Redskins trading out of the 4 spot?

[Ruhskins]

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]

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]

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.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

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.

Jake Plummer.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Jake Plummer.

That's a joke right?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

That's a joke right?

I sure hope so, this is the second time I've seen his name brought up....unless we're looking for a top notch handball player, Jake ain't the guy.

Jake Plummer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plummer: Shanny firing "was past due" - The Denver Post

2010 free agent quarterback class has a surprise entry | ProFootballTalk.com

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

I think he meant Starting Qb.

BTW I'll take the 3rd and the 5th. Or better yet the 3rd and Whitner.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07

I think he meant Starting Qb.

BTW I'll take the 3rd and the 5th. Or better yet the 3rd and Whitner.

the 3rd and Whitner would be great. I'm thinking that they are probably offering Whitner and a 5th, though.

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're overvaluing him a bit. Sage only got the texans a 3rd. Campbells a little better than him, but not by much. Also, would your feelings about letting Campbell go for a 3rd and conditional 5th in 2011 change if we draft a QB with the 4th overall pick, finish the 2010 season around 8-8, and Campbell walks away as free agent and we receive no compensation in return?

At that point, i think you'd be missing those two draft picks. I hate to break it to you, but this team is not going to be a contender in 2010. Since thats the case, there's no reason to keep ANY player for one year, when we could trade him for a 3rd round pick - a pick that would probably get us a future starting offensive linemen or running back.

[diehardskin2982]

I wonder if a case could be made to draft Golden Tate in the second if he fell?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

I wonder if a case could be made to draft Golden Tate in the second if he fell?

No.

Seriously, no. We don't need more young receivers this year.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

I wonder if a case could be made to draft Golden Tate in the second if he fell?

Vinny give diehardskin his account back.

[diehardskin2982]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

Vinny give diehardskin his account back.

Lmao! I just threw that one out there to see what people think. I honestly would like us to send both Moss and Randle El out of here for the younger players to get more time. Tate could replace those guys and I love his work ethic.

However I understand we need a rebuilt line more than anything else and Wide Receiver would be a luxury.
I honestly hope we draft Mike Iupati, Bruce Campbell, and Matt Tennant. All of whom we are capable of drafting without trades that I feel IMO would truly make us into a perennial competitors for many years. But that approach isn't sexy.

LT: B. Campbell
LG: D. Dockery
C: M. Tennant
RG: C. Rinehart
RT: M. Iupati

I trully believe Iupati is capable of playing any of the 5 line positions.

[WaldSkins]

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

Lmao! I just threw that one out there to see what people think. I honestly would like us to send both Moss and Randle El out of here for the younger players to get more time. Tate could replace those guys and I love his work ethic.

However I understand we need a rebuilt line more than anything else and Wide Receiver would be a luxury.
I honestly hope we draft Mike Iupati, Bruce Campbell, and Matt Tennant. All of whom we are capable of drafting without trades that I feel IMO would truly make us into a perennial competitors for many years. But that approach isn't sexy.

LT: B. Campbell
LG: D. Dockery
C: M. Tennant
RG: C. Rinehart
RT: M. Iupati

I trully believe Iupati is capable of playing any of the 5 line positions.

Who are you taking at #4? And i think Iupati is better suited inside. He would get too many holding calls on the outside.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by WaldSkins

Who are you taking at #4? And i think Iupati is better suited inside. He would get too many holding calls on the outside.

Beat me to it. Iupati is a road grader. His footwork isn't good enough for T, or a Zone Blocking scheme. He's a great fit for a power running team, the Steelers or Ravens come to mind.

[GTripp0012]

If we made a play for Tate, I'd imagine it would be at the expense of Randle El's roster spot. Not at the playing time of Kelly/Thomas/Mitchell. As far as we know, Moss is still blocking them with his replacement level play.