| Welcome to the home of some of the Washington Redskins' most ravenous fans. If this is your first visit, please read our rules and regulations. You must register before you can access all of the forums, and to use all the board's features and options; members also enjoy fewer advertisements. |
| Which do you think are the key positions we need? |
| OG |
|
11% |
[ 4 ] |
| DT |
|
8% |
[ 3 ] |
| CB |
|
8% |
[ 3 ] |
| S |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| WR |
|
23% |
[ 8 ] |
| DE |
|
44% |
[ 15 ] |
| OT |
|
2% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 34 |
|
| Author |
Message |
yupchagee
#14
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 4111
Location: Louisville KY
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| GSPODS wrote: | | CanesSkins26 wrote: | | Quote: | | There is a good possibility that neither tall wide receivers nor high-prospect defensive linemen will still be on the board when the Redskins draft at #21. |
I highly disagree with this. There are only going to be 20 players selected before we pick. It's almost a certainty that one of Sweed, Kelly, Thomas, Harvey, Merling, or Balmer will be available. I'd be happy when any of those players in the first round. |
I'd be happier if the Redskins traded, say three of their draft choices to a team with more needs and obtained another first round pick. The Redskins need three or four good prospects, not eleven lousy ones. And, no, I am not suggesting the Redskins trade away their first round draft pick. I am suggesting that the Redskins could use both Sweed and Merling, or both Kelly and Balmer, or both Thomas and Harvey.
However the draft shakes out, the Skins could use two of these players instead of 11 lower round draft choices. I'd rather have two of these players and five or six lower round draft choices. But I am not the actual GM. I just play one on a message board. So do most of the posters here. This simply confirms what we already knew, which is that even Redskins fans can't agree on how things should be done at Redskins Park. |
By my calculations, the combined value of all our picks after the 1st rnd is about 620. Barely enough to get into the end of the 1st round. That's assuming that a team drafdting that far down wants such a trade. By comparison, our pick (#21) is worth 800. |
|
| Back to top |
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yupchagee wrote: | | GSPODS wrote: | | CanesSkins26 wrote: | | Quote: | | There is a good possibility that neither tall wide receivers nor high-prospect defensive linemen will still be on the board when the Redskins draft at #21. |
I highly disagree with this. There are only going to be 20 players selected before we pick. It's almost a certainty that one of Sweed, Kelly, Thomas, Harvey, Merling, or Balmer will be available. I'd be happy when any of those players in the first round. |
I'd be happier if the Redskins traded, say three of their draft choices to a team with more needs and obtained another first round pick. The Redskins need three or four good prospects, not eleven lousy ones. And, no, I am not suggesting the Redskins trade away their first round draft pick. I am suggesting that the Redskins could use both Sweed and Merling, or both Kelly and Balmer, or both Thomas and Harvey.
However the draft shakes out, the Skins could use two of these players instead of 11 lower round draft choices. I'd rather have two of these players and five or six lower round draft choices. But I am not the actual GM. I just play one on a message board. So do most of the posters here. This simply confirms what we already knew, which is that even Redskins fans can't agree on how things should be done at Redskins Park. |
By my calculations, the combined value of all our picks after the 1st rnd is about 620. Barely enough to get into the end of the 1st round. That's assuming that a team drafdting that far down wants such a trade. By comparison, our pick (#21) is worth 800. |
Here is the Actual Value Chart used by NFL GM's for trade purposes:
http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/features/valuechart.html
If monetary value was the only consideration, you would be correct. However, certain teams need more draft choices than others, regardless of monetary value. The Dolphins and the Falcons need multiple draft choices, actually about 20 draft selections each. The Raiders, who are well over the salary cap thanks to Al Davis stealing a page from "The Danny's Financial Playbook", need multiple draft choices at the Rookie minimum.
If I, as a GM, needed quantity over quality, and value over price, I would trade away a first or high second round draft choice for three or four third and fourth round draft choices. The reason being, if a team needs more than three draft selections to fill holes in the roster, that team almost definitely needs linemen. Linemen are the safest draft choice, regardless of round. That team very likely needs a quarterback or possibly two. Not every team wants to pay JaMarcus Russell type money to a drafted quarterback.
Assume I have the #7 pick, valued at $1.50 Million. There are three players I want to draft, and I know each will still be on the board in the second round. I know another team is drooling over a particular player, to the point where they will do almost anything to move up in the draft. (See Williams, Ricky). I contact this team and they offer in exchange for the #7 pick the follwing:
The #21 pick valued at $800k
The #40 pick valued at $500k
The #60 pick valued at $300K
Three draft choices for a total of $1.6M in exchange for the #7 draft pick, valued at $1.5M. I need quantity. The other team needs quality. This is, for all intents and purposes, an equal value trade monetarily. But I can pay three players the same amount I would have paid one player. I'm making this deal so long as the League approves.
Conventional logic will get one nowhere in football trades.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
PulpExposure
Pushing Paper
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 4461
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
GSPODS, it's not a monetary value. It's an arbitrary number made up by Jimmy Johnson (I believe) that assigned "value" to draft position.
It's not related to money in the least.
Just for comparisons, last years 7th pick, Adrian Peterson, signed a 6 year, 40.5 million dollar contract. Reggie Nelson, last year's 21st pick, signed a 5 year, $9.55 million contract.
Edited to add: Here's a article on the origin of it: http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/NFLDraft/Draft+Extras/2003/edholm042403.htm]PFW.
| Quote: | It is now common practice for NFL teams to follow a “draft chart,” which assigns numeric values to every draft pick from No. 1 (3,000 points) to the final pick in the seventh round, No. 262 (0.4 point). The idea of the chart is to create some kind of standard for assessing fair value for trades. And, the way we hear it, there could be a lot of them this weekend.
The practice was brought into vogue by former Cowboys head coach Jimmy Johnson, who came up with the value system as his Cowboys engineered some of the best trades in the late 1980s and early 1990s as they were building the closest thing to a dynasty that the NFL has seen the past two decades.
<snip>
Johnson’s chart was devised from studying the value of trades over a period of 10 years. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PulpExposure wrote: | GSPODS, it's not a monetary value. It's an arbitrary number made up by Jimmy Johnson (I believe) that assigned "value" to draft position.
It's not related to money in the least. |
I know that. That is why I had this at the end of the post. 
| GSPODS wrote: | | Conventional logic will get one nowhere in football trades. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Assasin atm
piggie
Joined: 06 Dec 2007
Posts: 170
Location: Virginia
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:39 am Post subject: Re: My Draft order |
|
|
| Skins5235 wrote: | CB--- Rodgers Cromitare Dominique #21
DE ----- jason jones
OT/G--roy schuening
WR------Adarius bowman
ILB------ben moffitt
OT/G---heath benedict |
I semi agree with the CB as the number one need simply because the skins havent filled that need in free agency as they should for expieriance rather than rookie youth. But the biggest need the redskins have and should be addressed with the 21st pick is a big wideout (an extreme nessecity in a west coast offense.) The diffention of that is James Hardy/ 6-5/6-6 and in the heavy 200's. Kelley and Sweed and Bowman are good but not the prototypical possesion targets. They are prodominatly deep threats- we have those. Plus Sweed and Kelley wont be there at 21. Even so we need Hardy. DE we can address in the 2nd round. That position is fairly deep. Our defense is good so a 1st round defensive pick is not the awnser. Our offense was moody and horrible in the redzone which would be overhauled with JH running fade routes and a huge target for JC over the CB's and LB's of opposing defenses. Theres only so much redzone offense you can do with a bunch of short recievers and because of that the defense knows that Clinton is getting the ball. James Hardy is the awnser to makes us a complete team |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
 |
PulpExposure
Pushing Paper
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 4461
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GSPODS wrote: | | PulpExposure wrote: | GSPODS, it's not a monetary value. It's an arbitrary number made up by Jimmy Johnson (I believe) that assigned "value" to draft position.
It's not related to money in the least. |
I know that. That is why I had this at the end of the post.
| GSPODS wrote: | | Conventional logic will get one nowhere in football trades. |
|
Sleazy lawyers always thinking about money.
Runs back to bill more hours... |
|
| Back to top |
|
SkinsFreak
Fire in the Sky
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 4884
Location: Surfside
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GSPODS wrote: | | If you disagree, you're entitled. But offer up something more than D.J. Hackett as proof the Redskins are seriously trying to obtain a #2 wide receiver. |
Even further proof...
Wide Receiver Position Remains a Focus
| Quote: | | Wide receiver remains an off-season need, Zorn said. |
Is that sufficient, or are you still in the dark?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SkinsFreak wrote: | | GSPODS wrote: | | If you disagree, you're entitled. But offer up something more than D.J. Hackett as proof the Redskins are seriously trying to obtain a #2 wide receiver. |
Even further proof...
Wide Receiver Position Remains a Focus
| Quote: | | Wide receiver remains an off-season need, Zorn said. |
Is that sufficient, or are you still in the dark? |
I'm still in the dark. Let's try this one on for size:
In an appearance Tuesday on "ESPN First Take," Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Chad Johnson said he remains undecided about his future with the team.
"I want to continue my career wherever I have the opportunity to win a playoff game and get to the Super Bowl. That's where I want to be," Johnson said.
When asked if that described his situation in Cincinnati, Johnson said: "I'm not sure. I have no idea."
Johnson also said he wasn't sure if he wanted to return to the Bengals, saying he was "undecided." He said he hasn't spoken with anyone from the Bengals this offseason.
Johnson, who finished with a single-season franchise-record 1,440 receiving yards, has had six consecutive seasons with at least 1,000 receiving yards. He is under contract with the Bengals through 2011 after signing a $35.5 million extension in April 2006.
However, Johnson has been outspoken this offseason about his unhappiness with the situation in Cincinnati.
Coach Marvin Lewis has said repeatedly this offseason that the Bengals have no plans to trade Johnson. "There will be no trade of Chad Johnson. Repeat it again," he said in January.
Despite his franchise-record yardage total in 2007, Johnson said he wasn't happy with his performance.
"I consider it a bad year for me because I had some inconsistencies myself," he said.
"I just didn't play well. I didn't play well at all."
Alright, Zorn and Company. Now would be a good time to focus. It's clear Johnson wants out of Cincy. Despite Marvin Lewis' comments to the contrary, I think Cincy would take the Redskins' 1st round draft choice, perhaps a first and third round draft choice to trade Johnson. He's no longer the #1 receiver on his team.
Anyone with arguments as to why a draft pick wide receiver would be a better option than a proven veteran among the league leaders in receptions, yardage and touchdowns as the #2 receiver on his team please respond.
I implore you again, Zorn and Company. Focus, don't fucus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
yupchagee
#14
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 4111
Location: Louisville KY
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GSPODS wrote: | | SkinsFreak wrote: | | GSPODS wrote: | | If you disagree, you're entitled. But offer up something more than D.J. Hackett as proof the Redskins are seriously trying to obtain a #2 wide receiver. |
Even further proof...
Wide Receiver Position Remains a Focus
| Quote: | | Wide receiver remains an off-season need, Zorn said. |
Is that sufficient, or are you still in the dark? |
I'm still in the dark. Let's try this one on for size:
In an appearance Tuesday on "ESPN First Take," Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Chad Johnson said he remains undecided about his future with the team.
"I want to continue my career wherever I have the opportunity to win a playoff game and get to the Super Bowl. That's where I want to be," Johnson said.
When asked if that described his situation in Cincinnati, Johnson said: "I'm not sure. I have no idea."
Johnson also said he wasn't sure if he wanted to return to the Bengals, saying he was "undecided." He said he hasn't spoken with anyone from the Bengals this offseason.
Johnson, who finished with a single-season franchise-record 1,440 receiving yards, has had six consecutive seasons with at least 1,000 receiving yards. He is under contract with the Bengals through 2011 after signing a $35.5 million extension in April 2006.
However, Johnson has been outspoken this offseason about his unhappiness with the situation in Cincinnati.
Coach Marvin Lewis has said repeatedly this offseason that the Bengals have no plans to trade Johnson. "There will be no trade of Chad Johnson. Repeat it again," he said in January.
Despite his franchise-record yardage total in 2007, Johnson said he wasn't happy with his performance.
"I consider it a bad year for me because I had some inconsistencies myself," he said.
"I just didn't play well. I didn't play well at all."
Alright, Zorn and Company. Now would be a good time to focus. It's clear Johnson wants out of Cincy. Despite Marvin Lewis' comments to the contrary, I think Cincy would take the Redskins' 1st round draft choice, perhaps a first and third round draft choice to trade Johnson. He's no longer the #1 receiver on his team.
Anyone with arguments as to why a draft pick wide receiver would be a better option than a proven veteran among the league leaders in receptions, yardage and touchdowns as the #2 receiver on his team please respond.
I implore you again, Zorn and Company. Focus, don't fucus. |
Maybe the fact that he is 30 yrs old & is the #2 WR on his team are reasons not to strip ourselves of draft picks for him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yupchagee wrote: | | Maybe the fact that he is 30 yrs old & is the #2 WR on his team are reasons not to strip ourselves of draft picks for him. |
30 is not old for a wide receiver. He has at least another 5 years. He is the #2 receiver on his current team but has better stats than any of the Redskins wide receivers, meaning he would be the #1 wide receiver in D.C., leaving some under-talented #2 corner to try and cover Santana Moss, and some safety or nickelback trying to cover Antwan Randle-El. A #2 cornerback or any experienced safety can cover most rookie wide receivers. The same cannot be said for three capable veterans.
While I don't want the Redskins to resort to business as usual, one trade for a player of Johnson's abilities would make a world of difference in solving the wide receiver issue.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
CanesSkins26
Canes Skin
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 6870
Location: Alexandria, VA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GSPODS wrote: | | yupchagee wrote: | | Maybe the fact that he is 30 yrs old & is the #2 WR on his team are reasons not to strip ourselves of draft picks for him. |
30 is not old for a wide receiver. He has at least another 5 years. He is the #2 receiver on his current team but has better stats than any of the Redskins wide receivers, meaning he would be the #1 wide receiver in D.C., leaving some under-talented #2 corner to try and cover Santana Moss, and some safety or nickelback trying to cover Antwan Randle-El. A #2 cornerback or any experienced safety can cover most rookie wide receivers. The same cannot be said for three capable veterans.
While I don't want the Redskins to resort to business as usual, one trade for a player of Johnson's abilities would make a world of difference in solving the wide receiver issue.
|
The Bengals aren't going to trade Johnson. They have said it repeatedly. The cap hit for Bengals if they trade Johnson is over $8 million. And if they were going to trade him, they likely would have done it already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CanesSkins26 wrote: | | GSPODS wrote: | | yupchagee wrote: | | Maybe the fact that he is 30 yrs old & is the #2 WR on his team are reasons not to strip ourselves of draft picks for him. |
30 is not old for a wide receiver. He has at least another 5 years. He is the #2 receiver on his current team but has better stats than any of the Redskins wide receivers, meaning he would be the #1 wide receiver in D.C., leaving some under-talented #2 corner to try and cover Santana Moss, and some safety or nickelback trying to cover Antwan Randle-El. A #2 cornerback or any experienced safety can cover most rookie wide receivers. The same cannot be said for three capable veterans.
While I don't want the Redskins to resort to business as usual, one trade for a player of Johnson's abilities would make a world of difference in solving the wide receiver issue.
|
The Bengals aren't going to trade Johnson. They have said it repeatedly. The cap hit for Bengals if they trade Johnson is over $8 million. And if they were going to trade him, they likely would have done it already. |
The dead cap is not the concern for the Bengals.
2008 Projected Cap Status: $84,790,000 or $31,210,000 under the projected Cap of $116,000,000.
http://www.thehogs.net/content/index.php?id=1088
His contract is not the issue for Chad Johnson. Johnson had 93 receptions for 1440 yards and publicly stated he had an off year. He also publicly stated, "I need a fresh start". Marvin Lewis' comments aside, if a player makes a statement to the effect of "I don't want to be here anymore", and the statement has nothing to do with contract terms, why would a team think they could change the player's attitude? With Lance Briggs, it was about the contract. With Johnson, it isn't.
Will Chad Johnson play for the Bengals in 2008?
(Poll from NFL.com)
48% Yes
52% No
Total Votes: 21186
Maybe the Bengals won't trade Chad Johnson. But over 50% of those who responded to the question think otherwise. If there is any possibility of acquiring this player, the Redskins should make it so. The odds of any draft choice being this productive are slim to none, leaning towards none.
Adding fuel to the fire:
Chad Johnson confirmed Tuesday that he will not take part in the Bengals' offseason conditioning program. The workouts are voluntary, but Chad has never missed them before. "I will not be there," he said. "There are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. Nothing has changed." Johnson wants either a new contract or a trade.
I haven't heard word one about a new contract from Chad Johnson. Considering the source of this information, the Cincy Inquirer, it might be slightly skewed. Johnson probably does want a new contract ... with a different team. |
|
| Back to top |
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cerrato dismisses speculation that the Redskins are cutting back. "That has nothing to do with it," he said. "If there was a player we felt we needed out there, that would make the difference for us, we would go out and get him. It's as simple as that."
We shall see if this holds true. There are players "out there" who would make a difference but they aren't going to knock on the door at Redskins Park. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SkinsFreak
Fire in the Sky
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 4884
Location: Surfside
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, I see... the Skins haven't attempted to trade for an 30 year old extremely expensive diva, so that must mean they have no interest in adding a receiver at all. Pathetic. I'd expect a better argument from a wannabe lawyer.
| Zorn On the Redskins' offensive personnel fitting his quick-hitting, West Coast scheme: wrote: | | Are you going to have more than two or three receivers at any time so your wide receiver group is important. To be diversified in that group. |
| Quote: | The Redskins have little interest in the remaining options at wide receiver in this market, team sources said, though the team still is waiting for Reche Caldwell to decide on their contract offer. They have no more visits scheduled with free agents, Cerrato said.
"If something comes up, we'll run it down," Zorn said. "But there isn't anything that I'm hot after, there's nothing on the hot list, per se."
In addition to seeking to bolster the defensive and offensive lines and hoping to add a pass-rushing end, the Redskins also will turn to the draft for a wide receiver, Zorn said. "I don't know if I want to say 'big' is the prerequisite," he said. "It can't be a 5-8 guy, I don't believe, but that's something [selecting a wide receiver high in the draft] that has to be definitely considered. I think it'll depend on who's available." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SkinsFreak wrote: | Oh, I see... the Skins haven't attempted to trade for an 30 year old extremely expensive diva, so that must mean they have no interest in adding a receiver at all. Pathetic. I'd expect a better argument from a wannabe lawyer.
| Zorn On the Redskins' offensive personnel fitting his quick-hitting, West Coast scheme: wrote: | | Are you going to have more than two or three receivers at any time so your wide receiver group is important. To be diversified in that group. |
| Quote: | The Redskins have little interest in the remaining options at wide receiver in this market, team sources said, though the team still is waiting for Reche Caldwell to decide on their contract offer. They have no more visits scheduled with free agents, Cerrato said.
"If something comes up, we'll run it down," Zorn said. "But there isn't anything that I'm hot after, there's nothing on the hot list, per se."
In addition to seeking to bolster the defensive and offensive lines and hoping to add a pass-rushing end, the Redskins also will turn to the draft for a wide receiver, Zorn said. "I don't know if I want to say 'big' is the prerequisite," he said. "It can't be a 5-8 guy, I don't believe, but that's something [selecting a wide receiver high in the draft] that has to be definitely considered. I think it'll depend on who's available." |
|
Rather than tossing inaccurate and false personal accusations, how about refuting the argument that the Redskins should inquire about making this deal? Name me a #1 wide receiver with Johnson's stats that hasn't missed a game in four seasons. Name another receiver who had a 1300+ yard receiving "off-year" in between two 1400+ yard receiving seasons.
Name a Redskin who caught 93 passes. Name a Redskins wide receiver over 6'0". Stop using useless emoticons and personal insults and answer the question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
 |
| Page 3 of 6 | All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
