Chrisbob74 Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 What price would you pay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisbob74 Posted April 11, 2004 Author Share Posted April 11, 2004 Well, I'd give up Samuels and Gardener for it, two former first rounders, one a former 1,000 yeard receiver who is still young and the other a Pro Bowl tackle. I would not throw in the #5 overall at any cost! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 Samuals was a #3 overall, Gardner is near the top of his Draft class and still young (younger than McCants) so dealing them would be a loss to us, don't give up our guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 Samuels is a proven player and has NFL Experience. Easily worth a straight up trade for the #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streater101 Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 None actually. Hypothetically speaking, the 5th and Gardner, with the contigency I could get the Browns 7th for Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 If you are at all serious about this trade, Samuels and the FIFTH round pick should be enough to GET the No. 2 pick. Remember, folks. Samuels is a former No. 3 pick. He's young. He's a multiple Pro Bowl tackle. When he's playing his game he's among the Top 3 left tackles in football behind Pace and Ogden. You would not need to give up anything more to get the No. 2 pick than that normally. Now, there will be something of a premium put on things given the draft is approaching so I suspect something more might have to be included. Gardner is a strong No. 2 receiver in the league. He's young, has physical skill and upside and shouldn't be discarded without serious thought. Remember, the question of Samuels means we will be adding Gallery. Does getting rid of Gardner mean having to add Fitzgerald or Williams or whatever at receiver? Obviously right now we have good talent and depth at receiver, plus fantastic prospects. If you move Gardner you lose depth and start counting on prospects who have to produce. If they do, you're golden. If not, you'll rue the day you made that move. To me, I would probably, absolutely, trade Samuels and our fifth-round pick for the No. 2 pick if you know Gallery is there. If so, take Gallery. Then, with the No. 5 pick you slide down a few spots and take Smith or Udeze. If you get Gallery, you need to pair across from him the young anchor end who will have to battle Gallery every day in practice. That will make both guys better. In the trade down process you'll recover your fifth rounder and maybe a slight bit more. If moving up to No. 2 requires you to lose No. 5, you only do it if you know you can move Samuels for another pick in the Top 10 in the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekskins Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 i would never deal ramsey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisbob74 Posted April 11, 2004 Author Share Posted April 11, 2004 Originally posted by ekskins i would never deal ramsey. I was wondering how long it would take for a reaction to that idea. I wouldn't trade him either but fact is, he is a trade-able commodity due to his youth and starting experience. I know JG has said he won't trade, not many of us (including me) want him traded but teams may still ask after him in any deal we try to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandies Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 other A.D. Whitfield, and a first rounder in 2065. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLiNT0N P0RTiS Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 I wouldn't want to lose any of our guys because they have proved that they can play this game but if I have to, I'll just give up Samuels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hctrble Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 If i was going to do this it would be an even trade for say the Raiders #2 for Samuels. Then we would have the #2 and #5. i would try to get Gallery and then Harris or Taylor. Does any one agree with that deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. D Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 samuels and trotter maybe a 2005 pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaRock Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 Exactly what Art said..phew..you guys were scaring me making me think you'll all just wanted to dump gardner..thanks for the reassurance. I'd say if we can move up with just samuels and the 5th rounder...do it and grab gallery. Take Taylor with the 5th overall or slide down until you can grab wilfork?...we need a stud in the middle..i'm not so sold on udeze or smith...but maybe just stay put and pick up gallery and sean taylor...that'd be nice...w/o losing gardner or any of next year's picks.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsenic Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 Originally posted by Punch and Judy other A.D. Whitfield, and a first rounder in 2065. I wish you could trade that far into the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 Wait, I'm confused. Why would we give up the #5 overall and Samuels for another LT? I mean, we wouldn't address a need at Safety, TE or DL. Now, if we could give up Samuels, Trotter and our 6th rounder. Then I could accept we're going to take Gallery and either K2 or Taylor. But right now we can live with Samuels and his contract this season and either upgrade TE/Safety....or trade down alittle and get a D-Linemen around the 10th overall pick while getting an extra 2nd or 3rd rounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 I would give up Samuels and Gardner but only if they send us their 2nd and one of their young TEs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambone Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 I'm with you Buford. IF we give up Samuels, we don't give up the #5 to sweeten the deal. They can have Trotter if they want. Keeping Gardner doesn't cost us anything, lets give him another year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvoSkins Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 I also agree that trading Samuels and the 5th pick is useless if we decide to draft Gallery. If they do that, they are basically swapping OTs and saving a little bit of cash in the process while not addressing the areas of need on the team. The Skins still have options of reducing their payroll by cutting players like Moore, Canidate and Trotter. If the Skins can negoiate a deal for the 2nd pick for Samuels and the 2005 2nd round pick, I could live with that. Take Gallery with the 2nd and trade back the 5th. Pick up a dominant DL like Udeze, Smith, Wilfork or Starks. Pick up a TE like Troupe or Watson. Pick up a S Sean Jones and C Jake Grove. This draft can be good for the Skins or just be a swap of talent we already have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 Originally posted by illone Samuels is a proven player and has NFL Experience. Easily worth a straight up trade for the #2. agreed. we shouldn't trade him, but he clearly worthy of such a trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rook Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 Just Samuels. However the cost to pay the #2 and #5 will be steep signing bonus money. I think if the Skins make the move, the Raiders will want the #5. Heck - I thought the Champ for Portis trade should have been even-up and not included that high 2nd round pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
method man Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 I think we should trade samuels to the browns for their #7 overall and possibly courtney brown (now that he has restructured; could thrive in a new environment) or gerard warren ( who could be our starting NT). As El Ramon has been saying on other threads, winey will be good enuf as the starting left tackle for these reasons: 1. brunell is left-handed so jansen is the important guy who will be stopping the pass rusher from coming thru the blindside 2. winey will be bugel's main project and winey could eventually become one of the top 15 left tackles if the FO is not satisfied with winey, then we can always trade from #7 to #14/15 and pick up a second rounder along the way and draft shawn andrews who could be a really good lineman if he can control his weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnacpa Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 No way we give up a LT and our #5 overall to go back to the well for an unproven LT while eating dead cap space for Samuels, especially when our QB may be a left hander. We would be neglecting needs on defense or TE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
method man Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 according to a report, getting rid of samuels will clear 6 mil in cap space. i think it was the post that mentioned this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynzskin Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 it would be horrible to get up the #5 and samuels. were basically giving up one of the better LT in the game when hes on his game to up three spots and draft a LT. If the raiders wanted i would give them trotter wtih samuels to get the #2, but theres no way i would give the #5! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinFaninOKC Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 I'll post it again.....Rod Gardner will have more TD receptions than LC. Gibbs should make sure he stays put. Yes we have depth but after McCants we lack experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.