| Author |
Message |
GoSkins
goskins
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 645
Location: Hampden-Sydney, VA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:20 am Post subject: The Plan If Bradford Falls to Us |
 |
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
skins2357
Hog
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 669
Location: Columbia MD
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Pablo
piglet
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
The Hogster
#######
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 7002
Location: Washington D.C.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Okung, Lefevour |
|
| Back to top |
|
SkinsJock
08 Champ
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 11514
Location: New England
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 
you have to take the QB - there are tons of offensive linemen  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
 |
CanesSkins26
Canes Skin
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 6870
Location: Alexandria, VA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If Bradford is there at 4 we are taking him unless we get absolutely blown away with a deal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
brad7686
B-rad
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 2991
Location: De La War
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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
you have to take the QB - there are tons of offensive linemen |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
skins7521
newbie
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
chiefhog44
**ch44
Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 2300
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think you take Bradford at 4 and trade cambell and Haynesworth for a #1 and pick up a LT |
|
| Back to top |
|
SkinsJock
08 Champ
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 11514
Location: New England
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
riggofan
Hog
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 2942
Location: Montclair, Virginia
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
brad7686
B-rad
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 2991
Location: De La War
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SkinsJock
08 Champ
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 11514
Location: New England
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
brad7686
B-rad
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 2991
Location: De La War
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
I will mark them but they aren't correct |
|
| Back to top |
|
chiefhog44
**ch44
Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 2300
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
 |
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
