You are the Skins new GM, what is YOUR next move?

Archive of discussions on NFL Draft 2003, NFL Draft 2004, NFL Draft 2005, NFL Draft 2006, NFL Draft 2007 NFL Draft 2008, NFL Draft 2009 and NFL Draft 2010.

As the new Skins GM, what is your move?

Keep the #6 and draft Gaines Adams
4
10%
Keep the #6 and draft Jamal Anderson
1
2%
Keep the #6 and draft Okoye
5
12%
Keep the #6 and draft Branch
0
No votes
Trade down just a few spots, still get a top 12 guy
15
36%
Trade down to bottom of 1st rd, acquire more picks
4
10%
Trade #6 for #31 and Briggs plus sign him to big $$$
2
5%
Trade #6 for Pats #24 or #28 and Asante Samuel
2
5%
Trade #6 plus Springs or 2008 picks for Detroits #2 (Calvin Johnson)
4
10%
None of the above, will elaborate in my post
5
12%
 
Total votes : 42
|||
Posts: 4318
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:34 am
Location: SANTA ANA,CA

Postby HEROHAMO » Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:52 pm

air_hog wrote:
Redskin in Canada wrote:
air_hog wrote:What, what's wrong with shopping the 6th Pick around, do you want to keep it and have just 1 frist day pick?

And what's your beef with Okoye?

1) Everybody is expecting us to give it away for cheap.

2) Nothing. He is one of the top 2 DTs in the draft and likely to be gone by the 6th pick if he goes ahead as the number 1 DT. But -even- if he is there, the Skins will not pick him.

BUT if we trade down and he is still availbale, well, that is another story. :wink:


Well, 1) The reason everyone is expecting us to give it away for cheap is because A) C'mon it's the Redskins FO here.

and B) Because really there is no value at our pick like I said, unless a top tier guys slides to us. I mean, no team is going to give an arm and a leg to trade up for Jamaal Anderson. Besides the absolute top 3-4 guys, there is no one player worth trading up for.

And I don't know why you think the Skins won't pick Okoye. Word is they are un-impressed with Adams + Branch's work ethics, and Okoye is known for his work ethic, not to mention he is an intelligent and young man. What's wrong with that?
I love Okoye. I just think we have to get more picks by trading down this year.

We only have one pick until I think the Fifth round. Its absolutly imperative that we at least get a low first round and a second round pick at the worst case scenerio.

We could at least pick up two solid defensive players.

If we pick up just one player at no.6 then this draft IMHO will have been a failure.
Sean Taylor starting free safety Heavens team!

21 Forever

"The show must go on."

Fire in the Sky
Posts: 4730
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Surfside

Postby SkinsFreak » Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:37 pm

Everyone talks about trading down and how it is the right thing to do and the only way to go. I like the idea too but I think many of you think there are a dozen teams willing to throw the house at us to trade up. I don't believe that is the case. Not to mention, every team in the top ten would trade down for the right offer, as all would want to maximize the return or yield of their respective picks. ALL will be willing to listen to potential trade offers. So trading down is easier said than done. No one knows yet, but the Skins may not be able to trade down, and we have to be prepared for that. So if they don't trade down on draft day, keep in mind that maybe they couldn't or didn't get the right offer.

Fire in the Sky
Posts: 4730
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Surfside

Postby SkinsFreak » Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:24 pm

HEROHAMO wrote:If we pick up just one player at no.6 then this draft IMHO will have been a failure.


A failure? I don't agree with that at all.

Go to Redskins.com and listen to Gibbs' press conference from today. Joe said that "if you guessed you were going to move back, it rarely happens." He went on to say that moving up IS something that you control over, but in all, it's hard to make a move there. He basically said that he just figures they will pick at #6 but are preparing in case something does come along.

So I don't think it would be fair to call it a "failure" if they can't move back. Too many things that are out of their control will have to happen if they want to trade down.

The Evil Straw
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 1:30 pm
Location: Leather Chair

Postby Fios » Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:36 pm

Agreed, the Redskins ability to trade down is contingent on the decisions of the five teams picking ahead of them. Millen seems to think he's addressed the Lions offensive line woes, that doesn't bode well for the Redskins' chances of trading down. If Peterson, Quinn or Thomas should drop to the sixth slot, the Redskins can slide down. (I'm not even entertaining the notion that Johnson will still be there.) If those guys all go beforehand, the Redskins will probably be picking sixth. And even if they do pix sixth, they will be picking to address a problem area, that can't be qualified as a failure. I honestly thought the Redskins were going to be able to drop but I'm pessimistic about it now.
RIP Sean Taylor

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:50 am
Location: Charlottesville, Va.

Postby fleetus » Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:07 am

I think Quinn will be there at #6. Question is, does anyone want him at #6? I'm not sure anyone likes Quinn enough to trade up to #6 to get him? Dolphins might be thinking they can stay at #9 and still get him. Vikings at #7 are the only other possibility. I think the first 5 picks will be Russell, Johnson,Peterson, Adams, Thomas. We might be best off just to go ahead and draft either Okoye or Anderson.
Build through the draft!

Pushing Paper
Posts: 4605
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:01 pm

Postby PulpExposure » Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:27 am

Fios wrote:Agreed, the Redskins ability to trade down is contingent on the decisions of the five teams picking ahead of them. Millen seems to think he's addressed the Lions offensive line woes, that doesn't bode well for the Redskins' chances of trading down. If Peterson, Quinn or Thomas should drop to the sixth slot, the Redskins can slide down. (I'm not even entertaining the notion that Johnson will still be there.) If those guys all go beforehand, the Redskins will probably be picking sixth. And even if they do pix sixth, they will be picking to address a problem area, that can't be qualified as a failure. I honestly thought the Redskins were going to be able to drop but I'm pessimistic about it now.

This article by our beloved Peter King details why trading down is almost impossible now.

Some highlights:

Myth of the Month: If a team near the top of the first round of the NFL Draft wants to trade down, it can get a ransom for the pick.

Reality of the Month: In the last two NFL Drafts, no team with a top-10 pick in the first round has traded down for said ransom. In fact, the last two drafts have yielded only one trade with a team in the top 10, but it wasn't a trade-down. It was the Raiders trading the seventh overall pick plus linebacker Napoleon Harris for Randy Moss in 2005; Minnesota chose wideout Troy Williamson with that pick. (Talk about a trade that hurt both teams.)



Making an error by trading up can hurt a team's salary-cap situation and future drafts more than ever. Say a team trades up to the third pick in the draft this year, nabs Notre Dame quarterback Brady Quinn and guarantees him $20 million -- which is about the amount of guaranteed money the No. 3 overall pick will get. And imagine if Quinn is awful. Contracts can be written with different cap impacts, but suffice it to say, the big guarantee is going to be a Ryan Leaf-type weight on your franchise if Quinn has to be cut after three years at the cost of a $10 million cap hit. Never mind losing the picks it took to get Quinn in the first place. It used to be, when the guarantees were one-third of what they are now, that teams wouldn't fear the cap hit so much. "The cash mistake is bad enough when you blow a high pick,'' Peterson said. "But the cap mistake is worse. And then missing out on the future picks just compounds it.''


"What's so interesting about the draft,'' said Peterson, "is that the risk-reward ratio is so much different between the top 10 and the picks you make as you go lower in the draft. You find out how hard it is to say good-bye to players in the top 10 of a draft. That's why you don't see the trades you used to see.''



Peterson is Karl Peterson, President of the KC Chiefs.

This is very common sense; you guarentee SO much money to the top picks, they almost have to pan out. And one thing we know about the draft...it's a giant crapshoot.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:50 am
Location: Charlottesville, Va.

Postby fleetus » Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:06 am

ESPN just had their draft preview for the Redskins. They acknowledged that we've given away too many picks on previous deals and need to try and trade down to get some of those picks back. They also covered the fact that we have a poor pass rush and need to consider a DL at #6. In the end however, Kiper said we should not pass up Laron Landry to pair him with ST at safety. Interesting.
Build through the draft!

08 Champ
Online
Posts: 13398
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:12 pm

IMO Nothing that Kiper thinks we should do should even be considered :wink: Fortunately for the Redskins - Gibbs and co. do not listen to me OR Kiper :lol: This guy would love us to follow his advice and have it not work out for us which is what would happen.

Landry might be great at #6 but hopefully that will be because another team takes him - I would be very surprised if we take Landry instead of some of the other players who are more likely to be able to help our team better than another super secondary player, who will need a lot of time to be effective.
Getting our QB back will help a lot but we still have a lot of issues to address

Players and coaches need to believe that they can be successful - they are not playing with that attitude - big changes are coming

HAIL


Currently 50-41

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:50 am
Location: Charlottesville, Va.

Postby fleetus » Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:34 pm

Landry isn't my first choice either. However, most experts agree DL is probably the position which takes longest to develop, on average, after QB. So the length of development factor when comparing DB's and DL probably favors Landry.

My ooposition to Kipers suggestion would be two fold:

1. ST needs a veteran leader who knows the defense back there with him, as evidenced last year when Prioleau was lost and ST floundered.

2. We need DL depth, run stopping and pass rush help more than a SS to pair with ST. In fact. I would predict that if we drafted Landry, he might not start most of the season because he would need to learn the system and Prioleau is no slouch.
Build through the draft!

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 424
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:37 pm
Location: Orlando

Postby HardDawg » Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:21 pm

Take Okoye or Adams and trade Vinny C for the "Mr Irrelevant" pick!

|||
Posts: 4318
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:34 am
Location: SANTA ANA,CA

Postby HEROHAMO » Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:15 am

SkinsFreak wrote:
HEROHAMO wrote:If we pick up just one player at no.6 then this draft IMHO will have been a failure.


A failure? I don't agree with that at all.

Go to Redskins.com and listen to Gibbs' press conference from today. Joe said that "if you guessed you were going to move back, it rarely happens." He went on to say that moving up IS something that you control over, but in all, it's hard to make a move there. He basically said that he just figures they will pick at #6 but are preparing in case something does come along.

So I don't think it would be fair to call it a "failure" if they can't move back. Too many things that are out of their control will have to happen if they want to trade down.
No. I disagree.

Out of there control? Why? They have plenty of time to wheel and deal to make something happen.

They managed to trade away all our picks in previous years so I say start making up for it. There is no reason we cant trade away our no.6 for a late first round pick and pick up a second round pick.

It is very possible and I dont buy into "Its out of their control". Plenty of teams have traded down before we should make it happen again. There are plenty of teams to make offers to, plenty of chances to trade down. I say make it happen. I am tired of the excuses and demand this front office to make it happen.

As a fan I am not asking for the impossible. I am hoping for the possible.

There is no reason why we cant trade down. Many teams in the NfL. Thus many oppurtunities. I say Seize the moment.

Fellas its time to start demanding more from our front office.

No more settling for mediocre moves and demanding excellence.
Sean Taylor starting free safety Heavens team!

21 Forever

"The show must go on."

Fire in the Sky
Posts: 4730
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:31 am
Location: Surfside

Postby SkinsFreak » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:51 am

HEROHAMO wrote:There is no reason why we cant trade down. Many teams in the NfL. Thus many oppurtunities. I say Seize the moment.


Rather then me explaining all the reasons why the Skins have little control over other teams trading up, as many of us already have, perhaps in a subsequent post we could hear some examples of how the Skins could force another team to trade up? The fact is that over the past several years, these types of trades are few and far between.

From another thread:

Fios wrote:
Agreed, the Redskins ability to trade down is contingent on the decisions of the five teams picking ahead of them. Millen seems to think he's addressed the Lions offensive line woes, that doesn't bode well for the Redskins' chances of trading down. If Peterson, Quinn or Thomas should drop to the sixth slot, the Redskins can slide down. (I'm not even entertaining the notion that Johnson will still be there.) If those guys all go beforehand, the Redskins will probably be picking sixth. And even if they do pix sixth, they will be picking to address a problem area, that can't be qualified as a failure. I honestly thought the Redskins were going to be able to drop but I'm pessimistic about it now.

This article by our beloved Peter King details why trading down is almost impossible now.

Some highlights:

Quote:
Myth of the Month: If a team near the top of the first round of the NFL Draft wants to trade down, it can get a ransom for the pick.

Reality of the Month: In the last two NFL Drafts, no team with a top-10 pick in the first round has traded down for said ransom. In fact, the last two drafts have yielded only one trade with a team in the top 10, but it wasn't a trade-down. It was the Raiders trading the seventh overall pick plus linebacker Napoleon Harris for Randy Moss in 2005; Minnesota chose wideout Troy Williamson with that pick. (Talk about a trade that hurt both teams.)




Quote:
Making an error by trading up can hurt a team's salary-cap situation and future drafts more than ever. Say a team trades up to the third pick in the draft this year, nabs Notre Dame quarterback Brady Quinn and guarantees him $20 million -- which is about the amount of guaranteed money the No. 3 overall pick will get. And imagine if Quinn is awful. Contracts can be written with different cap impacts, but suffice it to say, the big guarantee is going to be a Ryan Leaf-type weight on your franchise if Quinn has to be cut after three years at the cost of a $10 million cap hit. Never mind losing the picks it took to get Quinn in the first place. It used to be, when the guarantees were one-third of what they are now, that teams wouldn't fear the cap hit so much. "The cash mistake is bad enough when you blow a high pick,'' Peterson said. "But the cap mistake is worse. And then missing out on the future picks just compounds it.''



Quote:
"What's so interesting about the draft,'' said Peterson, "is that the risk-reward ratio is so much different between the top 10 and the picks you make as you go lower in the draft. You find out how hard it is to say good-bye to players in the top 10 of a draft. That's why you don't see the trades you used to see.''




Peterson is Karl Peterson, President of the KC Chiefs.

This is very common sense; you guarentee SO much money to the top picks, they almost have to pan out. And one thing we know about the draft...it's a giant crapshoot.


:wink: Hope that helps!

HEROHAMO wrote:Fellas its time to start demanding more from our front office.


I hear ya! In your opinion, how should we go about that?

Pushing Paper
Posts: 4605
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:01 pm

Postby PulpExposure » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:57 am

HEROHAMO wrote:They managed to trade away all our picks in previous years so I say start making up for it. There is no reason we cant trade away our no.6 for a late first round pick and pick up a second round pick.


It's not that easy. This is regarded as a relatively weak draft. If there were a lot of people worth trading up to get our pick, then we'd have leverage. As it is, there aren't. So we don't have a lot of leverage...

One executive I spoke with -- a smart football man whom I trust very much -- said his team gave only 18 players first-round grades in its recently concluded draft meetings. That means, as he said, a bunch of second-round-quality players (at least, in this team's view) will be drafted between the middle and end of the first round, and they will make more money than players with holes deserve to make. "I bet you'll see plenty of teams in the mid- to low-first-round trying to trade down, and I bet they'll have a lot of trouble finding trading partners,'' this personnel guy said.

And I don't recall hearing this many questions about top picks in a while.

"The top of this draft board is so weak,'' one top scout said. "Guys will be handed money who haven't done nearly enough to deserve it.''


Just today from Peter King. Before you throw out the "It's Peter King" card, remember he's just relating what a football exec and a scout are telling him.

Last week he wrote about trading down: Here

Myth of the Month: If a team near the top of the first round of the NFL Draft wants to trade down, it can get a ransom for the pick.

Reality of the Month: In the last two NFL Drafts, no team with a top-10 pick in the first round has traded down for said ransom. In fact, the last two drafts have yielded only one trade with a team in the top 10, but it wasn't a trade-down. It was the Raiders trading the seventh overall pick plus linebacker Napoleon Harris for Randy Moss in 2005; Minnesota chose wideout Troy Williamson with that pick. (Talk about a trade that hurt both teams.)

"It's too difficult,'' Chiefs president Carl Peterson said in his office the other day. "You've got a lot of teams that want to get rich by trading down, but nobody wants to trade up.''

Making an error by trading up can hurt a team's salary-cap situation and future drafts more than ever. Say a team trades up to the third pick in the draft this year, nabs Notre Dame quarterback Brady Quinn and guarantees him $20 million -- which is about the amount of guaranteed money the No. 3 overall pick will get. And imagine if Quinn is awful. Contracts can be written with different cap impacts, but suffice it to say, the big guarantee is going to be a Ryan Leaf-type weight on your franchise if Quinn has to be cut after three years at the cost of a $10 million cap hit. Never mind losing the picks it took to get Quinn in the first place. It used to be, when the guarantees were one-third of what they are now, that teams wouldn't fear the cap hit so much. "The cash mistake is bad enough when you blow a high pick,'' Peterson said. "But the cap mistake is worse. And then missing out on the future picks just compounds it.''



While I may not trust Peter King completely, I tend to give Carl Peterson a good measure of respect.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:50 am
Location: Charlottesville, Va.

Postby fleetus » Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:41 am

I read the post about how difficult trading down is. It is a valid point. I think that draft pick value chart exagerates the value of the top few picks. Every year is a different pool of talent. The year Tim Couch was drafted first (or Alex Smith a few years ago) shouldn't be compared equally with the year Peyton Manning went first or Michael Vick for that matter.


Anyway, I have to amend my answer to the original question, What would you do if you were GM.

I would:

1. Make Snyder promise that my final say in player personnel matters was indeed final, with no meddling from him. If I'm fired beause those decisions didn't pan out fine, but not because Snyder wanted me to trade away the first round pick for yet another over-valued free agent.

2. Draft Okoye with the 6th pick. I've always thought he was worth the #6, but thought we could trade down and still get him between 8-12. His value is on the way up. I don't think we could trade down any farther than 8 and still have a shot at him. I think he has moved up to be one of the top 6 players and is worthy of us staying put at 6 to draft him.

3. Draft late or sign a rookie free agent kicker who could seriously compete with Suisham.

4. Fire Cerrato after the draft.

5. Give the Skins capologist a much deserved raise and vacation.

6. Talk to Joe Gibbs about a weekly award to be given to whichever Redskin player best demonstrated team qualities, unselfishness and work ethic. This could be a cash bonus and/or priviledges as reward. Anything from a guy who was amazing at impersonating an opposing player on the scout team, to making several great wedge busts on STeams, to an offensive lineman who subbed in and gave up no sacks to a guy who played hurt. Accentuate the guys who are the glue that hold this team together.
Build through the draft!

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Italy

Postby everydayAskinsday » Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:44 am

fleetus wrote:Landry isn't my first choice either. However, most experts agree DL is probably the position which takes longest to develop, on average, after QB. So the length of development factor when comparing DB's and DL probably favors Landry.

My ooposition to Kipers suggestion would be two fold:

1. ST needs a veteran leader who knows the defense back there with him, as evidenced last year when Prioleau was lost and ST floundered.

2. We need DL depth, run stopping and pass rush help more than a SS to pair with ST. In fact. I would predict that if we drafted Landry, he might not start most of the season because he would need to learn the system and Prioleau is no slouch.


If Sean still needs a veteran back there teaching him this defense in year 4 then we are in trouble.. if hes supposed to be the an elite safety then he should no longer need a veteran to hold his hand.. he needs to be used in the same manner as Reed & Williams.. they both play closer to the line and have deep help so they can make more plays.. This is where Landry would fit in(although it might take him the season to get comfortable.. but that is where we use the veterans .NOT to hold ST's hand).. he would definetly not be brought in to play SS he would be used as a FS moving Taylor to the SS but most teams dont even use safetys in that sense anymore.. what we need to do is sit down and study how the Ravens and Cowboys use there stud safeties and follow suit ..I know we need DL help but our D-Line if it can stay healthy and I know thats a BIG IF wont kill us for one more year and we can add depth later in the draft.. there are productive DL men beyond the 1st 3 rounds.. the Bears rook Anderson had 12 sacks last year and he was a 5th round pick up.. its easier to find a solid DL player then secondary help in my opnion.. suring up our secondary for years to come would be a great help to this D

Return to NFL Draft 2003-2010