Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

PFT- Redskins trying to acquire QB Bradford

MAATopDogg

By MAATopDogg
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

TheLongshot

TheLongshot

Posted
Posted
Nope.

No chance we trade up for this. No need to. Frankly, this story is something that you'd see all the time prior to this year. The Redskins being used to scare someone else into making a dumb move because doing so, with our reputation for being impulsive and big spending, could influence someone else.

Like last year with the Denver situation where we were used to get Chicago to pay more. We are not looking to trade up. However, I suspect we are being clear with the league, Bradford falls no lower than 4 if he gets past one.

How much of this is misinformation by the FO to get someone to trade up with us for a QB? Granted, kinda a weak argument, since teams could trade with Tampa if they think we are going to take a QB.

Then again, I can't see anyone buying that we would be selecting another QB in the 1st round after spending two high picks on one and not visibly addressing the hole at LT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Art

Art

Posted
Posted
If you think that we weren't trying to get Cutler from Denver, then you're delusional IMO.

I didn't say that. I said Denver leaked a price we were willing to surrender we were not, indeed, willing to surrender. Doing so got more from Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
J-bomb

J-bomb

Posted
Posted

Everyone thinks that just because we talk to the Rams that it has to be about their 1st rnd pick but what about there 2nd rnder? Would the Rams take AH for the 2nd rnd pick? Depending on how the first day plays out that 2nd rounder could be real valuable to some team with multiple 2nd and 3rd round picks. Rams still get Bradford and DT (AH) we get OT @4 and either BPA (QB,RB,FS,LB) or multiple picks with a trade down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Art

Art

Posted
Posted
i still cant believe people think we actually werent trying to get cutler. thats beyond hilarious.

I still can't believe you are incapable of reading what was written or knowing what was said. Perhaps you'd tend a little less to the incredulous if you recognized you are standing nearly alone in the confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JetSkins

JetSkins

Posted
Posted
Nope.

No chance we trade up for this. No need to. Frankly, this story is something that you'd see all the time prior to this year. The Redskins being used to scare someone else into making a dumb move because doing so, with our reputation for being impulsive and big spending, could influence someone else.

Shanny wants a prized QB pupil for his son to mold and hopefully be a franchise QB when he hands over the reigns. It's not so crazy and it could happen in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheismannQuote

TheismannQuote

Posted
Posted
How much of this is misinformation by the FO to get someone to trade up with us for a QB? Granted, kinda a weak argument, since teams could trade with Tampa if they think we are going to take a QB.

Then again, I can't see anyone buying that we would be selecting another QB in the 1st round after spending two high picks on one and not visibly addressing the hole at LT.

I'm thinking along those lines, too. If the redskins leaking that they're still interested in Bradford in case he slips to 4. But, with my logic, a team would need to trade ahead of us (lions, bucs) to make sure we don't get Bradford.

Strange Days...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brandon Lloyd Christmas

Brandon Lloyd Christmas

Posted
Posted
I still can't believe people think Cutler was actually going to be good away from Denver.

throwing 27 TDs on a team with 0 WR and an offensive system so dated it made gibbs' offense look like a west coast, is pretty ok.

it wont shock me to see him break the 30 mark this year with martz. he'll be much better this year. hes also only like 26.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Art

Art

Posted
Posted
How much of this is misinformation by the FO to get someone to trade up with us for a QB? Granted, kinda a weak argument, since teams could trade with Tampa if they think we are going to take a QB.

Then again, I can't see anyone buying that we would be selecting another QB in the 1st round after spending two high picks on one and not visibly addressing the hole at LT.

I think it's a simple statement that should Bradford not get selected No. 1, the No. 3 and No. 4 picks become very hot for people to move into. Going in to this draft left tackle is clearly our biggest need and we appear to be in position to draft a very good prospect at that position. We are merely positioning ourselves as a key move up point in a very narrow draft scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsdude

skinsdude

Posted
Posted
Shanny wants a prized QB pupil for his son to mold and hopefully be a franchise QB when he hands over the reigns. It's not so crazy and it could happen in my opinion.

Agreed, I wouldn't rule it out. If we are able to aquire other picks for current players to address the o-line, it could happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Art

Art

Posted
Posted
Shanny wants a prized QB pupil for his son to mold and hopefully be a franchise QB when he hands over the reigns. It's not so crazy and it could happen in my opinion.

You are correct it's not crazy to think we could draft a high level QB prospect in this draft. The logic that the team is likely to be a little better this year than last and thus not in position for a "franchise" graded prospect at QB in the future may be accurate and we clearly need a "future" here. It's more likely that'll be next draft or the following one, but, certainly, if Bradford falls to four, we would likely take him if we stay in that spot.

We just aren't going to work overly hard to go up to get him in my view. In theory if the team thinks he's the next elite and he turns out to be, that'll be great in two or three years when that starts to show, but it'd be a hell of a price to pay to get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brandon Lloyd Christmas

Brandon Lloyd Christmas

Posted
Posted
I still can't believe you are incapable of reading what was written or knowing what was said. Perhaps you'd tend a little less to the incredulous if you recognized you are standing nearly alone in the confusion.

dude, you blatantly said "we were used" as if we werent really interested in getting cutler.

Like last year with the Denver situation where we were used to get Chicago to pay more. We are not looking to trade up. However, I suspect we are being clear with the league, Bradford falls no lower than 4 if he gets past one.

we werent used, we were right there in the running for cutler, the broncos just didnt want campbell. im sure us being there helped drive up the price for cutler, but we were still a major player in that deal and its not as if the idea of us trading for cutler was a fabrication to just get chicago to outbid themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted
Bradford is not THAT good. He's not "special". He's worth a top pick in this year's draft, but he's not a legendary talent that you trade 2 pro bowl level players and the #4 pick to get.

Thank god. At least I'm not the only one who thinks he is a bit overrated and overhyped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mithong1

mithong1

Posted
Posted
Bradford is not THAT good. He's not "special". He's worth a top pick in this year's draft, but he's not a legendary talent that you trade 2 pro bowl level players and the #4 pick to get.

what exactly are your credentials in evaluating quarterbacks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...