Audible_Red40 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Take it for what it's worth, a February rumour. The logic makes sense actually with the new contract rules. I'll wait until May for this to happen. Would you move up in the first round, for the 2nd and fifth rounder to ensure you get "your guy" and can be kept for an extra year under contract? http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftrumormill.php Redskins to Trade Up? Updated Feb. 10, 2013By Charlie Campbell - @draftcampbellWhen teams are discussed about being candidates to trade up in the NFL Draft, the conversation is mainly focused on a team moving up for a quarterback. However, as last year's first round illustrated, a number of teams could be on the move on Thursday night. There were six trades featuring a first-round pick last year, and none of them involved a quarterback being taken. According to sources, one team that could be on the move up this year is the Washington Redskins.Sources with the Redskins tell WalterFootball.com that they believe some good talents are going to fall to the Nos. 30-34 range. Washington's first selection is the second pick of the second round, so moving up into the Nos. 30-32 range could cost as little as a mid-level third-day pick.Redskins' sources also have in mind the long-term contract benefits that trading up would provide the organization. Trading up into the first round has the added advantage of an extra year being tacked onto the rookie contract. First-round picks get 5-year contracts while second-rounders receive a 4-year deal, so the Redskins would get another year of that player's prime for a bargain, while also potentially buying more time before deciding on an extension. For example, Carolina would have had a fifth year on Greg Hardy's rookie contract rather than him entering unrestricted free agency.One team to keep an eye on is the Super Bowl champions. The Seahawks could be a good trading partner with Washington, as Seattle is without its third-round pick thanks to the Percy Harvin trade. Moving from No. 34 to No. 32 could be done for perhaps as low as a fifth-round pick. The Redskins could be more sure to get the player they want and not have to worry about a team jumping ahead of them with Houston to open Friday night.For the second straight season, Washington is without a first-rounder from the 2012 trade for Robert Griffin III. However, the Redskins are picking just outside the first round with the 34th-overall pick, and they are in striking distance of going only one year without a first-round pick being added to their roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Throwing darts with a blindfold at this point. I am tired of un named sources or sources within the Redskins organization, who did they quote, the temp. who answered the phone? Personally I guess it matters who is there at the time and if you want to move up or down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 What the ****? Why not stay at 34? I could understand going from 6 to 2 for RGIII, that's a huge jump and for a phenomenal talent. But 34 to 32? For a pick? That's just ****ing stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 What the ****? Why not stay at 34? I could understand going from 6 to 2 for RGIII, that's a huge jump and for a phenomenal talent. But 34 to 32? For a pick? That's just ****ing stupid. five year contract vs. four year contract and then the player available. I don't think it is out of the question if there is a guy you think is the guy, but to just give up a pick for a gamble seems far fetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I think the likelihood of jumping to no 32 is really small unless it's for a 2 and 6. Now, a jump into the 20's I could imagine. All depends on who's there and the price tag. I kind of like having that 2 spot in each round. Kind of gives us control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 five year contract vs. four year contract and then the player available. I don't think it is out of the question if there is a guy you think is the guy, but to just give up a pick for a gamble seems far fetched. It's not much of a gamble. If the guy you want is still on the board at that time, risking a fifth-round pick to move up and secure said player isn't much of a risk at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesMadisonSkins Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I'd much rather trade down than up. But if we can move Cousins for a 2nd rounder, then this is mitigated a little. If we have another early 2nd rounder, say ... from Oakland (35) ... we could trade 34 and a 5th to move up 2 spots with Seattle. Then we could take 35 and trade it back and get another 3rd, 4th and 5th (if we trade back to around 55-60 in the 2nd). That would make me much more comfortable, than if we didn't trade Cousins. So yes, trading up 2 spots and losing a 5th seems dumb. But if it's for a guy you really want and you get that extra year, then it kind of makes sense. It would be a lot easier to swallow if we had, say, as a result of a Cousins trade, a late 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7 than if we kept Cousins and thus just has a 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimFolk Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Please trade down and then trade down again. I want 10-12 Scott Campbell guys lets see what this guy can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Sounds like our front office has learned a lot. Trade away draft picks less picks? No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaK9Trainer Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Kelvin Benjamin!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santana_4_prez Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Hold on to that #2 pick in the 2nd round. It is very valuable. Since teams have a night to "sleep on it" between round 1 and round 2, there will be a lot of teams that will have a guy they really want and there is plenty of time to work out a trade over night for the skins to trade down and accumulate another mid round pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I'm definitely in favor of trading down. I want to have as many picks in rounds 2-4 as possible as I feel those are the money rounds where you get the most for your money. We have a lot of positions to fill or improve, and/or add depth. I'd like to see a lot of that come from the draft and I'd have higher expectations from guys who are mid rounders. I'd also like to pick up guys in the 5-7th, but I'm not as confident in them contributing immediately, if at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC9 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 My source tells me we are trading back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Cant see it. That's too good a pick to waste in a trade up with. Stay put if your 'cant miss' guy falls, or trade back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 My source tells me we are trading back. Isn't extremeskins a source now since its "owned by the Redskins"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rook Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 If the jump is to get Clinton-Dix or even Calvin Pryor, then I would give this year's and next year's second. The Rook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger.Staubach Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 What the ****? Why not stay at 34? I could understand going from 6 to 2 for RGIII, that's a huge jump and for a phenomenal talent. But 34 to 32? For a pick? That's just ****ing stupid. **edited because I am an idiot. I forgot about the extra year option. So...yes. It might be worth a 5th to secure a pick that you are confident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC9 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Isn't extremeskins a source now since its "owned by the Redskins"? I've seen some funny things on the internet about us the last couple of years. "Extremeskins is reporting _________" "The guys over at Extremeskins know for a fact the pick will be _______" And I thought to myself... who is the reporter and how do I join THAT club? Cant see it. That's too good a pick to waste in a trade up with. Stay put if your 'cant miss' guy falls, or trade back. Exactly. We can improve this team dramatically if we stay put or even gain a pick or two. This is a puff piece. That cat is wrong more than anyone on that site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Um, the date on the article is 2013. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC9 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Um, the date on the article is 2013. And the winner of the championship belt is LSF. Sorry, I'm out of likes. Leave it to this fanbase (myself included) to react without paying attention to detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The reason given is basically part of the argument for getting more picks as opposed to less. In this time of FA, keeping longer term (3+ years) of quality depth can best be found in the draft or by finding a couple of has beens (or never weres) off the NFL scrap heap that surprisingly have a couple of solid seasons. Draft choices provide the best source for quality depth and also may turn out to be more than just a depth guy in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I say the trading up two spots from 34 to 32 (or other late first rounder) at the expense of a 5th rounder is a bad idea for the following reasons. If there was a real impact player we are targeting at the early 20's maybe. And that's still a big maybe in my book considering the need for cheap depth on this team. - Late first rounder is guaranteed 3 years vs 2 years for second rounder - Late first rounder makes at least more than a million than the early second rounder over the life of the contract. - The fifth year option in lieu of renegotiating is only good for a top quality player. 5th year option for 11-32 pick player is the average salary of 3rd to 25th highest paid player in that position. For every Wilkerson and Smith who you wish you could lock up (or use as leverage) using another quasi-tag year, there are busts at the end of first rounds such AJ Jenkins or decent players who you wouldn't pay that much such as Mark Ingram. Frankly, if a player is good enough use the rookie tag, I think the team's preference would be work out a longer deal anyway. - Most importantly, fifth rounders or other low rounders are not throwaways. Especially on a team with depth issues like ours. You can't expect Sherman and Chancellor from every fifth round pick, but good teams should get their fair share of solid contributors over the years. EDIT I just saw LSF's post and now I feel stupid for having indulged in the discussion. *facepalm* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Too early in the "new regime" process for me to invest much in any such speculation and any related arguments pro or con. But I did have a "**** no!" moment when they mentioned SEA as a potential partner. Bad luck and a long history of poor choices for the Redskins, and the ES-hated (and very well-run/coached---hate saying that) seasquawks for a partner, as the recipe for a major trade? Imagine, given the level of hate here for all things seasquawks/fanbase/city were we to EVER make some big trade with them and end up sucking on the deal. Especially in the first year of another New Regime? The tumult here would hit 11.6 on the Richter (not Andy) scale. A trade with SEA is unlikely enough a scenario that I should have just ignored it, but the picture of that potential outcome came quickly and was horrifying. I have Abused Fan Syndrome. Isn't extremeskins a source now since its "owned by the Redskins"? I'm a source. After that, details tend to vary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Problem I see with the notion of trading up a few spots, is that, for us to do that: 1) There has to be some player who we want, at spot 32. 2) AND he won't be there at 34. 3) AND there has to be no OTHER player who we'd be perfectly happy to take, at 34. 4) AND we have to think that we won;t have a decent chance to trade down, at 34. As many soft spots as we have on this team, odds of all of those things being true? But I did have a "**** no!" moment when they mentioned SEA as a potential partner. I'm remembering some pundit, the year after Joe Gibbs won a Super Bowl, commenting on the fact that, because of a previous year's trade of draft picks, the Super Bowl champions were going to be drafting the Heisman winning QB. He proposed that the NFL should, at the very least, prohibit teams from trading future draft picks. His reasoning was: The Super Bowl champions didn't get to where they are, by making stupid personnel decisions. The team with the #1 draft pick, probably did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 My source tells me we are trading back. I think most teams will want to trade back - going to be tough to find dance partners looking to move forward for anything like value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.