jimster Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 why not suck it up...accept the reality of the situation....and build this team over 2-3 years through the draft? kinda like San Diego? then coast for 5-6 years with late first round picks ...:-).....that replenish areas of need. we keep repeating these faulty "get rich quick" strategies that simply do not work.The FO has had the wrong vision all along. we will always be in a 2 year cycle instead of a 6 year cycle as long as we ignore the draft as the foundation to longevity and competitive football. there's no reason we can't do that AND a add a FA or two this year to fill some weaknesses and be competitive in the process. Just don't trade any of our future picks for those FA's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 the worst thought to me was the suggestion we TRADE for Dre Bly who is approaching 30. obviously the Lions want picks back and we don't have any to give, even if this trade made sense for the backfield long-term. I agree that any offseason moves for veterans should be for free and clear FAs and not trades that cost us future picks................. The Archuleta signing only cost cap room, although that is obviously important as well. But Brandon Lloyd? He cost us the bucks but then also cost #3 and #4 draft choices. That was killer for a team crying out for depth on both lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 we need a MLB, a CB, a DE and a DT. one of them can be addressed in the draft with our high pick, or maybe two of them if we trade down. CB will be clements, no way snyder is outbid for that guy. MLB will be fletcher or that dude from KC. DE or DT will be in the draft. what im really hoping, is that if we select a DE with our high pick, Golston and Montgomry can step up and be the starters they are supposed to be. if you look at their sizes, golston is the quicker DT and mont is the huge mammoth run stopper guy. if we can get them coached up to be starters, that would be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNFN_48 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Clements will require at least a 20mm bonus. Ummmm, that's Payton Manning Money my man....never. :dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurd Cudins Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Ummmm, that's Payton Manning Money my man....never. :dallasuckUnfortunately, its going to be even more, and we're going to pay it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Golston is the #3 tackle right now on a good defense. Montgomery is still a project, developmental player. Both should be kept and are hedges against the future, but the Redskins have to be thinking about a move inside as well as a move outside at DE in the draft and or mid-tier free agency. I prefer either of two scenarios: 1. We trade down from #6 and use a mid-first to take a Carriker type DE and then use the extra pick at #2 to take a DT that drops out of the first round. That way we bring in blue chip talent but at reasonable long-term cost and have (in addition to the two 2006 picks) FOUR younger guys across the board to look forward to seeing in burgundy and gold for the next 4-5 years. 2. We keep the #6 pick and grab the best DE/DT available. We then trade Ladell Betts for draft picks and use those selections to add extra DE/DT not chosen in Round 1 and the linebacker we have needed inside. If no ILB presents, then add depth at OT with the selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 there's no reason we can't do that AND a add a FA or two this year to fill some weaknesses and be competitive in the process. Just don't trade any of our future picks for those FA's. agree that a fundamental weakness has been the team's willingness to trade future draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyndorf25 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 It would mean that Lemar would compete with McIntosh for the starting OLB position. I'm hoping that Rocky wins, and that Lemar would back up all three positions and play a key role off the bench. I suppose I have a much higher regard for Marshall than most people. What I really like about his game is that he is a hustler-never taking a play off, has pretty good speed for a LB, and most of all he has football smarts. As a MLB he was making the calls to the rest of the defense on the field and calling for the adjustments. I dont think you can have too many players like that on the field as long as everyone is on the same page. I would be excited to have a starting LBing corps of Fletcher in the middle and Washington and Marshall on the outside. I like McIntosh, but something tells me that he has not won over Williams yet...and I think that might have more to do with the mental part of the game than anything else. At any rate...as others have said before, even if Fletcher is brought in and the rest of the LBing corps settles in, the defense will still need to address the D-line so that the LBs can be free to roam and make plays. Alan Branch anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
28sMyhero Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 What's the deal with people wanting to trade Betts? I can't understand it, half the people are saying we need to keep him and show some loyalty and others say trade him for picks. Ok we have 2 prime RBs but we also have more darn WRs than we can use. how about lets trade some of those for picks and or DL help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Day Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 1st off we have cap reasons for not trading the WR, and RB is a area of strenth and LB's value will never be higher. He has a cap friendly deal to trade. BTW I don't believe in trading him for anything less then a top 2nd round pick. If Vilma is being offered for him then that would be insane not to take it. Vilma is a young Pro Bowl caliber MLB. You take a probowl starter for a Backup trade anyday of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
28sMyhero Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I don't agree. Betts on any other team is a probowl back and I feel should be treated as such. The only reason he isn't for us is Portis. And as long as people are throughing out dream ideas why not just go after Urlacher? He isn't available either, but lord knows Snider would pay whatever he wanted. I think there are a lot of good people that would add to our ability to win games available that we wouldn't have to even think about giving up Betts for. Betts was a key factor in several wins for us last year and feel he deserves some loyalty. Lets move to improve not give-up the few good things we had last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple6mafia Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Why do we love getting all the ex-buffalo bills on our team (bruce smith, andre reed, pierson, james posey, todd collins). Also, we dont want nate. Hes gonna cost too much and he is not all that great. He got his ints off of poorly thrown balls and what not. London is gettin old, but i guess hed work for a lb cuase hes still playing well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Why do we love getting all the ex-buffalo bills on our team (bruce smith, andre reed, pierson, james posey, todd collins). Also, we dont want nate. Hes gonna cost too much and he is not all that great. He got his ints off of poorly thrown balls and what not. London is gettin old, but i guess hed work for a lb cuase hes still playing well. most interceptions are from poorly thrown balls, and the balls are thrown poorly because the pass rush makes the QB react quickly. rarely do you see a sure fire pass that gets picked off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEavyJumbo85 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 It was to honor his grandfather or something like that. ______ Baker.Not his wife. I think you're thinking of Maurice Jones-Drew of the Jaguars who added the Jones to his name coming out of college for his Grandfather. I'm almost positive Fletcher added Baker because of his wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Golston is the #3 tackle right now on a good defense. Montgomery is still a project, developmental player. Both should be kept and are hedges against the future, but the Redskins have to be thinking about a move inside as well as a move outside at DE in the draft and or mid-tier free agency.I prefer either of two scenarios: 1. We trade down from #6 and use a mid-first to take a Carriker type DE and then use the extra pick at #2 to take a DT that drops out of the first round. That way we bring in blue chip talent but at reasonable long-term cost and have (in addition to the two 2006 picks) FOUR younger guys across the board to look forward to seeing in burgundy and gold for the next 4-5 years. 2. We keep the #6 pick and grab the best DE/DT available. We then trade Ladell Betts for draft picks and use those selections to add extra DE/DT not chosen in Round 1 and the linebacker we have needed inside. If no ILB presents, then add depth at OT with the selection. this is the best scenario ive heard. youre the man. trading betts for draft picks is such a good idea. imagine, the redskins trading PLAYERS for draft picks? genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 We are not trading Betts. Saunders LOVES HIM and Portis tends to get banged up once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 espn is saying the bills other defensive end is on the market too. chris kelsay. wouldnt it be hillarious if we got clements/baker/and kelsay? and does anyone know anything about this kelsay guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsngibbs4life Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I don't agree. Betts on any other team is a probowl back and I feel should be treated as such. The only reason he isn't for us is Portis. And as long as people are throughing out dream ideas why not just go after Urlacher? He isn't available either, but lord knows Snider would pay whatever he wanted. I think there are a lot of good people that would add to our ability to win games available that we wouldn't have to even think about giving up Betts for. Betts was a key factor in several wins for us last year and feel he deserves some loyalty. Lets move to improve not give-up the few good things we had last year. I disagree. Honestly, I think Betts was/is a product of the system. If you look at the games, just look at the type of blocking and holes he had to run through. Most of the people in this league with any speed would hit that hole and get 5 yards per carry. As much as I like him, I dont see him producing as well in any other system Trading betts would be stupid. Many teams have proven that 2 solid runningbacks is a must in todays game. With a combo of betts/portis, it doesnt get much better. I just think it would say a lot about our front office to go out an re-sign a core redskins, then go out and trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I disagree. Honestly, I think Betts was/is a product of the system. If you look at the games, just look at the type of blocking and holes he had to run through. Most of the people in this league with any speed would hit that hole and get 5 yards per carry. As much as I like him, I dont see him producing as well in any other systemTrading betts would be stupid. Many teams have proven that 2 solid runningbacks is a must in todays game. With a combo of betts/portis, it doesnt get much better. I just think it would say a lot about our front office to go out an re-sign a core redskins, then go out and trade. so if betts is the product of our system, we could potentially insert another runningback in there and get the same results. hopefully we could trade him to a team like the jets or lions who need a RB and we could get Defense or draft picks in return. seems pretty logical to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Day Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Betts success can be directly attributed to the outstanding holes he had to run through at the end of the year. which can be attributed to the lack of the 8 man fronts when JC took over. Betts was unspectacular early last year when D's stacked the line against MB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Betts excelled because once he learned the system, he did what Saunders (who supposedly prefers him to CP) told him to do. Outside of his fumbles, which is a real concern, he was a flat-out beast over the last six games or so. Product of the system, great blocking, whatever -- the man was putting up numbers literally only equaled by LT and LJ. You can't dismiss that. No doubt about it, he is going to push Portis for time this year. And why is that such a bad thing? The competition will just make CP play better. We're set at running back any way you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siven Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Betts excelled because once he learned the system, he did what Saunders (who supposedly prefers him to CP) told him to do. Outside of his fumbles, which is a real concern, he was a flat-out beast over the last six games or so. Product of the system, great blocking, whatever -- the man was putting up numbers literally only equaled by LT and LJ. You can't dismiss that.No doubt about it, he is going to push Portis for time this year. And why is that such a bad thing? The competition will just make CP play better. We're set at running back any way you look at it. Numbers like LT and LJ? one problem, LT and LJ punch it into the endzone for 6, and Betts simply can not do that. Betts would be great paired with someone like Marion Barber Jones III or whatever his name is, because he can punch it in, or someone like brandon jacobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Who has punched it in for six lately on the Skins? Certainly not CP. The touchdowns will come -- for both -- as the team gets more comfortable in Saunders system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siven Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 most interceptions are from poorly thrown balls, and the balls are thrown poorly because the pass rush makes the QB react quickly. rarely do you see a sure fire pass that gets picked off. champ bailey is the only CB that can really get at that ball and beat a WR to it, he is just that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Who has punched it in for six lately on the Skins? Certainly not CP. The touchdowns will come -- for both -- as the team gets more comfortable in Saunders system. dude, portis playing with worse o-line play early in the season combined with a horrid shoulder injury managed to pu up more TDs than betts did, and betts rushed for 1100+ yards. thats just not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.