HailVictory Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 I was wondering why our ever crafty FO didn't make an effort to trade down in the first round and acquire an extra mid round pick before signing RFA Coles to an offer sheet. If I understand correctly, we needed to offer the Jets a pick in the first round that was ahead of their #22 spot. Moving up from say #21 to #13 is definitely worth a mid round pick. Most draft pundits claim that this year's blue chip talent can be had in the first 13 picks or so and then there is a marked decline in quality. If I were Danny, I would have knocked on the Patriot's door again and asked them for a 4th or 5th rounder to exchange #13 for #19. That way we recoup the pick for Canidate and still get Coles. The Saints at #17 & #18 as well as Cleveland at #21 would have been other potential targets. I remember trading some valuable picks to Chicago in '99 to move up a few spots in the first round to take Champ at #7 (ouch... Champ Bailey for Cade McNown and some picks). Granted we're not talking Champ caliber talent at #12, but definitely some good prospects will be available at that spot that won't be there five or so picks later. The only drawback I can see is that the Jets may have not bitten on the deal for #19. Though, I think it came down to economics and they didn't want to screw their ability to sign Pennington and Abraham next year, and would not have matched either way. Am I missing something here, or was this a potentially major oversight by the FO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Been asked before, but I believe the rules stipulate that only a pick in the current position of the team signing the RFA or HIGHER could be offered. So, the Skins could not do what you are proposing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailVictory Posted March 26, 2003 Author Share Posted March 26, 2003 So how did the fifth round swap with New England play out before? Did they have a pick higher than us that we traded for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 The Redskins had to give the Jets the #13 pick or higher. The pick can't be any lower than the teams orginal postition in the draft. That was the problem with the 5th round pick we traded for to get Morton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowtrain Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Was your 5th round deal with the Pats contingent upon the use of the pick in the event the Morton offer sheet went unmatched? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Your question was a little jumbled, but if I catch your meaning, I believe the NFL team has to actually hold the pick (not just an agreement with another team to acquire the pick) in order to sign a RFA to an offer sheet. Is that what you meant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailVictory Posted March 26, 2003 Author Share Posted March 26, 2003 Anyone else think that the majority of NFL FO's didn't know the intricacies of signing RFA's until the Skins offseason moves this year? For example, we kind of blundered the 5th round swap with the Pats and then ended up trading for their higher pick. Next thing you know it's a RFA signing love fest out there. Why is that only one RFA was signed last year and now there seems to be plenty this year after the Skins got the ball rolling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowtrain Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 Originally posted by TheChosenOne Your question was a little jumbled, but if I catch your meaning, I believe the NFL team has to actually hold the pick (not just an agreement with another team to acquire the pick) in order to sign a RFA to an offer sheet. Is that what you meant? I had read somewhere that the Pats transaction would only remain in effect in the event the Skins actually needed to use the pick in the form of compensation. Since the Jets matched, was the transaction unwound - or is the Pats trade in effect irrespective of the result of the Morton situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 As far as I know, there was nothing conditional about the trade, and every publication has been proceeding as if we do in fact have the 5th rounder to use. Did you just read that on a forum, or in an article? I think I read a quote that may have said something along the lines that they have the pick if they need it, but that was before they actually signed him to an offer sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailVictory Posted March 27, 2003 Author Share Posted March 27, 2003 Considering that the Morton deal is headed to arbitration, I imagine we're still on the hook for that pick. I would think that you must actually own the pick before signing the offer sheet. Now if Dan told the Pats that "we're going to try to do this and if it doesn't work, I want to trade picks back" that would be a different story. Doubt that happens too often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowtrain Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 I'm having trouble remembering where I heard it but remembered thinking it was a pretty smart move by Snyder. It's possible it was from a Skins fan who was getting made fun of for the Skins losing their 4th rounder and moving down in the 3rd in an attempt to get a player whose offer sheet was matched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 Probably. Certainly, we didnt get equal value in the trade. But if that was part of the price of getting Coles (getting the Jets to match the Morton sheet), then I suppose it wasnt all that bad (although Im sure many on the Jets side would say it was the Coles contract that prevented a match, and signing Morton didnt really have an impact, but who knows). FWIW, I have a feeling that the Coles acquisition will work out well for both sides. The Jets badly needed a bigger possession receiver, and while they wound up giving up their best WR in the process, I think their corps be pretty productive next year, and of course now have a #13 pick to help them stock up elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowtrain Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 On its own merits the Pats got the better end of the draft swap, but the deal is pretty inconsequential in the grand scheme of the offseason. I do have my own personal doubts, however, that the Jets would allow a decision as grave as the Coles departure to be influenced by a pending deal for a special teams player. I do agree with you that both sides will ultimately benefit from the Coles deal. The Skins gain immediate fire power and toughness with Coles and have a potent WR tandem. The Jets take a step back with Conway short-term, but will finally have a chance to address the fundamental structural flaw of committing to 3 WRs all under 6 feet. Our no man's land #22 pick is now a luxury selection, while our #13 will allow us to finally grab that franchise DT we've been craving. We're also well-positioned to keep all current key players in place for years. Unfortunately for both teams, their respective schedules are unkind to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinker Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 There's another way to look at it. A 5th this year is better than a 4th next year because our 5th will have a year's experience by next year. Also it's a 5th in the first 10 of the round. Assuming that the Skins have a good record this year, our 4th next year will be in the last 10 of the round. That means that the 5th pick is only 15-20 positions later than the 4th will be next year AND we get a player for a year. The only downside is swapping positions in the 3rd - but I think that was less than 10 spots -- so on balance it's pretty close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.