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

The Diesel

The Diesel

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

I mean I'm no talent evaluator, but it seems like a real stretch to me. The idea that we are desperate for him .... just seems like we are forcing it if true. There will be another Sam Bradford in next year's draft, and the next one, and the next one, etc. That's not to say he's not worthy of the #1 pick in any particular year, but he's not worth making crazy deals to secure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
McD5

McD5

Posted
Posted
Bradford is not THAT good. He's not "special".

Says who?

Most believe he is "THAT GOOD." I would bet a day's salary that you haven't even watched five of his games from start to finish.

How did moving up to get Mark Sanchez work out last year?

And Bradford is light years ahead of Sanchez in both resume, and upside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Art

Art

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

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.

I clearly stated we were used to get Chicago to up their price. I said that exactly. We all know we were interested in Cutler. We said so. We just weren't interested in him at the prices mentioned as those prices were a way to scare Chicago into more. Hell, they actually liked Orton more than Campbell anyway, so they used our interest to extract the most they could from the Bears. Very smart.

So, again, given you already know I believe this, know I've stated it here numerous times during that scenario and knew exactly what I was saying -- not altogether unlike your second paragraph -- don't make me tolerate you being confused and cheerleading idiocy again.

Please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wrecker

wrecker

Posted
Posted

Campbell, Landry, 4th for Rams 1st. Redskins get Bradford.

Haynesworth, McIntosh, and maybe another player for Detroit #2. (Financially challenged Detroit needs a DT and will get Haynesworth and McIntosh for half the price of SUH or McCOY)

Redskins #2 to Whomever in the top 10/12 that want SUH or Mcoy plus there second rounder.

Redskins pick Best Tackle available (Baluga?) with first round pick and best player available with 2nd round pick.

This is my fantasy draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Diesel

The Diesel

Posted
Posted
Says who?

Most believe he is "THAT GOOD." I would bet a day's salary that you haven't even watched five of his games from start to finish.

How did moving up to get Mark Sanchez work out last year?

And Bradford is light years ahead of Sanchez in both resume, and upside.

Even if he is THAT good (which I dispute), are you comfortable holding your breath every time he gets tackled for the next 12-15 years? I'm not comfortable trading away a couple pro-bowlers and the #4 pick to move up 3 spots and take a QB with serious injury (if not capability) question marks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKIN4WAHOOZ

SKIN4WAHOOZ

Posted
Posted

Proof is in the pudding.

We select Mcnabb as a 1 yr stop gap. We havent signed him to an extension have we?? He is not as mobile as he once was but can still move and has a quick release. This alows the FO to somewhat ignore the OL for one more year. Also look at how they have stacked our backfield. they know our rbs will take a beating this year.

With Mcnabb and the rest of our players we will win some games. I dont know about the playoffs but we will be middle of the pack atleast. if so we are looking at best #16 pick next year and going forward. the chances of getting a franchise qb at the position is not very good.

The organization likes bradford alot and they dont expect a better opportunity to get a franchise qb in the near future.

Its not what id like to see but these guys know more then me AND you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Diesel

The Diesel

Posted
Posted
Campbell, Landry, 4th for Rams 1st. Redskins get Bradford.

Haynesworth, McIntosh, and maybe another player for Detroit #2. (Financially challenged Detroit needs a DT and will get Haynesworth and McIntosh for half the price of SUH or McCOY)

Redskins #2 to Whomever in the top 10/12 that want SUH or Mcoy plus there second rounder.

Redskins pick Best Tackle available (Baluga?) with first round pick and best player available with 2nd round pick.

This is my fantasy draft.

This I could live with. Although I think it would be more likely we trade AH and Carter than AH and Rocky. Maybe all 3 are involved in some way or another.

Unfortunately it would be really unorthodox and if there's one thing we know about the NFL it's that they hate unorthodox. I can't the other teams going for such wild swings like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted
Says who?

Most believe he is "THAT GOOD." I would bet a day's salary that you haven't even watched five of his games from start to finish.

How did moving up to get Mark Sanchez work out last year?

And Bradford is light years ahead of Sanchez in both resume, and upside.

Moving up for Mark Sanchez is still completely up in the air. He had a craptastic rookie year, but was on a team with a dominant OL, elite running game, and elite defense that he rode to the playoffs.

And whoahhh there, buddy. Bradford is very far from "light years ahead" of Sanchez. Sanchez actually had a lot more upside than Bradford (and probably still does); the main thing with Sanchez was his lack of starting experience.

Sanchez played in a pro style offense and put up great numbers while playing some of the top defenses in the nation. Bradford played in a spread system in a division with some seriously weak ass defenses (especially pass defenses) and on top of that seriously hurt his throwing shoulder and then re-injured it later.

Bradford just isn't the legendary QB prospect you seem to have dreams about. Sorry. He just happens to be the best QB in a relatively weak QB class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
McD5

McD5

Posted
Posted
Even if he is THAT good (which I dispute), are you comfortable holding your breath every time he gets tackled for the next 12-15 years? I'm not comfortable trading away a couple pro-bowlers and the #4 pick to move up 3 spots and take a QB with serious injury (if not capability) question marks.

I'm not suggesting trading the farm away.

As far as being comfortable everytime he gets hit, I would feel the exact same way about Drew Brees getting hit.

If he wasn't medically clear, he wouldn't be going number 1.

He really is incredible. If you have a spare minute at work today, just watch his opening drive against Florida in last year's Natl championship game.

You can find it in HD, on Hulu.

His accuracy is second to none, literally. He throws Peyton passes. You will really enjoy him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SittingBull

SittingBull

Posted
Posted

We didn't trade a 2nd rounder and a 3rd or 4th rounder for a 1 year stop gap. Vinny isn't running things anymore. Mcnabb will be here for three or four years at least. You dont pick a QB in the top 10 to sit on the bench for that long. The reason a contract extension hasn't been publicized yet are due to rules prohibiting it due to the raise he recently got from the Eagles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brandon Lloyd Christmas

Brandon Lloyd Christmas

Posted
Posted
I clearly stated we were used to get Chicago to up their price. I said that exactly. We all know we were interested in Cutler. We said so. We just weren't interested in him at the prices mentioned as those prices were a way to scare Chicago into more. Hell, they actually liked Orton more than Campbell anyway, so they used our interest to extract the most they could from the Bears. Very smart.

So, again, given you already know I believe this, know I've stated it here numerous times during that scenario and knew exactly what I was saying -- not altogether unlike your second paragraph -- don't make me tolerate you being confused and cheerleading idiocy again.

Please.

i still think we'd have given up 2 first rounders for cutler and it came down to what you said, orton vs campbell. hell if vinny was gonna give up 2 1sts for 85 he surely would have given up 2 firsts for a franchise QB at age 25.

and im glad you clarified your stance because there are plenty of people on this board who still believe that we werent interested in cutler. obviously you arent one of them lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheLongshot

TheLongshot

Posted
Posted
We select Mcnabb as a 1 yr stop gap. We havent signed him to an extension have we??

Uh, he hasn't signed an extension because of the uncertainty of the CBA.

The whole idea of him as a 1 year rental doesn't make much sense considering what we gave up to get him. If you really wanted to keep the seat warm for the next guy, you could have just stuck with Campbell or Grossman for a year.

The organization likes bradford alot and they dont expect a better opportunity to get a franchise qb in the near future.

The problem is, it is this attitude that sometimes gets teams in trouble and make bad decisions. Actually, if you believe that the need is so strong for a franchise QB, you actually will have more opportunities since you are likely to draft in the bottom half of the draft again at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HoggLife

HoggLife

Posted
Posted

ART it's good seeing you on the boards man. I have a lot of respect for you. If you guys notice Shanny and Co dont let it be known what they are doing. The only way I see us drafting Bradford is if he falls to #4 then I think it is a no brainer to draft him but we are mostlikely just trying to make the #4 pick look better so people will be more willing to try and trade us for the pick. We will find out in about 8 1/2 hours!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
McD5

McD5

Posted
Posted

The problem is, it is this attitude that sometimes gets teams in trouble and make bad decisions. Actually, if you believe that the need is so strong for a franchise QB, you actually will have more opportunities since you are likely to draft in the bottom half of the draft again at some point.

Here is the problem LS.

If you take a late first rounder, you hitch your team to some marginal talent like JC or Freeman, like the Bucs last year.

We don't want that. It isn't the way to be competitive every year. To where the playoffs are expected.

You either go big, or you stay home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheLongshot

TheLongshot

Posted
Posted
i still think we'd have given up 2 first rounders for cutler and it came down to what you said, orton vs campbell. hell if vinny was gonna give up 2 1sts for 85 he surely would have given up 2 firsts for a franchise QB at age 25.

Well, first the "2 1sts for 85" was a bit overblown. I'm sure the conditional 2nd pick would probably have required 85 to have a great season and probably playoff appearances to reach that level. Not to mention that it was probably an absolute max offer for him.

Second, Chicago DID give up more than 2 1st rounders and a QB to get Cutler.

and im glad you clarified your stance because there are plenty of people on this board who still believe that we werent interested in cutler. obviously you arent one of them lol.

I'm not sure who these people are. Most thought the talks were real enough. If you didn't think you had your answer at QB, you should have at least have been talking to Denver about him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bedlamVR

bedlamVR

Posted
Posted

One thing that might blow this entire thing open is if the Rams decide to go for Jimmy Clausen because he could start on day one .... That would put the cat amongst them ...

that could see Bradford falling to No.4 where i think we will take him to sit behind McNabb and we then vacuum up any OL later in the draft and in the UDFA market where we could get a bargain ... OOooor I could imagine the Lions and the Bucs would have a lot of calls then and someone slips ahead of us to snatch Bradford but that would leave potentially both Suh and McCoy slipping to us which could see us moving Haynesworth (a mistake) for more or using the extra value of the no.4. pick with these top picks slipping to trade down ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheLongshot

TheLongshot

Posted
Posted
Here is the problem LS.

If you take a late first rounder, you hitch your team to some marginal talent like JC or Freeman, like the Bucs last year.

We don't want that. It isn't the way to be competitive every year. To where the playoffs are expected.

You either go big, or you stay home.

If you go big and miss, you stay home for a lot longer.

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...