The Plan If Bradford Falls to Us

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.
goskins
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:55 pm
Location: Hampden-Sydney, VA

The Plan If Bradford Falls to Us

Postby GoSkins » Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:20 am

Trade the pick for lots of picks. Look at our current roster, we only have 3 OTs, and none of them are starters! We can replenish our offensive line if Bradford falls to us.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 665
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:25 pm
Location: Columbia MD

Postby skins2357 » Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:51 am

Although I may agree with you about needing more picks...I dont think thats THE plan....just yours. I would bet that Shanny jumps all over Bradford and goes OT in round 2.

Me personally, I would rather Okung in rd 1 even if Bradford is on the board. But if Bradford is on the board still, I dont see us trading down...it would be nice though
Mike/Bruce - If your going to spring big this year in Free Agency, please spring big on offensive lineman! I cant watch Rabach anymore!

piglet
User avatar
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:04 pm

Postby Pablo » Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:56 pm

I agreed. We all know we need more picks, however, it is almost impossible to trade down from number 4. I dont even think about it.

#######
Posts: 7225
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 9:13 pm
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby The Hogster » Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:16 pm

Okung, Lefevour
SPIT HAPPENS!!
___________________________

08 Champ
Online
Posts: 13738
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: in RG3's corner

Postby SkinsJock » Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:16 pm

Bradford is the QB - but if not, we get Okung and then just keep adding offensive linemen - we can find a QB later and we've already got 4 that can fill in :lol:

you have to take the QB - there are tons of offensive linemen :D
It's taken years for the Redskins to become as bad as we are - there is no way that the team is going to be consistently competitive in the near future, the problems here are complex - unfortunately with Dan Snyder, it is what it is

Canes Skin
Posts: 6669
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: Alexandria, VA

Postby CanesSkins26 » Fri Mar 26, 2010 6:46 am

If Bradford is there at 4 we are taking him unless we get absolutely blown away with a deal.
Suck and Luck

B-rad
User avatar
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:46 am
Location: De La War

Postby brad7686 » Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:21 am

SkinsJock wrote:Bradford is the QB - but if not, we get Okung and then just keep adding offensive linemen - we can find a QB later and we've already got 4 that can fill in :lol:

you have to take the QB - there are tons of offensive linemen :D


:roll:
No Pressure, No Diamonds

newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:58 pm

Postby skins7521 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:02 pm

I really am a proponent of picking Okung because he is as dynamic a tackle as you will find. Some years you wont find a tackle as talented as him.
Without a left tackle this year, nothing will matter and we might as well start talking about next years draft.

**ch44
Posts: 2383
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:00 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby chiefhog44 » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:05 pm

I think you take Bradford at 4 and trade cambell and Haynesworth for a #1 and pick up a LT
Miss you 21

12/17/09 - Ding Dong the Witch is Dead...Which Old Witch? The Wicked Witch.

1/6/10 - The start of a new era

08 Champ
Online
Posts: 13738
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: in RG3's corner

Postby SkinsJock » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:11 pm

Bradford is not going to be there at 4 - if we want to fantasize about being able to have McNabb and Bradford that's fine but that is a dream

we are taking Bradford if he's there - we are NOT going to trade that pick if we can pick up Bradford BUT that is just not happening

we should take Okung if we cannot trade out of that spot BUT we are ONLY taking Okung if we cannot get Bradford

I think that's fairly clear :D
It's taken years for the Redskins to become as bad as we are - there is no way that the team is going to be consistently competitive in the near future, the problems here are complex - unfortunately with Dan Snyder, it is what it is

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 5032
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Postby riggofan » Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:01 pm

chiefhog44 wrote:I think you take Bradford at 4 and trade cambell and Haynesworth for a #1 and pick up a LT


Ok but what's your plan if nobody wants to give you a #1 pick for Haynesworth and Campbell?

B-rad
User avatar
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:46 am
Location: De La War

Postby brad7686 » Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:09 pm

SkinsJock wrote:Bradford is not going to be there at 4 - if we want to fantasize about being able to have McNabb and Bradford that's fine but that is a dream

we are taking Bradford if he's there - we are NOT going to trade that pick if we can pick up Bradford BUT that is just not happening

we should take Okung if we cannot trade out of that spot BUT we are ONLY taking Okung if we cannot get Bradford

I think that's fairly clear :D


Why would we trade for McNabb, then draft bradford, when we have no offensive tackles and no picks until the 4th round. They would trade down in a heartbeat.
No Pressure, No Diamonds

08 Champ
Online
Posts: 13738
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: in RG3's corner

Postby SkinsJock » Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:40 pm

Mcnabb is the short term QB - Bradford is the long term QB - you have to take him if you can

Not going to happen because Bradford will be a Ram


mark my words - Bradford will be a Redskin if he's there at 4 :D
It's taken years for the Redskins to become as bad as we are - there is no way that the team is going to be consistently competitive in the near future, the problems here are complex - unfortunately with Dan Snyder, it is what it is

B-rad
User avatar
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:46 am
Location: De La War

Postby brad7686 » Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:22 pm

SkinsJock wrote:Mcnabb is the short term QB - Bradford is the long term QB - you have to take him if you can

Not going to happen because Bradford will be a Ram


mark my words - Bradford will be a Redskin if he's there at 4 :D


I will mark them but they aren't correct
No Pressure, No Diamonds

**ch44
Posts: 2383
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:00 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby chiefhog44 » Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:26 pm

riggofan wrote:
chiefhog44 wrote:I think you take Bradford at 4 and trade cambell and Haynesworth for a #1 and pick up a LT


Ok but what's your plan if nobody wants to give you a #1 pick for Haynesworth and Campbell?


I thinik you take Bradford no matter what. pick up some blue collar free agents to solidify the line.
Miss you 21

12/17/09 - Ding Dong the Witch is Dead...Which Old Witch? The Wicked Witch.

1/6/10 - The start of a new era

Return to NFL Draft 2003-2010