Veretax Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 2007 The creator of this thread, whereas Pittman usually makes absurd threads for fun involving the Pewter Pirates. I figured this had to be a joke.I mean c'mon, Brunell will be 37 years old in September, has a huge heart, is super-smart, but carries a limp noodle for an arm. To trade the 4th overall pick for the 6th overall, in terms of value, would equate to a mid-3rd round pick as the difference. Who on God's green earth is going to give you a 3rd round pick for Scott? Only one man- Vinny Cerrato. And he did it when Brunell was 3 years younger, in 2004. :doh: Well then I dispute your claim, Ive not been on this board long, I didn't even know the skins had a site till last year. (I am a bit embarassed about that seeing as how I've been a huge skins fan since the 80s and being a tech guy, but my area didn't cover the skins much.) It is a What if hypothetical. The idea popped in my head that brunnel could do better then Gradowski, but there is still chris simms in the equation. And there are other QBs on the market that might be cheaper to get ala Plummer. In summation, it wasn't a full tought out scenario when I posted it, (which is why I asked for opinions, because I am only one guy, and new if it was s tupid idea someone would post legitimate reasons why it wouldn't happen.) I got my answers so if a mody wants to lock it be my guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 2007 Again,why would we do this? Mark has a huge contract and no way the Bucs take it on. I doubt Mark will take a pay cut so he can go get traded and backup another young QB either. Yeah, I know you want to have CJ's childern (like a few others) but at least try to stick with stuff like "if/when he falls to us at #6" stuff. At least it's abit more plausable. We dont have any picks as it is due to retarded moves like this would be. And if we had a 2nd and 3rd and 4th round pick THIS year getting CJ at #6 would be even less of a bad thing. But we dont, and CJ will most likely not be there at 6. And to trade up for a guy that is not a pressing need on you team is boderline insane. And the bucs dont swap for a 36 year old QB that has been injury prone as of late and has a HUGE contract. aha, blade is finally smelling the juice, so you just admitted that if CJ falls to ius it is plausible to take him! (this thread wasnt about CJ ultimately, but was worth it to hear that.) But like I said I hadn't fully thought through the implications there, was at work on lunch when i posted it, (blame it on low sugar levels if you want.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#1njskinsfan Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 i would drive MB8 to the airport myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociofan Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Okay. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this is not such a bad deal to offer. I'm John Gruden and I've got NO quarterbacks on the roster I trust. As much as I'd like to have CJ, I can find serviceable WRs anywhere. But how often can I find a solid QB? By taking Brunell, you bring in a veteran who still has enough to run a team for a year (he just had 9 months to rest and his deep ball 2 years ago WAS beautiful to Moss) and then serve as a mentor/#2. You trade down and will still likely be able to pick up Quinn at #6. I know that everyone thinks CJ is the next big thing, but look at the WRs who in just the past few years were the next "Big Thing" and went top 10: 2005: Braylon Edwards Troy Williamson Mike Williams 2004: Larry Fitzgerald Roy Williams Reggie Williams 2003: Charles Rogers Andre Johnson 2001: David Terrell Koren Robinson How many of those guys are worth a top 10 pick? Fitzgerald is the only one I'd even bounce a nod toward. Historically, much more value from WRs can be found later in the draft. If they can pass on CJ, the trade actually would make a lot of sense. The last time I checked, the Bucs were still $21 million under the cap and so this would not kill them on the dollar front, but could really be a bonus for a team with a young QB. Late edit: But the question is, "Why would the REDSKINS want to make this trade?" Other than moving Brunell, we gain no benefit. The players the Skins are looking at will all still be there at #6, but we would end up losing a backup QB and maybe even some picks. Oh, wait.....that's exactly why the Skins' front office would make the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tastes Like Chicken Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 It is a What if hypothetical. The idea popped in my head that brunnel could do better then Gradowski, but there is still chris simms in the equation. And there are other QBs on the market that might be cheaper to get ala Plummer. In summation, it wasn't a full tought out scenario when I posted it, (which is why I asked for opinions, because I am only one guy, and new if it was s tupid idea someone would post legitimate reasons why it wouldn't happen.) I got my answers so if a mody wants to lock it be my guest I can't think of any team in the NFL that would start Brunell at QB at this point. And I don't think we could trade him even if there was an offer on the table, considering his contract and the cap ramifications. The Bucs need, IMO, WR and D-line, neither of which we are able to part with in a trade scenario (or have anything that the Bucs would make a trade for). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnFoRcEr_uPu Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Yeah I know shoulder surgery not withstanding. if Brunnel were healthy, do you think a trade of him to tampa would work? or is it not likely because TB might want one more pick? Didn't Simms just sign a 3-year extension? I can't see him not starting this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boysetsfire Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 I don't think anyone will take an aging QB who is injury prone. Especially the likes of Brunell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 aha, blade is finally smelling the juice, so you just admitted that if CJ falls to ius it is plausible to take him! (this thread wasnt about CJ ultimately, but was worth it to hear that.) But like I said I hadn't fully thought through the implications there, was at work on lunch when i posted it, (blame it on low sugar levels if you want.) Nope, not at all. I try not to get that close to his jock to smell the .......juice. I also stated that if we had all our picks (not missing the 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders) it would be "less" problematic. I also, can be a little more flexable with stuff than alot of people around here. I dont marry myself to one guy and expect the world. Say CJ falls ot us at #6 and we take him. Dont expect a SB this year. Dont expect the division or even the playoffs. We're gonna be bad, probably for another couple of years. But if he is not a bust, and we pick well defensively after the fact the team could be very dangerous in 3 years. I've actually said that before, but he is not going help us this year. Or show much next year in terms of wins. Defense is by far the worst of the 2 halves here. And you wont help it by tweaking the offence. Now if you want to say, "drafting CJ now and then going through a couple of similar seasons to what we just did is worth it in the long run" I can see your point. Dependent of course on how well our all-defensive drafts go in the next couple years. See? Im more open minded than you'd think. But it's got to make some sence. :point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santana Clause Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Closed thread please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 I initially thought they might be looking at a QB also, but I think Gruden is going to stick with Simms (credit to another poster who informed me that Simms signed a new deal with Tampa earlier) That would be me!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Nope, not at all. I try not to get that close to his jock to smell the .......juice. I also stated that if we had all our picks (not missing the 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders) it would be "less" problematic. I also, can be a little more flexable with stuff than alot of people around here. I dont marry myself to one guy and expect the world. Say CJ falls ot us at #6 and we take him. Dont expect a SB this year. Dont expect the division or even the playoffs. We're gonna be bad, probably for another couple of years. But if he is not a bust, and we pick well defensively after the fact the team could be very dangerous in 3 years. I've actually said that before, but he is not going help us this year. Or show much next year in terms of wins. Defense is by far the worst of the 2 halves here. And you wont help it by tweaking the offence.Now if you want to say, "drafting CJ now and then going through a couple of similar seasons to what we just did is worth it in the long run" I can see your point. Dependent of course on how well our all-defensive drafts go in the next couple years. See? Im more open minded than you'd think. But it's got to make some sence. :point2sky This pretty much sums up what I've been saying all along. IF, we have our 2nd, 3rd and 4th, I'm all aboard 100% taking CJ. We could go after defense with the next three picks. But we have no wiggle room to use our only pick on a player that may only make us marginally better on one side of the ball, while the other side suffers. Not having the 3 picks has made the #6 a defensive/trade down must. CJ will have to have his HOF career with someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 2007 Nope, not at all. I try not to get that close to his jock to smell the .......juice. I also stated that if we had all our picks (not missing the 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders) it would be "less" problematic. I also, can be a little more flexable with stuff than alot of people around here. I dont marry myself to one guy and expect the world. Say CJ falls ot us at #6 and we take him. Dont expect a SB this year. Dont expect the division or even the playoffs. We're gonna be bad, probably for another couple of years. But if he is not a bust, and we pick well defensively after the fact the team could be very dangerous in 3 years. I've actually said that before, but he is not going help us this year. Or show much next year in terms of wins. Defense is by far the worst of the 2 halves here. And you wont help it by tweaking the offence.Now if you want to say, "drafting CJ now and then going through a couple of similar seasons to what we just did is worth it in the long run" I can see your point. Dependent of course on how well our all-defensive drafts go in the next couple years. See? Im more open minded than you'd think. But it's got to make some sence. :point2sky See I think this is where I disagree with those that think DLine is where we should go. I don't see us in a SB or Playoffs next yaer. I see us maybe 2-3 years away from a SB. THat having been said we could suffer through our D problems a little this year and pick up a caliber wide out that will be with us when we finally get around to cutting lloyd or some other wideout. Next yaer I'd be surprised if we went 10-6, but I'd also be surprised if we went 5-11 or worse again, more likely its 7-9 or 9-7 all depending on how we play early in the season. A few breaks here or there and we could have been 7-9 last season. This pretty much sums up what I've been saying all along. IF, we have our 2nd, 3rd and 4th, I'm all aboard 100% taking CJ. We could go after defense with the next three picks. But we have no wiggle room to use our only pick on a player that may only make us marginally better on one side of the ball, while the other side suffers. Not having the 3 picks has made the #6 a defensive/trade down must. CJ will have to have his HOF career with someone else. I disagree. When you have no picks, your best bet is picking one Surefire pick as to pick one that may not work out with your current scheme. In some of the speculation about CJ falling to us, both Branch and Andersen could be gone. I don't want Jarvis Moss, and the kid from UL isn't worth picking at 6 (sorry but he isn't, too young for my tstes), so if it were me I'd take CJ in a heart beat with only 2 minutes to think about it. Was our defense bad last year? Yes we all agree, but it doesn't take much to put our D back in the middle of the pack, and a middle pack D could result in 9-7 and playoffs. This is the NFC we play in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
occidio Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 this is almost as bad as the trade lavar for carson palmer thread. I dont know where people come up with these retarded trade ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossman_SKins Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 tampa needs a wr and is going to draft CJ, so would would they trade down with us at 6, only to have us pick CJ and use him to trade down for more picks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcl05 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Maybe TB would take him to switch picks in the 7th round, but I doubt it. This is just plain dumb and a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celts32 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Is this thread actually making a case that the 2007 version of MB is a better QB than Chris Simms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 2007 allright from the kiper thread for those of you that think TB does NOT have any WRs All right time for me to disagree check out this roster of Wideouts.Joey Galloway Age: 35 Height: 5-11 Weight: 197 Experience: 12 Ohio State Ike Hilliard Age: 30 Height: 5-11 Weight: 210 Experience: 10 Florida David Boston Age: 28 Height: 6-2 Weight: 228 Experience: 8 Ohio State Mark Jones Age: 26 Height: 5-9 Weight: 185 Experience: 3 Tennessee Chas Gessner Age: 25 Height: 6-4 Weight: 215 Experience: 1 Brown Chad Lucas Age: 25 Height: 6-1 Weight: 201 Experience: 1 Alabama State Michael Clayton Age: 24 Height: 6-3 Weight: 215 Experience: 3 LSU Paris Warren Age: 24 Height: 6-0 Weight: 213 Experience: 2 Utah Chad Owens Age: 24 Height: 5-7 Weight: 188 Experience: 1 Hawaii Efrem Hill Age: 23 Height: 6-2 Weight: 185 Experience: 1 Samford Maurice Stovall Age: 22 Height: 6-4 Weight: 229 Experience: R Notre Dame They have 2 WR over 30 this is true, one is 28 the rest are under 26 with good youth and some modest experience. That is not including their Tight Ends that can catch see: Anthony Becht (didn't realize TB had him) THey got some talent already in their corp, but when your best QB goes down most teams would be hurting somewhat. TB may not be in as dire need for A WR as you can think. And if they are lacking it might be an Experienced guy to add to their youth. They have plenty of WRs all but 3 are under the age of 27 and yes 2007 Mark Brunnel >>> Chris Simms I see to much "ryan leaf" in chris simms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Is this thread actually making a case that the 2007 version of MB is a better QB than Chris Simms? Well, it's possible that Tampa believes that. That is, it's possible if their entire Front Office sustained massive head injuries, or if Vinny has mastered the Jedi mind trick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkforhall Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 i would drive MB8 to the airport myself I'd let Dallas have him for free, maybe even pay them, and pray he got in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 allright from the kiper thread for those of you that think TB does NOT have any WRsThey have plenty of WRs all but 3 are under the age of 27 and yes 2007 Mark Brunnel >>> Chris Simms I see to much "ryan leaf" in chris simms Only 4 of those are notable- Clayton, Galloway, Boston and Hilliard. Simms in his 5th year this year. Ryan Leaf NO. Above avg. QB, ok. If he was leaf, he'd be gone by now and the team wouldn't have resigned him to an extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Only 4 of those are notable- Clayton, Galloway, Boston and Hilliard. And, of those, Galloway is 35, Clayton has been a bust, Hilliard is mediocre and Boston they just picked up off the scrap heap. Stovall has a chance to develop into an OK #3 or 4 WR. To anypne sane, this adds up to WR being a position of big need for them. The consensus last trining camp was that Simms was ready for a huge breakout year. Then came the fluke injury. They obviously believe in him because they just gave him an extension. And Gradkowski at least showed some promise as a rookie. QB doesn't look at all like a position of need. Above all else, tho, Brunell has ZERO trade value. This idea is pure lunacy, at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinSabbath Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 No one in hell would Tampa ever make that trade. I'm sure Gruden was impressed by Mark's explosive 41 yard game in Tampa in the playoffs. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: AHAHAHA MB is not going anywhere. I hope he will restructure to help us out, but he is unTRADEable with his cap penalty. Plus, without him, if campbell goes down we have Todd Collins to look forward to... :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohalete4lfe Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 ship # 8 off,,and let him do bum commercials,,down tamps,,abot bumnell's blvd...yea,,that's me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenandSix:Unacceptable Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I initially thought that this was a joke thread, but then I started thinking... ...maybe if we throw in Christian Fuaria they just might go for it! He is a very dependable veteran tight end and would be a good saftey valve for Mark in Tampa. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Full Monty Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Mark Brunell is a defensive coordinator's dream come true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.