Trading up makes more sense for OT rather than QB for us

[TheLongshot]

The rumor mill has been firing up this week, first with reports that the Redskins like Sanchez and are seriously considering him for the #13 pick and then soon afterwards with skuttlebutt about them inquiring about Seattle's pick, people are trying to put these two rumors together, mostly saying that it fits Snyder's MO.

I disagree with that. Snyder's MO in my view is instant impact and winning sooner rather than later. He's also willing to get whatever player is needed for that success.; Sanchez doesn't really fit that philosophy. He's long on talent, but short on experience and I don't think he will have an immediate impact on whatever team he goes to.

People use the argument that Snyder loves him and therefore he'd be willing to do anything to get him. That logic doesn't follow either, since he seemed to feel similarly about Donte Stallworth and Calvin Johnson. Yet, we didn't trade up for those guys. In fact, in the case of Stallworth, we dropped back in the draft that year. In fact, it is more Vinny's MO to want to drop back in the draft rather than trade up. Most of the trading up that has happened seemed mostly driven by Gibbs to get specific players that they targeted.

People also use the argument that we were willing to give up a lot for Cutler, but that is a different situation. There is a big difference between a rookie QB with very little experience and a 3 year vet of the NFL. Going after Cutler with multiple picks makes some sense. Going after Sanchez with similar abandon makes less sense.

So, what's going on here? I think there is a very real fear that the players that the Skins really want won't be there at #13. So, one of the options is to trade up. People assume that it has to be about Sanchez, but in my eyes, it makes more sense that it would be one of the OTs, since there is a real possibility that all four of the top OTs could be gone by #13.

Personally, I think the chances of trading up are slim. We don't really have a lot of ammunition to do that, and it is questonable that the price required to move that high will be worth it for anyone who is there. I think it is more likely that if our guy isn't there at #13 that we will try to trade back, since the value probably would be about the same further back.

[IbleedBnG83]

I agree. However, we shouldn't trade up at all. If anything, we should trade down. We have limited picks and various holes to fill immediately.

[TheGoodBits]

I agree. However, we shouldn't trade up at all. If anything, we should trade down. We have limited picks and various holes to fill immediately.

/debate

[Ernie5]

No way. I don't even really want to take an OL at #13 b/c I don't think it's necessary (but that assumes we trade down and get a 2nd or an extra 3rd). If we stay at #13, I'd prefer, at this point, to take a D-lineman or OLB. If the OL sitting there at #13 happens to be a better player than the DLs or OLBs sitting there and we can't trade back, I amend my position. I just don't see much drop off from the OLs likely to picked mid-first to the ones likely to be picked mid-third. My 2 cents.

[#98QBKiller]

Good thread. All of these talks of Sanchez make no sense whatsoever. Danny is definitely of the "win now" mindset and he's not going to draft another project. What will help us win now is reinforcing the lines.

But I agree with Ibleedbng83, we shouldn't be moving up for anyone, we should trade down and add some blue chip guys to the lines.

[Hitman#21]

Do not trade down, either stay at 13 or move up. We traded down last year, we need quality this yr not quantity.

[TheLongshot]

I agree. However, we shouldn't trade up at all. If anything, we should trade down. We have limited picks and various holes to fill immediately.

I agree with you. I'd rather trade back myself. But I can also see why we might be looking to trade up. If you think the Redskins think that we are 1-2 players away, then you have to believe that the team will be aggressive in getting that player. Again, I don't think we will end up doing it due to lack of ammunition.

[IbleedBnG83]

Do not trade down, either stay at 13 or move up. We traded down last year, we need quality this yr not quantity.

We always need quality. This year we also need quantity. Moving down in the first round doesn't mean we will lose quality perse. Heck, if there aren't any OT at 13 and Orakpo, Curry, or Raji isn't there either, I personally don't see any player worth drafting at 13. Might as well trade down and acquire one of the other two top tackles who can presumably start at RT right away and solidify the line. Beatty and Britton both are strong and have excellent footwork.

[IbleedBnG83]

I agree with you. I'd rather trade back myself. But I can also see why we might be looking to trade up. If you think the Redskins think that we are 1-2 players away, then you have to believe that the team will be aggressive in getting that player. Again, I don't think we will end up doing it due to lack of ammunition.

True. Too bad the FO thinks we are only a player or two away:(

[HA1LV1CT0RY]

I don't even know why trading up is a thought. I wish I was a moderator so I can crush threads and ban people with such ridiculous notions.

[TheLongshot]

I don't even know why trading up is a thought. I wish I was a moderator so I can crush threads and ban people with such ridiculous notions.

Actually, you'd have to crush the reporters who report this, since this is the only reason why we are talking about it.

[Ernie5]

True. Too bad the FO thinks we are only a player or two away:(

I didn't read anything that said they did. If they make move A, it doesn't mean they feel X. That's math and I apologize.

[Laxpunk2006]

I don't even know why trading up is a thought. I wish I was a moderator so I can crush threads and ban people with such ridiculous notions.

Well it's a good thing you're not. These ideas aren't solely created by ES posters there are media outlets reporting that Snyder has a desire to do just this. Does that not make it a fair topic for conversation?

For what it's worth I don't think we should be trading up period but it's the offseason. How many more "Jason Campbell sucks/Colt Brennan for MVP" threads can we have?

[Late Night Roach]

Nice well thought of/well written thread Longshot.

"Trading up makes more sense for OT rather than QB for us"

When I think of the importance of an o-line, I think of what Miami did in drafting Jake Long with the first pick in the draft that they had. Worked out nicely for them, and he's already a Pro Bowler.

I like the look of Sanchez when he plays, but I'm very skeptical of using all the chips for any QB who enters the draft early. It's such an important skill position, making it an even bigger gamble being drafted so high.

[HA1LV1CT0RY]

Well it's a good thing you're not. These ideas aren't solely created by ES posters there are media outlets reporting that Snyder has a desire to do just this. Does that not make it a fair topic for conversation?

For what it's worth I don't think we should be trading up period but it's the offseason. How many more "Jason Campbell sucks/Colt Brennan for MVP" threads can we have?

I agree those threads should be squashed as well...I only see people getting upset over these type of threads.

[Stophovr6]

Amen. But we still shouldn't trade up. We should hope for someone to fall to us that we want or trade down.

[IbleedBnG83]

I didn't read anything that said they did. If they make move A, it doesn't mean they feel X. That's math and I apologize.

True. However Dan Snyder in so many words pretty much said that. I believe his words were "If it ain't broke, why fix it". In the interview, he was discussing how the Redskins were always just short of the playoffs or making it every year and we were just one or two pieces away. So...

[Milkbone Jackson]

Here's what I don't like about trading up for Sanchez:

- We'll probably have to give up two 2 1st rounders to trade up. This philosophy has not worked well for us in the past.

- 1st round picks get a lot of money, we pay Sanchez and we don't have much cap room to pay other FA's to fill spots of need.

- QB is one of the hardest positions to evaluate. For all the few great first round QB's, there are plenty more busts.

- We have dire need at OL, DE and LB!

I would much rather solidify the OL with Smith, help the DL with Orakpo or pair Haynesworth with someone like Raji. At least pick up a LB that can get some playing time in his first season.

I think Sanchez is great but not worth the risk, money, picks and lack of depth on the rest of the team.

[cphil006]

Here's what I don't like about trading up for Sanchez:

- We'll probably have to give up two 2 1st rounders to trade up. This philosophy has not worked well for us in the past.

- 1st round picks get a lot of money, we pay Sanchez and we don't have much cap room to pay other FA's to fill spots of need.

- QB is one of the hardest positions to evaluate. For all the few great first round QB's, there are plenty more busts.

- We have dire need at OL, DE and LB!

I would much rather solidify the OL with Smith, help the DL with Orakpo or pair Haynesworth with someone like Raji. At least pick up a LB that can get some playing time in his first season.

I think Sanchez is great but not worth the risk, money, picks and lack of depth on the rest of the team.

I tink we can stay put and land OT Michael Oher.

[Dah-Dee]

Personally, I think the chances of trading up are slim. We don't really have a lot of ammunition to do that, and it is questonable that the price required to move that high will be worth it for anyone who is there. I think it is more likely that if our guy isn't there at #13 that we will try to trade back, since the value probably would be about the same further back.

I agree, think Sanchez is not a 'start-on-day-one' rookie QB, and we already have a young project QB. I think we'll make lots of noise and then either pick at 13, if a starter-quality OT or DE is there, or trade back to get a lower-tier OT/DE or an LB.

Edit: Having said that, I see where Kansas City is having Maualuga in for a visit, considered a precursor to the Chiefs trading down. :doh:

[RedBeast]

I would either like to stay where we are and suck up our losses this year, or somehow trade our 13th to the Lions for their 20th and 33rd. Points wise we would have to give up a low second or a high third to balance it out, but maybe we can "snooker" the Lions into this so they can get two top picks in a year that they need it. I want to somehow stay in the middle of the first round and try somehow to recoup our 2nd pick. Stupid Vinnie trading the #2 for JT, he should have known better. I dont care what position we were in for DE.

[TheLongshot]

I would either like to stay where we are and suck up our losses this year, or somehow trade our 13th to the Lions for their 20th and 33rd. Points wise we would have to give up a low second or a high third to balance it out, but maybe we can "snooker" the Lions into this so they can get two top picks in a year that they need it. I want to somehow stay in the middle of the first round and try somehow to recoup our 2nd pick. Stupid Vinnie trading the #2 for JT, he should have known better. I dont care what position we were in for DE.

You are more likely to get one of Detroit's 3rd round picks in such a trade. Even so, they are still missing a lot of picks and I'm not sure that they are going to trade up, unless they can figure out how to trade back from #1 and get some more picks.

[REDALERT]

No way. I don't even really want to take an OL at #13 b/c I don't think it's necessary (but that assumes we trade down and get a 2nd or an extra 3rd). If we stay at #13, I'd prefer, at this point, to take a D-lineman or OLB. If the OL sitting there at #13 happens to be a better player than the DLs or OLBs sitting there and we can't trade back, I amend my position. I just don't see much drop off from the OLs likely to picked mid-first to the ones likely to be picked mid-third. My 2 cents.

Exactly my position right here. I'd rather take a OLB or D-lineman unless one of the top OT's drop, but I don't see that happening. Nor will Orakpo drop and this is who I think Danny is targeting rather then Sanchez.

But if we stay put at 13 I would rather take a LB or DE rather then reaching for an mid 1st round OT. But at 13 someone will drop and at this point it looks like a DE rather then someone like Curry, Orakpo or Andre Smith.

[HOF44]

I think with the need we have in different areas trading up doesn't make much sense at all.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

True. Too bad the FO thinks we are only a player or two away:(

Depends on how you look at?

When have we ever been able to keep our O-line fully intact for one season? the problem is consistency that has held us from reaching our pinnacle.

Exactly my position right here. I'd rather take a OLB or D-lineman unless one of the top OT's drop, but I don't see that happening. Nor will Orakpo drop and this is who I think Danny is targeting rather then Sanchez.

But if we stay put at 13 I would rather take a LB or DE rather then reaching for an mid 1st round OT. But at 13 someone will drop and at this point it looks like a DE rather then someone like Curry, Orakpo or Andre Smith.

This is what I have been thinking also because as it is looking right now, there will certainly be a run on the OTs and WOs.