Nighthawk Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 "WR Andre Johnson - Miami: Mugged by the Washington Redskins at the combine. The Redskins plan to work out and watch Johnson, and are said to be "HOT" on Johnson." That's a direct qoute from All Pro Scouting's Matt Gambill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 YEAH BABY !!!!!!!!!!!! :jump: :party: :wave: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Can you say, "trade up"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboykilla Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 What's it gonna cost us......everyone get off your highs. I love the idea too, but does this mean we give up our chance at Jeff Faine/Troy Puamallallaaealaoyu/Tucker/etc/etc/etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 If he slips to 7 we have to get MIN's pick. It should take a first and third, maybe a seventh too.... and it would be worth it, as long as we sign an OG in FA and pick DL in the second. "I love the idea too, but does this mean we give up our chance at Jeff Faine/Troy Puamallallaaealaoyu/Tucker/etc/etc/etc?" None of these guys will be drafted anywhere near 13, so it doesn't really impact our chances of getting them unless you were expecting us to trade down, or hope they fall to the second. Faine would be a money pick there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboykilla Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 I'm talking about us losing our 2nd. I can live with giving up our 3rd maybe. But NOT our 2nd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montilar Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Aj Watson, what he was saying is it will take our 1st AND 2cd to move up to get Andre Johnson. And he's quite likely right. Remember we gave up TWO #1's to move up to the three spot for Samuels. Anytime you start getting into the top ten spots, moving up starts costing. and the more you need to move, the more it will cost. Adding only the 3rd rounder MIGHT get you to around 10.... To get to Johnson's spot, I would not be surprised if it cost about a 1, a 2 and a 3... athough maybe you could make the #2 next years #2 .... If it did cost that, say goodbye to helping the DL and OL with a quality pick..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboykilla Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 bottom line in my mind is if Snyder and company can't resist that high-priced SEXY pick, and have to do something dramatic, its going to cost us for years to come. We're nowhere near being 'one pick away' from being a contender. As has been said here multiple times, we have multiple needs and need quality picks on both lines, WR, and special teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fezzik Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Does anyone think that this mugging might have been done to throw teams off of the Washington draft strategy. Oh wait Snyder isn't that smart, they probably do want to try to get this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Originally posted by Tarhog We're nowhere near being 'one pick away' from being a contender. I think that there's some kind of established misconception that has infiltrated many here on the board. If it's one thing I've learned since I began watching football... it's a team with a good QB can make up for a lot of shortcomings on a team. If you follow the general cliche that hardest positions to fill on a football team are the (1) shutdown corner and (2) offensive left tackle. Yet, the Redskins have had both positions filled by 2 players amongst the league's elite (ie. Champ Bailey and Chris Samuels respectively) for the past 3 years. So clearly having those positions filled appropriately isn't the ultimate modus operandi for winning the Super Bowl. Heck, the Skins have only made the playoffs once in that span and haven't even been considered a "contender" for the past two years. I think Ramsey will spark this franchise. Without a doubt. And though I suffered without NFL Sunday ticket for 16 years before I subscribed for the last 4... I, for one, am extremely excited to watch the development of Ramsey as a Redskin QB. I think he'll be one of the best in Skins history. Might be premature... but a gut feeling none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Who the frig is this turkey.... All-Pro Scouting Matt Gambil? Gambil can kiss my tookus. :moon: :laugh: The Skins can't afford to trade up to get Andre Johnson. For crying out loud it would cost us a fortune in high picks we can't afford. :doh: If Wilkinson is cut June 1st; Gardener doesn't resign; and the 40 year old Smith doesn't return, we got 3 starting HOLES on our defensive line with no proven backups!. And you guys want to blow at least 3 high draft choices on another WR? :laugh: Keep up this Andre Johnson groundswell Mad Mike, and I'll have Blade do a lobotomy on your forehead. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Originally posted by inmate running the asylum If Wilkinson is cut June 1st; Gardener doesn't resign; and the 40 year old Smith doesn't return, we got 3 starting HOLES on our defensive line with no proven backups!. And you guys want to blow at least 3 high draft choices on another WR? I suppose one can choose to approach the worst case scenario as your method in developing an offseason strategy. A few of us take the more rational approach... like Wilkinson is presently signed and it's either/or in respect to losing him or Gardener. Further, even with Bruce Smith as a full-time starter in '02, the defense was ranked #5 overall and improved consistently as the season wore on. Further, given the loss of Wilkinson in the lineup, we now know Gardener is the type of player that can make a Carl Powell a potential starter. The same could NEVER be said of Wilkinson... who was paired with Stubblefield and Lang - two established NFL starters. Yet, Wilkinson is collecting the type of salary Gardener earned. If I had to choose between Wilkinson and Gardener... I'd keep Gardener. And I'd find another Carl Powell on the waiver wires. And I'd rotate Bruce Smith with LaDarias Jackson again. Whoppee. I hardly think with basically the same unit as last year the performance would drop drastically from #5 overall compared to performance we could expect of the offense if it remained status quo. If the offense can play at a more respectable level next year - one would only assume so after a year of experience within the system - the Skins wouldn't need the #5 overall defense to compete. You look at the top-rated defenses year in and year out. You know what you'll see? They always lead the league in lowest time of possession because they have good offenses which keep them off the field. Ramsey's maturity and development alone can improve our defense. Here's a different perspetive. For the type of season that Gardener gave the team for $755K... that was a bargain basement price. If Gardener's back holds up for the 3 years - for the 1st tier of the contract before any roster bonus can be awarded - and he continues to play at the level he displayed at last year.... then he deserves to be paid a bonus at the end of the contract... even just as backpayment for the last year's play. The contract Gardener is proposing appears to be fair. He'll play for potentially a lower salary - approximately $12 million over the first 3 years of the contract for an average of $4 million per year. However, should he remain healthy and play the minimum required amount of games to reach any incentive, he would be playing at a level the equivalent to $5+ million in salary And if there weren't any questions concerning Gardener's back... I don't think a single person here would object to meeting those salary demands. Just two years ago Gardener was among the top DTs in the game. After watching him last season... I don't have any doubts he can still play at that level. So if he's healthy and plays in all the games in the next 3 seasons... we'll simply be paying him what he's worth. If he gets injured... he won't get the bonus. Pretty straight forward to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Die Hard, So you are saying pay $3.5 Mil to fudgehammer Wilkinson or pay $5 Mil per year to the 30 year-old Gardener for 2003, 2004, 2005 and gamble his back doesn't go out; and then gamble that the 40 year old Smith will not get hurt or his play will not decline? They would love to see you at the crap tables in Las Vegas. :laugh: And in spite of this lucrative offer by Snyder, Gardener turned this down and still wants more. :doh: I personally happen to think it is fair for Gardener to refund money for every start he misses. I think I'm going to have to line up another bet with you.... but only after I consult with Miss Cleo. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fezzik Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 I beleive Die hard's point was that it would be an either or thing. If we don't resign Gardener then keep Wilk and vice-versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Originally posted by inmate running the asylum Die Hard, So you are saying pay $3.5 Mil to fudgehammer Wilkinson or pay $5 Mil per year to the 30 year-old Gardener for 2003, 2004, 2005 and gamble his back doesn't go out; and then gamble that the 40 year old Smith will not get hurt or his play will not decline? No. The contract, under Gardener's proposal, would pay him $4 Mil per year for 2003, 2004, 2005. And if Gardener plays the majority of the games - quite possibly all of them - then pay him $5 million for 2003, 2004, 2005. If he stays healthy... he'd be worth that anyways. Now with 37 year old Smith we had the #4 overall defense in '99.... with the 38 year old Smith we had the #10 overall defense... with the 39 year old Smith we had the #5 overall defense - all the while rotating Smith the L. Jackson. You catch'n my drift? And yet somehow... getting rid of either Wilkinson or Gardener AND Bruce Smith... and drafting 2 rookies this year is somehow supposed to improve upon the unit? Maybe if we keep Gardener it would be possible... but with Wilkinson manning rookies on either side of him... by the time either of those rookies begins to reach their potential... we'd be replacing Wilkinson who'll be retiring himself. Quit letting yer boyfriends think for you. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Originally posted by inmate running the asylum I think I'm going to have to line up another bet with you.... but only after I consult with Miss Cleo. :laugh: I bet you were sh!tting your pants last year... when the Skins were trying desperately to trade up to get Haynesworth and Stallworth and Harrington at their respective picks. Only when teams flatly rejected the Skins proposals did the Skins elect to trade down because there wasn't a player the Redskins wanted to draft at that slot. The original draft strategy was to key in on a few players and move up. That's exactly what I predicted. I couldn't have foreseen were teams rejecting the trade offers. The original plan was NOT to trade down and accumulate draft picks to fill multiple needs - as you had been advocating - even though that's exactly what transpired to the fortune of a few I had it right. Never forget that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 There is no comparison to trading up for a blue chip OT that was a glaring need for a WR that is ok but wont be an immediate impact his first year in our system. I dont see why we just dont resign D Thompson. The teams with top rated defenses also have enough sense to RUN the ball to eat up clock the FNG isnt something I would call ball control and we dont have the people in the front line to do that. Gardener is still a health risk and with wilky willing to renegotiate I dont see why we cant keep him if he is in shape. B Smith is at the best a situational player and Wynn is playing on athritic knee. So I dont see where it makes any sense to waste potential players by trading up on a guy who isnt going to stop S Davis from scoring a TD when we play Dallas this year. Now if it was for a dominating DT or DE maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 I'm with Die Hard on the thought that our needs may not be so great as we like to talk about here. If Ramsey IS the man, we don't really have needs that can't be filled with one more dangerous threat on the outside and some stability elsewhere. If Ramsey isn't the man, then we have a ton of issues we have to fill to compensate. But, as this team showed over the final six weeks really, and throughout the time you saw Ramsey in the lineup, the offense was capable of moving the ball. Toward the end of the year it was capable of blocking for both the run and the pass and Ramsey was only sacked once every 31 pass attempts in the last batch of four games he played. If we can get that type of play from the relatively weak interior players we had last year, then it's not a stretch to think if we add a player at this spot and are able to maintain Tre, with the return of Rod Jones, that our interior can at least be on par with what we saw to end this season. The biggest need we have is for Ramsey to be the answer. If he is, adding a top, elite receiver is the sum total of what is required to make us competitive. If he's not, then we need four or five guys to accomplish the same thing one guy can do on his own . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 My point was not that we suck. We have good talent in general and I'm not without hope. I think Ramsey is and will be THE MAN. I am concerned over our propensity to go for the SEXY pick. That doesn't always equate to GAME CHANGING PLAYER. I don't think any of us know enough about someone like Johnson to know how that pans out if we go this route. My concern really is Ramsey. If we have to give up our mid-round picks to move up and go SEXY, we aren't going to pick up the offensive line studs we'll need over the next 2-3 years. Avoiding the rush is not Patrick's strength, in fact I think his competitive fire tends to make him stand in and hold the ball too long. He might not survive 2003 without upgrading the O line. I know Art and others have provided good evidence that our O line played well down the stretch and I can't argue with them. But I'm not sold that our current O-line has what it takes to protect Ramsey (I mean really protect Ramsey). Its precisely because he is so critical to our potential success that I want to keep those picks after the first round. I also believe our current WR's might start looking a lot more like Andre Johnson if Ramsey gets the time to deliver the ball on a consistent basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 What picks constitute a propensity of going for a SEXY pick? I interpret this as style over substance. Which players? Arrington? Samuels? Gardner? Ramsey? Of those, the only player that was traded up to acquire was Samuels. Hardly a SEXY pick, but very substantive. I just don't see your point, Tarhog. There are no examples (that I can remember) of the team selling the ranch just to get a SEXY draft pick. Why are you so concerned about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 This may not have happened during the draft (YET!!) but it is without a doubt Snyder's style. Remember the Bruce Smith, Peon, Carrier pickups in the offseason ? Snyder has a history of wanting to make big splashy pickups be it in the draft or F.A. I don't think anybody would dispute that. I don't have a problem with him going with a splashy signing. Just make d@mn sure the player produces. So far, Snyder's track record isn't so good in that dept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Yusuf, took the words right out of my mouth. My only point is that I'd much rather have quality at multiple picks than bet the ranch on one 'star' who may not prove to be the real deal or goes down with a knee in preseason. Ultimately, I'm not down on Snyder...I've defended the Jeff George pickup. I think we resisted the urge to move up last year, and am only arguing we'd be better off staying put or moving down this year also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Sonny, one last comment as I don't even pretend to be a draft expert... When I say sexy (and I promise I won't say it again, unless its in the Daily Babe), I am also referring to us looking to fill the glamour positions first, when that may not be our greatest need. I think we have greater needs than the WR position (I know there are counter arguments, I just don't agree with them). I'd really like to see us go D or O Line in the first round. I even think we have more special teams needs than we do WR needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.