up becoming a wash in terms of what the payroll is, they'll do it. And they'll go out and get him. And you know what, he'll make the team a better football team in a hurry."

The only surprise in Cumming's comments comes from the disclosure (which was made in the question posed to Cummings) that Haynesworth actually wants to play defensive end in a 4-3 scheme. Maybe we haven't been paying attention as closely as we should, but we think he wants to play defensive tackle in a 4-3. If he's interested in being a defensive end in a 4-3 alignment, he'd be lobbying for some snaps at the equivalent position in the 3-4 -- outside linebacker.

Regardless of whether he'd play outside or bolster the rookie-heaving rotation on the inside in Tampa, Haynesworth makes sense from an Xs and Os standpoint.

And here's where it gets interesting. Cummings thinks that Tampa receiver Michael Clayton would be an attractive addition to the trade package. "[L]et's not forget, Bruce Allen drafted Michael Clayton," Cummings said. "One thing Bruce Allen will always do as an NFL General Manager is try to prove that many mistakes he's made as a General Manager were not mistakes at all. He's not good at what he does. And he makes a situation worse by trying to constantly prove that he did not make a mistake in drafting this guy in the first round, second round, third round. . . . I wouldn't be surprised to see him do it again."

Right, but this presumes Allen actually has the juice in D.C. To get the Redskins interested in Clayton, coach Mike Shanahan will have to be interested in Clayton. That said, given the team's overall quality at the position, it may not be a hard sell for Allen to make.

That said, it'll likely take more than Clayton to get Haynesworth. But if the Redskins truly want to get rid of a guy who has three years (as a practical matter) left on his contract at less than $20 million, the Bucs could provide a semi-face-saving strategy for making it happen.

[skinsfaninok]

I can't see us trading AH just for Clayton? Why would we do that? Clayton had 1 good year and that was his rookie yr. Id rather get VJ for a second rder

[SmootSmack]

The only hitch in this whole "Let's not forget Bruce Allen drafted Michael Clayton" argument is that Clayton was Gruden's choice, not Allen's

[skinsfaninok]

Plus I actually like our WR's. Moss, Armstrong and Galloway/Thomas are decent. Our TE's are going to be a big part as well. Cooley should have a monster year and Davis is probably the best #2 TE in football

[skinsfaninok]

Michael Clayton
No. 80 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Wide receiver
Personal information
Date of birth: October 13, 1982 (1982-10-13) (age 27)
Place of birth: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Height: 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m) Weight: 215 lb (98 kg)
Career information
College: Louisiana State
NFL Draft: 2004 / Round: 1 / Pick: 15
Debuted in 2004 for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Career history
As player:

* Tampa Bay Buccaneers (2004–current)

Roster status: Active
Career highlights and awards

N/A
Career NFL statistics as of 2009
Reception 221
Receiving yards 2936
Receiving TDs 10

[skinsfaninok]

10 td's? That's it and most of that came in his rookie yr

[Defensewins]

Clayton = another 6'4" underachieving WR? We already have two.

[skinsfaninok]

Yea no joke

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Clayton = another 6'4" underachieving WR? We already have two.

good call.

[Dirtbag59]

LSU Players: Under performing Since 2002

[GusFrerotte]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

LSU Players: Under performing Since 2002

Actually since 1988. WR Wendell Davis was a stud at LSU and never truly delivered as a pro.

[GusFrerotte]

I wouldn't get all worked up about VJ since they just announced he might get an extra 3-4 weeks on his suspension. It is better to work with what you got and just draft a WR with one of our upper round draft picks.

[GusFrerotte]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

So how long until Bruce Allen makes a call?

I wouldn't, they might double VJ's suspension time. To be honest the trading AH for Clayton would be the wiser move, in that it would be no money for us and probably an extra pick. VJ would be a lot of $$$$, plus we would be giving away yet another precious draft pick, and to top it all off, we would not be totally assured of a return on our investment. Sure it is a long shot for Clayton to really produce for us, but maybe a new venue can give the guy a new lease on his career. Look at Braylon Edwards. He was a joke in Cleveland, now he is a serviceable threat. Maybe not a consistent pro bowler type, but he is a threat. Armstrong and Moss are the only strong Wr's we have seen thus far. outside of the dynamic TE duo we have. DT had a great game vs the Bills, but like everyone has said he has a lot of drops ala Rod Gardner. If DT could reduce the drops and play consistently well, he will be a stud, but alas we are not so fortunate.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

I wouldn't, they might double VJ's suspension time. To be honest the trading AH for Clayton would be the wiser move, in that it would be no money for us and probably an extra pick. VJ would be a lot of $$$$, plus we would be giving away yet another precious draft pick, and to top it all off, we would not be totally assured of a return on our investment. Sure it is a long shot for Clayton to really produce for us, but maybe a new venue can give the guy a new lease on his career. Look at Braylon Edwards. He was a joke in Cleveland, now he is a serviceable threat. Maybe not a consistent pro bowler type, but he is a threat. Armstrong and Moss are the only strong Wr's we have seen thus far. outside of the dynamic TE duo we have. DT had a great game vs the Bills, but like everyone has said he has a lot of drops ala Rod Gardner. If DT could reduce the drops and play consistently well, he will be a stud, but alas we are not so fortunate.

It would only be 6 games if he's not on an active roster before Sept. 4th

And I think it's a bit of a stretch to say Edwards was a joke in Cleveland