Reasons to trade Gardner

[wizskinz]

Rod Gardner will be trade because:

1.He has value, we need draft picks

2. We traded for Thrash

3. We resigned McCants

4. He gives up on routes

5. He drops passes ( the important ones )

6. Taylor Jacobs

7. Last year camp standout Scott Cloman ( Gibbs loves him )

8. He'll be heavy on the cap

Reasons to keep him:

1. plenty of potential

2. he's still very young

3. Has not had the benefits of having a good QB or coaching staff up until now.

:dallasuck :eaglesuck :gaintsuck :whippin:

[citigent]

is he hard on the cap, i didnt think he was, though i woult put that he might not be long term anyhow as he is soon a FA as a reason he should go also.

[jrfriedm]

Okay and while I don't disagree with any of your reasons in either catogory, in Gibbs's eyes does the good out way the bad or the other way around?

I'm sure Gardner is on the trading block, but I don't think that we will pick quick to pull the triger, unless it an OUTSTANDING deal. Like a big name d-line men and an early rounder. IMO.

[Timberob]

Only if we get a sweet offer. Otherwise there is no real reason to ship him off. Skins hold all the cards on this one.

[yank]

Gardner doesn't just give up on routes, he gives up on plays altogether. The memory of him walking off the field a couple years ago while a fumble in being returned right past him walking off paying no attention is burned in my eyeballs as sure as a 150 watt bulb 2 inches from my face. That had nothing to do with coaching and everything to do with what kind of player Gardner is.

Prediction is that Gibbs has already seen it and he's on the block.

[jrfriedm]

Originally posted by cowskin

is he hard on the cap, i didnt think he was, though i woult put that he might not be long term anyhow as he is soon a FA as a reason he should go also.

While I don't know the exact figuers, I do know that he is in the last year of his rookie contract as a 1st rounder. Which would put him some where between a 2-4 million cap hit. Just Guessing though.

[Guest Xtrmskn04]

If we don't receive at least a high second rounder, I wouldn't consider it. If we are going to trade him, we would need to get a potential starter or significant contributer on defense. The further in the second round you go the less the liklihood that will happen. Gardner is our #2 guy and for a starter doesn't have a bad salary cap number. The part that really comes into play, I think is how good is the offer and whether or not they think they can resign him next yr?

[Die Hard]

Originally posted by yank

Gardner doesn't just give up on routes, he gives up on plays altogether. The memory of him walking off the field a couple years ago while a fumble in being returned right past him walking off paying no attention is burned in my eyeballs as sure as a 150 watt bulb 2 inches from my face. That had nothing to do with coaching and everything to do with what kind of player Gardner is.

Prediction is that Gibbs has already seen it and he's on the block.

Agreed wholeheartedly. And there's enough library with that kind of nonsense to make a few volumes.

The truth is there... you need to read between the lines.

[Tarhog]

Hate to say it, I had high hopes for Gardner to be our unsung hero last season. But the guy plays dumb at times. Bad and/or stupid plays at the worst time. A shame if he goes though, because its a Coach like Gibbs that could get his attention and motivate him to reach his potential. I think Gary Clark had the same kind of near-arrogance, rebellion going, and Gibbs brought the best out of him.

[ibrahim]

I really think the whole resigning of McCants, development of Jacobs, and singning of Thrash are more indicative of the teams plans after letting Gardner go NEXT YEAR when he is a free agent, not this year.

[Jethrodsp]

Im not sold one way or the other on Gardner. I think more than anything, he gets discouraged easily. Coach can take care of that. I dont think Spurrier really knew how to use Gardner. He could become a valuable weapon next season in the red zone and as a possesion target with the proper coaching and scheme. I like McCants and think he will be a very good player, but at this point I honestly dont know if hes that much better than Gardner at this point.

That being said, if the right deal comes along, we are plenty deep at WR and would almost have to pull the trigger.

I say let him play out his contract though. Let's see what he can do in a positive, structured environment.

Hail Skins.

[jmwills1]

I dont think we should trade him unless we can get a high second rounder, which i dont think we'll get because the draft is so deep with receivers. Why not give him a year under gibbs and if we dont wnt him anymore, let him walk next year. I think we need him if we want to be a great team this year

[RedskinsMarchingBand]

Originally posted by wizskinz

Rod Gardner will be trade because:

Reasons to keep him:

1. plenty of potential

2. he's still very young

3. Has not had the benefits of having a good QB or coaching staff up until now.

:dallasuck :eaglesuck :gaintsuck :whippin:

Also Gibbs said we would not trae him, hmmmmm you calling Gibbs a lier???

[thinker]

Gardner has two more years on his rookie contract. He has about $1.3 million left in prorated bonus to be paid and a $1 million salary this year. Trading him would create some dead space and be about a cap space wash this year. It wouldn't surprise me if the ravens were willing to give their 2nd rounder for him. But, though we have alot of depth at wr, we don't have much proven depth there -- McCants 27 catches, Jacobs 2 catches, Russell ??????, Cloman ??????. So I don't know if a late 2nd rounder is enough for us to give him up.

[Cskin]

I think a high to mid 2nd rounder is certainly a possibility. If we can all agree that it takes a couple of years for receivers to adjust to the pro game, unless they're Moss or Harrison, than a team drafting a receiver this year can not expect him to reach his stride until year 3.

Here are the potential 1st round receivers:

Larry Fitgerald

Roy Williams

Reggie Williams

Mike Williams

Rashaun Woods

Lee Evans

Potential late 1st rounders and more likely 2nd rounders:

Michael Clayton

Devery Henderson

Michael Jenkins

Keary Colbert

Devard Darling

Is Gardner better than this group of 2nd rounders? Can you expect better play from 3-year starter Gardner as opposed to 1st year rookie?

Someone in need of a 2nd rounder might feel the value is to trade for Gardner instead of waiting on average 3 years for a rookie to round into form. Those teams? San Francisco, Baltimore, Tennesee, NY Giants (although unlikely), Tampa, Detroit just to name a few.

[KirkNC]

To me the question is if Ben Watson is still on the board in the second where a team will trade us their pick for Gardner would it make sense? Which player do you believe would contribute more to the overall worth of the team? Ben Watson or Rod Gardner?

If this were the senerio I go Ben Watson. Simply but I think Ben Watson would be a better overall contributor to this O than would Rod.

[terpfan]

Originally posted by KirkNC

To me the question is if Ben Watson is still on the board in the second where a team will trade us their pick for Gardner would it make sense? Which player do you believe would contribute more to the overall worth of the team? Ben Watson or Rod Gardner?

If this were the senerio I go Ben Watson. Simply but I think Ben Watson would be a better overall contributor to this O than would Rod.

i was about to ask that same question. im in a mock draft right now where i control the skins and i was considering offering gardner to the 49ers for their second rounder if watson is still available. (we are now at pick 48, the 9ers next pick at 51) i allready traded trotter for the 60th pick in the draft, where i would pick a safety. i traded down from the 5th pick and picked up udeze and darnell dockett.

its hard for me to let go of gardner for a mid second rounder, given that he was drafted in the mid first, but when you think of it as a gardner for watson swap it makes more sense... considering how deep we are at wr and how shallow we are at te.