DiscoBob Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 If we do the following I'd be totally fine with this pick: 1) Trade Springs for a 3rd 2) Trade Arch to the Bears after June 1st for a 5th 3) Trade down 2-3 slots and pick up a 3rd Then we could afford to draft safety because we could use our 2 x 3rd, and 1 x 5th to pick DE, DL, DL.... We wouldn't get game changers, but we might get serviceable players, who could play some next year, and maybe more in years to come.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladdrac Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Archuleta has no trade value. None whatsoever. Every team knows that the Skins have postponed paying him his $5 million bonus because they're desperate to restructure it or get rid of him. And who would want to assume his fat contract? You'd be trading from a position of extreme weakness -- you couldn't get anything near his value in return, and especially not a serviceable defensive lineman. I second this. A grossly overpaid 4th string safety with no coverage skills has no trade value - that is, unless we can somehow swindle the Bears and Lovie into giving us a ham sandwich for Archuleta. I really like Laron Landry, but the the 'skins need to stop all this other talk and start investing first round picks in consecutive years on defensive lineman. I believe the last first rounder they spent on DL was Kenard Lang! The defensive line is the glaring weakness of this team. Time to address it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gutlead74 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 It's written into the team charter that no one named "Landry" shall play for us. Sorry. i dont think they are related:silly: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 But then we would turn to fox or Doughty or insert late FA/draft pick name here . I just cannot see us taking another top 10 DB, the third in 4 years, unless we want to be the anti lions . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I'm a DLman bandwagoner however if we draft a DT/DE whomever we pick with our first (assuming we don't trade down more than a few places) needs to be able to contribute from the start of the season and should be a starter 5 or 6 games in. If there are no DLman that can do this then it opens up the option for a Landry type player but AA would have to go without a big cap hit first... I still hope for a big DT though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Rob Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Honestly, I'd take him and be allright with that decision if it worked out that way. If we worked a 'trade down a few spots' deal and things fell into place. I'd be okay with that. Word is Landry is really impressing the scouts and coaches, and is moving his draft status way up. It would never hurt having 2 young, talented assassins in the secondary to tee off on Plaxico and TO!!! Man that'd make for some fun watchin'! With all that being said, I seriously doubt he ends up on our team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I don't like taking Landry here. Wait it out until draft day and see if someone bites on the #6. If Oakland takes CJ, it might not be a good thing if Russell and Quinn fall. Teams will figure, well if I don't get one, I'll get the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Our current secondary would be fine with a decent pass rush. That's why I'm on board with trying to improve our defensive front seven first before tinkering with the secondary. If it was just our pass defense that sucked then I'd say sure. But we couldn't stop the run either. All of the symptoms and issues from last year point towards the front seven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALLWORLD Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 If there is a possiblity of trading Arch (gives up roster bonus, #4 or #5 pick from someone) I really think something along those lines are more of what I could see them doing and it being a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowland Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Unless the Skins can recoup 2nd, 3rd and 4th rd picks, they don't have the luxury to take another DB this high in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazhog Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I like the thought... it's certainly worth tossing around. I believe the Bears would be interested in Arch! They have some draft picks... let alone D-Lineman... I'm just not sure how the numbers and/or monies would work out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gutlead74 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 the last first rounder they spent on DL was Kenard Lang! The defensive line is the glaring weakness of this team. Time to address it now. how did that workout???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamshatterer Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I've wanted Landry in the first place. His coverage skills IS better than Taylor. At LSU, the LB's were good enough where the secondary never bite on play action which improved his coverage skills. The kid is amazing. I wouldn't mind a DE, but I think we should take Landry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dana87 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Most Mocks have him going to ATL at #10. If CJ drops to us (doubtful) we can trade down with ATL and hold out for picks 10 & 44. We take Landry to pair with Taylor and then at 44 we take best available DL...DE Crowder, DE Moses, DT Harrell, DE Moss. We then trade AA to CHI for #94 and then we can take best available OG, CB, TE... TE Patrick would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowland Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 how did that workout???? To be honest, I'd take Lang over any of the DEs the Skins have now. The guy was never a pro-bowler but he's always been solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santana Clause Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I think Archuleta may be able to net us Reagan Upshaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santana Clause Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Or it may be enough to lure Lionel Dalton back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgs44 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Landry didnt do all that well in the shuttle and 3 cone drill, which could mean he doesnt have the fluid change of direction that is needed covering. I think he could still be good, but I would not for a minute think of taking him 6th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I think too many things would have to happen for us to nab Landry. You don't take him at 6, even though he might warrant a high pick, because he'd be a reach there, so in order to get him you'd have to hope a solid player lands in our lap, one that another team would be willing to trade up for, all the while hoping said team's 1st rounder is high enough to still get him. My guess is he'll land in the top 10, maybe 15 depending on how things go. I don't think ANY player in this draft is good enough to pass on the opportunity to trade down for more picks, maybe CJ, but we don't need a WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowland Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Trading Arch to the Bears could happen for a late rd pick. But for it to workout, Arch will have to void the option bonus and come to an agreement with the Bears on a new deal that would allow him to get that $5 mil back this year. Arch and his agent aren't going to walk away from that cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gutlead74 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Maybe Ogunley???? wouldnt happen but it sounds great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeGreen Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 The majority in this thread believe AA has no trade value. I concur. Before June 1st: one bag of used sand in trade After June 1st: two bags of sand in trade After June 1st (w/Bears only): sand, a 6th or 7th from '08 but only if all current Bears' DBs break their legs in mini-camps and the room is filled with hallucigenic smoke during the time of trade. Seriously, I'm still a big proponent of trading down the #6 and adding young, decent talent to an aging team. A lower pick also means less cap hit. I know Joe and crew want to win now, but if you're banking on a rookie coming in an being a high impact player, why not bring in two or three? Just move down 2-6 spots and you should be able to address DL, DB and OL depth with the extra picks. This team is more than one star rookie player away from being a real threat to the rest of the NFC. And, heaven forbid, what if we put it all on the line for <fill-in player name here> at #6 and he turns out to be a bust or gets hurt in camp? Your chances of success improve with more picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleazye Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 last night i had a dream that we drafted Landry and i got to meet him, it was pretty awesome. My friend goes to LSU and he's been telling me for years that the skins need this guy. having a dominating secondary with ST and LL would be awesome, and i agree that there are no dominating DE's in this draft... just a huge crop of good ones. But let's remember that we thought the same thing about getting arch deluxe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I'd rather trade down and try to get Meriwhether from "The U" in the second round, while getting a good lineman in the first... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Day Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Archuleta has no trade value. None whatsoever. Every team knows that the Skins have postponed paying him his $5 million bonus because they're desperate to restructure it or get rid of him. And who would want to assume his fat contract? You'd be trading from a position of extreme weakness -- you couldn't get anything near his value in return, and especially not a serviceable defensive lineman. First off this is def doable. Atlanta needs a safety bad so if we were targeting him then we would have to keep it quiet as the thread starter said. 1. Sign Ian Scott DT Bears 2. Trade down at most to #9 if possible. Gain a third round pick. 3. Draft Landry 4. Trade AA to the bears for hopefully a third mayb their second (they have their second #31 and our second #6) 5. If we still want a stud DE trade our second next year and AA for their 1st round pick or our second back this year. Draft best Pass rushing DE available. 6. We could also trade next years #1 for a early second and draft best DE available. To those who think AA cannot be traded because of his contract. If he is traded and agrees to forgo his 5 mil option bonus and release the salary guarantee clauses in his contract (as rumored for the reason he postponed the deadline for the redskins to make the decision) ala Lavar Arrington. His contract the team who trades for him will be this year = .595 mil next year = 1 mil 09 = 4 mil 10 = 5 mil That is hardly a monster contract especially considering this year FA period. Also remember he will do a new contract after the trade. Cost to trade AA for the skins this year will be 1.5 mil over his current cap charge. Also hardly prohibitive. (assuming he does as underlined above). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.