Theoretically couldnt the skins trade next years 1st for a 1st round pick every year?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Next year's number one does not equal this year's number one.

So to get in the first round this year, you would need to trade something like next year's 1, 2, and 5.

Eventually, you reach a point where you have no picks.

[MidPennSkin]

Trade this years 2nd for next years 1st? I dont know of any team that ever did that? Give me an example.

It doesn't happen very often, but what does happen is trading this year's 1st for next year's 1st plus next year's 2nd or some combination of other picks from this and next year. With Denver last year, for Denver's 2005 1st, we traded our 2005 3rd plus our 2006 1st and 4th. And Denver wouldn't have agreed to that deal if they hadn't thought that our 2006 #1 pick would be higher than their 2005 #1 pick.

So the team that is willing to take deferred gratification gets more and/or better picks out of the deal, they just have to wait a year. It's a strategy of investing in the future that should pay off in the long run, if your scouting dept is any good. The skins don't seem to be playing that game, though, and so far it hasn't hurt us.

[shawn]

Before i post i will mention that i did try and search for a topic like this and didnt see one. If i have made a mistake, i apologize and will face the flogging.

Plus the whole title of this thread should be *Theoretically couldnt the skins trade next years 1st and some other picks for a 1st round pick every current year??? Didnt have enough space for the complete title.

Anyways, what im trying to say is just based on our situation now being without a 1st round pick, couldnt we trade next years 1st and maybe a 3rd or 4th every year for a first round pick in the area of our choosing. I mean i dont plan on the skins having a top 20 pick for many drafts to come due to our team being competitive and hopefully making the playoffs for a few years in a row. So when next year comes and we dont have a first, we just package 2008s 1st round and maybe a 3rd or 4th (or whatever pick it might take to get whatever top 20 talent we are trying to aquire and do this every year). It seems the Redskins only really want the draft to choose a top 20 talent, and then most of the time recently we dont have many picks left anyways.

Since Danny has been in control the team seems content on watching what players adjust and perfrom well in the NFL their first few years and then we normally give away picks to aquire them. So in a way we use our draft picks, just on players that have already proved they can hack it in the NFL. So i dont think it would bother the team if they had to trade a few picks along with next years first to move up and aquire whatever top 20 talent they want (If they want a top 20 talent every year). This way, not having a first round pick would never catch up to us unless one year the draft class is really weak and we dont consider it worth moving up. Im sure every year there is a NFL team with a top 20 pick that will trade down if the price is right, and we all know danny knows how to sweeten a deal to the point where the other party has to take it cause its that good.

I think the skins can build a really solid team by drafting a top 20 talent every year and adding young free agents in other places. And if we happen to have some picks left over, use them for depth and hopefully a diamond in the rough. Plus like i said before if we are going to the playoffs every year from here on out, we wont have a top 20 pick for a long time.... This way we can be a playoff team, and still get great top 20 talents. Kind of bending the rules.

theoretically anything is possible. but you have to think about the trading partner and what they think of the 1st round pick in the future year. last year it didn't look like the skins would be a playoff team. so they made the trade. but now since the skins look like a playoff team, it will cost a lot more to make a trade. plus you are contineously giving up a lot of other picks to get one pick.

[jnhay]

No, that wouldn't work, because there's no telling what pick in the first round we will get the next year. We would have to give more than just 1 pick. It also depends on who we get the pick from. If it's from Pittsburgh(I don't even know if they have a 1st rounder), they might be more inclined to trade with us, but it'll still take more than 1 pick.

a short yardage back to keep cp healthy? do the names rock, ladell, or cooley sound familiar?

Cooley isn't a short yardage back.

[Thirtyfive2seven]

No, that wouldn't work, because there's no telling what pick in the first round we will get the next year. We would have to give more than just 1 pick. It also depends on who we get the pick from. If it's from Pittsburgh(I don't even know if they have a 1st rounder), they might be more inclined to trade with us, but it'll still take more than 1 pick.

Cooley isn't a short yardage back.

I'm not sure if he meant that literally. Just in short yardage situations Cooley seems to be our go to guy.

[CPstretch]

eventually teams will realize that when we trade them our first pick for the following year, we will be giving them a pick in the mid to high 20s each year and it will not be worth it for the team anymore

[Butz65]

I like Nemo.... but on that 3&2 betts and rock kind of make me nervous. White i think is a huge upgrade over betts and rock. I think betts is gone next year anyways, I like rock and he has the heart but just isnt big enough, and White and Portis would be a great tandum for years to come in the grind it out old school NFC East. I would like to see Nemo become the player im talking about in White if we cant draft him. I liked what i saw from him last preseason.

*edit* Plus another part of me wants all of the players from the *dark* age to be gone so we dont have any reminders. Although the O-line can stay.

Sellars would be a better solution on 3rd and 2 than White. White looked good in the National Championship game but showed up small in the combines. Why take the risk when either Sellars or Betts can fill that role?

[Butz65]

I look at this differently. I think the FO takes the right approach. They identify positions of need then evaluate the best approach for filling that position. Top draft picks on defense seem pan out better than top picks on offense (WR's, RB's - even QB's). That's why we've taken players like Taylor and Rogers with higher picks and used FA to fill needs at WR, O-Line, etc. Living in Philly I've watched with glee as the Eagles have wasted high draft picks year after year on WR's only to see them fall flat (perhaps with the exception of Brown who still hasn't had enough time to prove himself). There's no need to trade for a #1 unless there's a college player who can impact a position more effectively than someone on the FA market.

[bbuzz1962]

Yes, the answer is yes. But NO. We must get away from this practice. We will have a year to determine who we need in next years draft, and maybe, just maybe, pick up someone special, who will fill a desperate need.