!!!!0mgz!!!! Trent Williams finally showed up

[Burgold]

13 hours ago, Unbias said:

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, but has Bruce ever 'won' a trade?

 

I'd add, the contracts of all 3 players pretty much ensures that we won't get much back. I could actually see us giving up some draft picks for cap space (like the Brock Osweiler trade), then taking that cap space and spending it on a couple 30+ year old people just about to decline. 

 

To be clear, I have faith that Bruce can still make this worse. 

Santana Moss for Lauvernious Coles (though that was actually Cerrato) Can't think of another clear winner off the top of my head.

[Renegade7]

He better not leave this team without a replacement part of the trade or already on the roster (which there isn't right now).  I'll check in this in another month, its suicide to damage that oline anymore then it already is.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

8 hours ago, drowland said:

Won what?  Getting a 5th for Cravens after using a 2nd Rd pick on him is a win?

 

 

We got a 3rd for Cravens, not a 5th. We used it on Geron Christian.

 

And we got a 3rd for a player we never should have drafted in the 2nd round who had retired, was constantly injured and continued to be, and who may not even make the Broncos' roster this year. Yes, that's a win.

 

By the way, it's rare for teams to "win" a trade, at least in the moment. Usually, both sides get good value. However, no way in hell should the Broncos have felt that a retired, constantly injured player with a questionable commitment to the game was worth a 3rd. If Geron Christian turns out to be a legit OT, I'd say trading Cravens to the Broncos for the chance to go get a legit OT is absolutely a win.

[Malapropismic Depository]

6 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

We got a 3rd for Cravens, not a 5th. We used it on Geron Christian.

 If Geron Christian turns out to be a legit OT, I'd say trading Cravens to the Broncos for the chance to go get a legit OT is absolutely a win.

 

Who also does not want to be traded/released.

[Panninho]

On 7/6/2019 at 12:08 PM, Califan007 said:

 

We got a 3rd for Cravens, not a 5th. We used it on Geron Christian.

 

And we got a 3rd for a player we never should have drafted in the 2nd round who had retired, was constantly injured and continued to be, and who may not even make the Broncos' roster this year. Yes, that's a win.

 

By the way, it's rare for teams to "win" a trade, at least in the moment. Usually, both sides get good value. However, no way in hell should the Broncos have felt that a retired, constantly injured player with a questionable commitment to the game was worth a 3rd. If Geron Christian turns out to be a legit OT, I'd say trading Cravens to the Broncos for the chance to go get a legit OT is absolutely a win.

I don't think that's correct. We got a 5th from the Broncos. The 3rd rounder we drafted Geron Christian with came from a trade-down with the 49ers in round 2 of last year's draft.

[Skinsinparadise]

The post above is correct. It was definitely a 5th and not a 3rd for Cravens.

 

the 3rd was gotten via SF if I recall right in the trade down in the 2nd round.

 

they also traded draft positions in the 4th and 5th but that was close to a wash.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

4 hours ago, Panninho said:

I don't think that's correct. We got a 5th from the Broncos. The 3rd rounder we drafted Geron Christian with came from a trade-down with the 49ers in round 2 of last year's draft.

 

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The post above is correct. It was definitely a 5th and not a 3rd for Cravens.

 

the 3rd was gotten via SF if I recall right in the trade down in the 2nd round.

 

they also traded draft positions in the 4th and 5th but that was close to a wash.

 

Sunofa...lol 🤬

 

Yep, picked up the 3rd on the day of the draft, not weeks before.

 

I shall leave my post unedited as a memorial to me being wrong this year decade century lol 🥑 (an avocado will have to do).

[Skinsinparadise]

It's really tough to get picks in the top 3 rounds for veterans especially in recent years.  Teams are stingy about giving up picks.  

 

If anything its the easiest to do it on draft day when you can take advantage of desperate teams wanting to get certain prospects.  But in the off season, it doesn't happen a heck of a lot.  Our team does it more than most in Dan's era or so it seems as to giving up high picks in the off season but most teams from what I observed don't partake as much:  Jammal Brown, McNabb, Brunell, Alex Smith, RG3, Duckett, B. Lloyd, Jason Taylor. 

 

I can't recall the last time we landed a pick in the top 3 rounds in the off season in a trade where we gave up a veteran.  We've done it in the draft though.  But when we've unloaded players, it's been typically for mid round picks or late ones like Campbell a (4th rounder but 3 drafts out from the trade) Haynesworth (5th if I recall?), Ramsey (6th), McNab (6th).

 

I might be forgetting but I can't recall the last deal that netted us a high pick for a veteran.  That's the Patriots game and the Eagles, etc. And even for them it doesn't happen a heck of a lot.  We tend to deal the high picks as opposed to acquire them as to off season deals.   That's part of what makes the Trent situation intriguing.  I agree with those who say that if it were the Patriots, they'd just deal him.  They like to sell at the top of the market right before the decline.  Trent would be a poster child Belichick type deal IMO.    He also likes to of late have his O lineman young and cheap.  They have a good O line and also the 4th cheapest one. 

 

The Redskins don't tend to roll that way as for being sellers when their players are at the top of the market.  You add that point coupled with we got a young QB and hardly any depth at OT and I'd gather there is almost as good of a chance that I start at LT then there is that Trent would be dealt.

 

Personally, I think that Trent is a stud at LT.  But now that he's in his 30s and can't seem to stay healthy -- I'd deal him but only if they could get good value.  If they could get a 2nd rounder and change, I'd trade him.  Anything less I wouldn't.   I get the idea that their O line would stink (it would) if dealt and it would be a lost season.  But to me these 8-8 seasons are lost seasons anyway.  It matters nothing to me if they go 4-12 or 8-8.    I'd add that they have some young building blocks where 4-12 wouldn't feel like the end of the world to me.  If it was a veteran laden team then 4-12 would be depressing.  but they have some building blocks so I'd take a step back to take 3 steps forward a season later.  IMO that's what someone like Belichick or Andy Reid would do.  

 

 

[drowland]

Brady's so good at feeling outside pressure and stepping up to avoid it that I think Belichick has devalued the OT position somewhat.  They put more emphasis on their interior blockers to protect the pocket and Brady's legs.   So yeah, they'd trade Trent easy.  

 

Last veteran I remember the Skins getting a haul of high picks for was Sean Gilbert.  Two 1st rd picks from Carolina after the Skins didn't match the offer sheet.  

 

 

[Unbias]

On 7/5/2019 at 11:35 PM, Burgold said:

Santana Moss for Lauvernious Coles (though that was actually Cerrato) Can't think of another clear winner off the top of my head.

 

Yeah, I thought of that one too. Maybe that further proves the point. Based on results Cerrato was slightly better at making deals than Allen. Yikes!

[Unbias]

On 7/5/2019 at 10:39 AM, Malapropismic Depository said:

 

Every time we deal with the Broncos, we win, though it may not be by a large margin...

Cravens, and Keenum, and (Portis may not have been a win, but that was a big addition and Bailey wanted out anyway)...

He (and the crew) have also made some great draft day trades (for Sweat, etc)

 

To say we won those deals is a bit of a stretch: 

 

- Cravens - I think when the smoke clears it will be a 5th rounder in 2018, which ended up being DT Tim Settle. We'll see what that player becomes, but last year he didn't do too much and 5th rounders often don't get to another contract. Let's not forget Cravens was a 2nd rounder, so Allen took a 2nd rounder and a couple years later turned him into a rookie 5th round depth DT.

- Keenum - The jury is out on this one. If Keenum plays and adds value, then sure it was a good move. If he's not playing over Colt McCoy then it's $3.5M in cap space and we also have to figure out what happens between the 6th rounder we gave up and the 7th rounder we received. It's going to be a bit before we can classify this as a win, loss or draw. 

- Portis - Well, we got 4 really good seasons from him. On the other hand Champ Bailey played longer at a more valuable position and made the HOF. Portis was a good RB, but we shouldn't be that franchise that players of Bailey's caliber ends up leaving. Also, if you ask any Denver fan they won that trade by a country mile. 

- Great draft day trades - there is no way we can know if these were good or bad moves. Focusing on Sweat, we moved up to the 26th pick to get him. We gave up a 46th this year (which ended up being Greedy Williams) and a 2nd rounder next year (obviously player TBD). it's way to early to classify this as a 'win'. Just as a reference point, after RG3's rookie year many thought that was a 'good move', but after time passed it was a pretty bad move. So, there was a time that the RG3 trade was considered a 'great draft day trade' by Allen. 

[NewCliche21]

50 minutes ago, Unbias said:

 

To say we won those deals is a bit of a stretch: 

 

- Cravens - I think when the smoke clears it will be a 5th rounder in 2018, which ended up being DT Tim Settle. We'll see what that player becomes, but last year he didn't do too much and 5th rounders often don't get to another contract. Let's not forget Cravens was a 2nd rounder, so Allen took a 2nd rounder and a couple years later turned him into a rookie 5th round depth DT.

- Keenum - The jury is out on this one. If Keenum plays and adds value, then sure it was a good move. If he's not playing over Colt McCoy then it's $3.5M in cap space and we also have to figure out what happens between the 6th rounder we gave up and the 7th rounder we received. It's going to be a bit before we can classify this as a win, loss or draw. 

- Portis - Well, we got 4 really good seasons from him. On the other hand Champ Bailey played longer at a more valuable position and made the HOF. Portis was a good RB, but we shouldn't be that franchise that players of Bailey's caliber ends up leaving. Also, if you ask any Denver fan they won that trade by a country mile. 

- Great draft day trades - there is no way we can know if these were good or bad moves. Focusing on Sweat, we moved up to the 26th pick to get him. We gave up a 46th this year (which ended up being Greedy Williams) and a 2nd rounder next year (obviously player TBD). it's way to early to classify this as a 'win'. Just as a reference point, after RG3's rookie year many thought that was a 'good move', but after time passed it was a pretty bad move. So, there was a time that the RG3 trade was considered a 'great draft day trade' by Allen. 

 

Ehh, not sure I fully agree or disagree.

- With Cravens, getting anything out of him after he literally quit football was going to be impossible.  At the time of the draft, he was a solid pick based on the information available.  I have no idea how anyone traded us anything for him.  Settle was a huge surprise last year and performed really well as a rookie with an excellent trajectory.  Also keep in mind that he was playing with Payne, Allen, and Ioannidis, no scrubs there.  I'm excited for that guy.

 

- I was meh on the trade.  I think it was a smart move to get a solid back-up/potential starter who had very recently done some good stuff.  After going through four quarterbacks last year (still can't believe it), it's a good idea to have someone who you can believe in, especially since Haskins didn't seem to be planned.  It also gives Haskins some breathing room if he's not ready to start.

 

- It was rumored that Bailey wanted out, anyway.  Reportedly he had some extramarital fun and his wife wasn't gonna let him stay.  He was already in contract negotiations, and Gibbs had just been hired two months prior.  His departure, if it were gonna happen, was gonna happen then.  Portis is one of the top Redskins, on and off the field, since the turn of the century.  Portis helped bring Sean here, and both of them gave it their all.  If November 26, 2007 hadn't happened, then, well, things would've been different.  Given everything at the time, though, we did trade the top corner in the league AND a second-rounder for a pretty good running back.  I'm a hung jury on it.

- Griffin wasn't a draft-day trade, so I can't address it.  Sweat is to be seen.  I've got no real opinion here since I have no data to draw from.

I don't think we win trades that often.  Literally the last one I can think of where we decisively won was Coles for Moss straight up.  And to me, winning the trade means that we actually benefited from it in the long run, not just didn't have the worst outcome (the Griffin trade).

 

Your points are good, I just see things a little differently.

[MartinC]

2 hours ago, Unbias said:

 

- Keenum - The jury is out on this one. If Keenum plays and adds value, then sure it was a good move. If he's not playing over Colt McCoy then it's $3.5M in cap space and we also have to figure out what happens between the 6th rounder we gave up and the 7th rounder we received. It's going to be a bit before we can classify this as a win, loss or draw. 

 

On Keenum we sent the Broncos a 6th round pick, they sent us Keenum plus a 7th round pick. So that's almost a wash on the picks - we swapped 6th and 7th round picks. Trading for a viable starting QB (even as a stop gap) for a bag of footballs plus a $3.5M salary is a win. Even if both his arms drop off during training camp it was still a well conceived trade.

[Unbias]

38 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

Ehh, not sure I fully agree or disagree.

- With Cravens, getting anything out of him after he literally quit football was going to be impossible.  At the time of the draft, he was a solid pick based on the information available.  I have no idea how anyone traded us anything for him.  Settle was a huge surprise last year and performed really well as a rookie with an excellent trajectory.  Also keep in mind that he was playing with Payne, Allen, and Ioannidis, no scrubs there.  I'm excited for that guy.

 

- I was meh on the trade.  I think it was a smart move to get a solid back-up/potential starter who had very recently done some good stuff.  After going through four quarterbacks last year (still can't believe it), it's a good idea to have someone who you can believe in, especially since Haskins didn't seem to be planned.  It also gives Haskins some breathing room if he's not ready to start.

 

- It was rumored that Bailey wanted out, anyway.  Reportedly he had some extramarital fun and his wife wasn't gonna let him stay.  He was already in contract negotiations, and Gibbs had just been hired two months prior.  His departure, if it were gonna happen, was gonna happen then.  Portis is one of the top Redskins, on and off the field, since the turn of the century.  Portis helped bring Sean here, and both of them gave it their all.  If November 26, 2007 hadn't happened, then, well, things would've been different.  Given everything at the time, though, we did trade the top corner in the league AND a second-rounder for a pretty good running back.  I'm a hung jury on it.

- Griffin wasn't a draft-day trade, so I can't address it.  Sweat is to be seen.  I've got no real opinion here since I have no data to draw from.

I don't think we win trades that often.  Literally the last one I can think of where we decisively won was Coles for Moss straight up.  And to me, winning the trade means that we actually benefited from it in the long run, not just didn't have the worst outcome (the Griffin trade).

 

Your points are good, I just see things a little differently.

 

Completely fair points and some of my comments come from a general frustration of Bruce Allen. I can buy into the fact that he's a 'football guy' and he adds balance to our current structure, but overall I just look at the results. The only issue I'd have is Cravens. Sure he's a head case and one can look at this 'getting something for nothing', but I can't look past the fact that we drafted him. We blast teams for missing on prospects all the time, why should we regard a 2nd round bust as a success because we were eventually able to get a 5th rounder for him?

 

I get frustrated anytime someone gets a pat on the back for sorta fixing problems they created. On this board people will do that to Allen from time to time. 

[Unbias]

35 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

On Keenum we sent the Broncos a 6th round pick, they sent us Keenum plus a 7th round pick. So that's almost a wash on the picks - we swapped 6th and 7th round picks. Trading for a viable starting QB (even as a stop gap) for a bag of footballs plus a $3.5M salary is a win. Even if both his arms drop off during training camp it was still a well conceived trade.

 

Not sure I agree. When it comes to positional cap spending for the QB position we are #5 in the league! Here's how the top 10 look like: 

 

Patriots = $31,149,028 

Lions = $30,880,000

Vikings = $30,880,000

Colts = $30,615,000

Redskins = $30,391,202

Packers = $28,484,189

Steelers = $28,371,114

Chargers = $27,709,655

Saints = $27,090,000
Seahawks = $26,931,766

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out we are the only team that doesn't have their 'franchise' QB. Even if Smith was healthy he'd be the worst QB among those teams. 

 

Why are we allocating more cap space towards band-aids at the most expensive position in pro football? 

 

If Keenum gets on the field and balls out I'm obviously wrong. If he holds a clip board or gets in and flops then he's not he's probably not worth the space. 

[NewCliche21]

1 hour ago, Unbias said:

 

Completely fair points and some of my comments come from a general frustration of Bruce Allen. I can buy into the fact that he's a 'football guy' and he adds balance to our current structure, but overall I just look at the results. The only issue I'd have is Cravens. Sure he's a head case and one can look at this 'getting something for nothing', but I can't look past the fact that we drafted him. We blast teams for missing on prospects all the time, why should we regard a 2nd round bust as a success because we were eventually able to get a 5th rounder for him?

 

I get frustrated anytime someone gets a pat on the back for sorta fixing problems they created. On this board people will do that to Allen from time to time. 

 

Oh don't get me wrong, I've been on the #FireBruceAllen train for years.  I'm just saying that I don't think it's as black and white as it may look.

 

40 minutes ago, Unbias said:

 

Not sure I agree. When it comes to positional cap spending for the QB position we are #5 in the league! Here's how the top 10 look like: 

 

Patriots = $31,149,028 

Lions = $30,880,000

Vikings = $30,880,000

Colts = $30,615,000

Redskins = $30,391,202

Packers = $28,484,189

Steelers = $28,371,114

Chargers = $27,709,655

Saints = $27,090,000
Seahawks = $26,931,766

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out we are the only team that doesn't have their 'franchise' QB. Even if Smith was healthy he'd be the worst QB among those teams. 

 

Why are we allocating more cap space towards band-aids at the most expensive position in pro football? 

 

If Keenum gets on the field and balls out I'm obviously wrong. If he holds a clip board or gets in and flops then he's not he's probably not worth the space. 

 

Well, what's the alternative?  We didn't think we'd have Haskins, so our quarterbacks would've been Colt McCoy and JAG.  The Smith trade/contract was a mistake, even if he were healthy.  You don't pay THAT much money AND give away the top slot corner in the league (who was a rookie!).  That being said, it was already done, and we had to make a choice.  Keenum was a good trade for 2019 based on our team.  He can't be paired with Smith when assessing that individual transaction.

[MartinC]

39 minutes ago, Unbias said:

 

Not sure I agree. When it comes to positional cap spending for the QB position we are #5 in the league! Here's how the top 10 look like: 

 

Patriots = $31,149,028 

Lions = $30,880,000

Vikings = $30,880,000

Colts = $30,615,000

Redskins = $30,391,202

Packers = $28,484,189

Steelers = $28,371,114

Chargers = $27,709,655

Saints = $27,090,000
Seahawks = $26,931,766

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out we are the only team that doesn't have their 'franchise' QB. Even if Smith was healthy he'd be the worst QB among those teams. 

 

Why are we allocating more cap space towards band-aids at the most expensive position in pro football? 

 

 

That Redskins QB cap number being one of the highest in the league is 100% and totally down to Smiths agreement. 

 

We are allocating more cap space to band aids because Smith is unable to play this season (and likely again) but we are committed to paying him anyway. So we went out PRE DRAFT - and so not knowing what QB we may or may not be able to draft - and with our only other QB under contract also coming off a broken leg and signed a viable starting option for a bag of footballs. 

 

I don't see any way you can reasonably paint the Keenum signing as a bad trade or a risk.Hell IMO it's still a good trade even after we know we have drafted Haskins.

[Unbias]

2 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

Well, what's the alternative?  We didn't think we'd have Haskins, so our quarterbacks would've been Colt McCoy and JAG.  The Smith trade/contract was a mistake, even if he were healthy.  You don't pay THAT much money AND give away the top slot corner in the league (who was a rookie!).  That being said, it was already done, and we had to make a choice.  Keenum was a good trade for 2019 based on our team.  He can't be paired with Smith when assessing that individual transaction.

 

I would have preferred that they roll with McCoy and we would go into the draft knowing we will be allocating a high pick to the future QB (and the corresponding cap space). At the end of the day we will only be dressing 2 QBs, but are paying 4. 

 

The one thing I do like about the Case Keenum trade is that we can cut him and get the full $3.5M back. That's nice, but if it turns out that we we just traded a 6th rounder to get a 7th rounder. 

 

Anyway, none of this is material in the grand scheme of things. It just makes me wonder how much of Bruce's time is spent on things that don't really make us better. 

[Burgold]

I think we were worried that McCoy would not be available. Supposedly, he's still recovering and he hasn't had the easiest time of coming back from his broken leg either.

[hatchetwound]

I'm getting tired of this.  Lets just turn this into an opportunity to get younger and cheaper.  We need to get a good, young LT to grow alongside Haskins!. 

[Xameil]

20 minutes ago, hatchetwound said:

I'm getting tired of this.  Lets just turn this into an opportunity to get younger and cheaper.  We need to get a good, young LT to grow alongside Haskins!. 

Tired of what? The no actual news? The speculation based off of nothing?

 

Yeah...that's a great reason to cut a top tier player...

[hatchetwound]

Just now, Xameil said:

Tired of what? The no actual news? The speculation based off of nothing?

 

Yeah...that's a great reason to cut a top tier player...

Yes, exactly.  Tired of no news.  That tells me Trent really doesn't want to be here.  We can't let this fester.

 

I should have been more clear, I didn't mean cut him.  He is an asset.  We need to trade him for a player or a pick. 

 

 

I think there are teams out there that we can trade Trent for a Tackle now, straight up.  For example, the Titans may make a viable trade partner.  They are set at LT, but what about RT with Jack Conklin?  He's been injured and you know the Titans don't trust him as they declined his 5th year option.  We could go two routes here:

Conklin for Trent straight up.  We get younger and cheaper while assuming risk where as the Titans get a stud at RT to protect Marcus.

Dennis Kelly and a pick for Trent.  Kelly is a middle teir talent yes, but he is Healhy.  He also has starting experience, something you won't find for players of his talent, low salary (only a 1.6 million dollar cap hit).  Between 2016-2017 he played in all the games, starting 7.  And he started 5 games, playing 11 last year!  If we go this route, we can then hold down the fort this year and then use the pick we get from the titans (most likely packaging it with our 1st next year to move up) to get our Stud LT replacement.

[Xameil]

26 minutes ago, hatchetwound said:

Yes, exactly.  Tired of no news.  That tells me Trent really doesn't want to be here.  We can't let this fester.

Wow....speculate much?

 

 

[Cooleyfan1993]

@hatchetwound no news doesn’t mean ****. It’s entirely possible the front office is fixing this issue during the time between mini camps and training camp, and not letting anything go public. I’m with the guy above ^, at this point you’re speculating. 

[bakedtater1]

On 7/8/2019 at 1:53 PM, MartinC said:

 Even if both his arms drop off during training camp it was still a well conceived trade.

This I would not be surprised to see happen to a Redskins player...I mean any other player on any other team it would just shock the **** out of me but it wouldn't if it happened to Keenum.