If we were to TRADE UP, who would you shoot for?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Post #7 was probably crossing the line by Schneed. But post #5? No problem with that one. He attacked your idea, not you.

I don't know which one is which, he's on my ignore list for good reason. If it's the one that matty quoted, the idiot part is certainly attacking.

And why shouldn't he? On the one hand, you're complaining on this site about the Redskins throwing away their draft picks for Chad Johnson (even though it's really just one pick in 2008, and CJ has proven to be an elite WR, and we need a WR, and we can still fill several other needs even with this trade), yet here you are suggesting we trade up for Darren McFadden (even though that would mean giving up draft picks, McFadden is unproven, and RB is so low on the need list)

The thread may not be retarded, but your recommendation (especially in light of your Chad Johnson stance) is questionable, at best.

It's all for discussion, it doesn't mean I have to beleive it. I already said I don't think we should trade up. However, if we were to offer say Portis for the 5th pick to get McFadden, I think I might pull that trigger.
Since when are discussions a bad idea?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Since when are discussions a bad idea?

When they're pointless and run in contrast to concepts and opinions you've previously expressed elsewhere in the forums.

On one hand, I get the forum guidelines and the desire to keep things civil, encouraging open discussions. On the other hand, quality control would be important to me if I were a mod at this place. I think that's SmootSmack's point; he's rightly holding up the civility rules that this site has in place, but at the same time pointing out that your thread makes no sense and should be called to the carpet for failing to add any value to the site.

If this were my site, I'd want it to be better than ES, not more like it. Threads like this make it more like ES.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I don't know which one is which, he's on my ignore list for good reason. If it's the one that matty quoted, the idiot part is certainly attacking.

I missed that line. He has since apologized for attacking you in an immature manner

It's all for discussion, it doesn't mean I have to beleive it. I already said I don't think we should trade up. However, if we were to offer say Portis for the 5th pick to get McFadden, I think I might pull that trigger.
Since when are discussions a bad idea?

I don't understand your first sentence there. Secondly, discussions are not a bad idea. Did I say they were?

[MTK]

I shouldn't have thrown gas on the fire by quoting Schneed, I honestly didn't catch the idiot comment. I have no problem with calling threads retarded or dumb, but let's refrain from attacking the person.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

When they're pointless and run in contrast to concepts and opinions you've previously expressed elsewhere in the forums.

On one hand, I get the forum guidelines and the desire to keep things civil, encouraging open discussions. On the other hand, quality control would be important to me if I were a mod at this place. I think that's SmootSmack's point; he's rightly holding up the civility rules that this site has in place, but at the same time pointing out that your thread makes no sense and should be called to the carpet for failing to add any value to the site.

If this were my site, I'd want it to be better than ES, not more like it. Threads like this make it more like ES.

I don't really have a problem with a thread like this. I mean I started an "If we had the first pick" thread. Which is probably even more pointless than this one. I mean they're both rather extreme hypotheticals, but it's fine to have these every now and then.

But it's hard not to respond critically to the opinion presented in the first post. Especially in light of other comments/opinions by that same person.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I don't understand your first sentence there. Secondly, discussions are not a bad idea. Did I say they were?

In other words, just cause I pose the question doesn't mean I agree with it. We've posed a thousand threads about trading for Chad Johnson, or which WR to trade for, but no one has posed the idea of trading up to fill needs. Even if I don't agree with trading up, I'd like to hear the ideas.
It's rare that I ever agree with democrats, but I still listen cause they can occasionally have good ideas. It's all for the sake of discussion.

[KLHJ2]

If we were to trade up I would shoot...myself.

Edit: Now that is a deal I could pull the trigger on.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

But it's hard not to respond critically to the opinion presented in the first post. Especially in light of other comments/opinions by that same person.

I guess I need to post this again:

(please note, I am not interested in trading up, just not dismissing the possibility, and opportunity for discussion)

Also, most of my comments have been directed at not getting Chad Johnson. A serious cancer and head case who I wouldn't want even if we get him for only a 3rd round pick.
If you noticed, I was wanting to go after Roy Williams. I think you are unfairly trying to assume a point of view, when in actuality they are all separate issues. How can I be so willing to trade picks for Williams, but not for CJ? It has to do with age / contract / ability / size / and attitude. Every case is different. I prefer to keep our picks for good young talent, but if we can get someone the caliber and age of Williams for our 1st rounder, I'd go for it. If we could trade Portis for McFadden straight up, I'd go for it. (not that any team would do that). Every scenario is different.

[SmootSmack]

I think you're missing my point Jsarno. But that's ok.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think you're missing my point Jsarno. But that's ok.

I think you're right, so please PM me your point, because I feel you are missing mine as well. We are clearly on the wrong page and dragging it out here is just taking away from any kind of possible discussion.

[SmootSmack]

It's not worth it. Don't worry about it

[celts32]

I would never trade up in this draft...I want more picks not less. If they did I guess it should be for a DT like Dorsey but again I would never do it.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by celts32

I would never trade up in this draft...I want more picks not less. If they did I guess it should be for a DT like Dorsey but again I would never do it.

With Griffin getting older, that wouldn't be a bad idea. That would mean for certain that Griffin would be cut next year though.

[RiggoDrill]

I am not in favor of losing any draft picks in order to trade-up or trade for a veteran. However, IF the situation comes to pass the the Skins could work a trade-up into the top 5 of the draft this year, I would do so in order to take Chris Long. I always thought of him as a good player with an NFL future, but after watching the clinic he put on against the Terps this past season, I became fully convinced that he is just the type of guy that I would want playing for my beloved Skins.

Too bad it won't happen.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Would never happen, the FO should be looking to trade down if a shutdown CB, or Merling or better DE is not available.

McFadden is fast, but several analysts have made the comment "legs dead on contact". He is slim in the lower body, not built to take an NFL pounding. If I had to take a RB, I would take Mendenhall (sp?) or Stewart before McFadden.