StevieInferior Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Can't post the article cause Punishment will have a fit. But Kiem basically says Skins still looking to move up using Samuels as trade bait. BUT THEY REALIZE THAT IT IS STUPID TO USE SAMUELS TO MOVE UP ONLY 3 SPOTS. So they expect either a player or another pick in return. This could further signal the fO is learning to plan for the future and that you can't get everything in one offseason. http://redskins.theinsiders.com/2/251756.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 StevieInferior, So how does what San Diego does with the first pick, affect what the Raiders and Redskins do, according to the article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubster Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Somebody please tell us at least what is in the article:hump: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDevil'sAdvocate Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Originally posted by StevieInferior Can't post the article cause Punishment will have a fit. But Kiem basically says Skins still looking to move up using Samuels as trade bait. BUT THEY REALIZE THAT IT IS STUPID TO USE SAMUELS TO MOVE UP ONLY 3 SPOTS. So they expect either a player or another pick in return. This could further signal the fO is learning to plan for the future and that you can't get everything in one offseason. http://redskins.theinsiders.com/2/251756.html The rumors that I've heard, as recently as a few hours ago as they were talking about the top couple picks in the draft, is the Redskins are definately trying to trade up and that the Raiders would like to get Patrick Ramsey. So, maybe the player that the agent really actually wants to get moved (ramsey not samuels) is the one they actually deal to move up to #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNatsFan Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 So, if they actually did trade Ramsey, who would they plan to have as their 2nd quarterback, Kerry Collins??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmchairRedskin Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Assinine. Shoo rumors, shoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Originally posted by skinsnatsfan So, if they actually did trade Ramsey, who would they plan to have as their 2nd quarterback, Kerry Collins??? haha i sure hope not.... Eli would work just fine, as would a Philip Rivers:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 it does seem to follow that the easier player to move because of the low base salary and position is Ramsey. that doesn't mean a trade is going to come off, but at least from a dollar standpoint it is possible. #2 on the list of the workable tradeables is Rod Gardner. you would have to think that Gardner may be dealt in move up or as part of a separate transaction, given his status as a free agent in 2005. the Redskins would not have resigned McCants for 3 years and then traded for James Thrash if the team was anticipating working an extension for Gardner. so I think this departure one way or another is in the cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins26 Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 This trade is NOT going to happen. No way. Not a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Unless there is a major personality problem with a player and the new staff that is not being leaked out to the press, this is not a very wise trade at all. I would suspect that this is just more smoke screens being thrown out to the media for everyone to get all hyper over. In the end, even the most "inside" reporter is still a pawn to the franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJCrash34 Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 I just don't see the point in us trading up, it just doesn't make sense to me, we can get a guy to help us out in Winslow or Taylor at 5, or trade down for more picks and improve our D-line. I just don't get what trading up will do to help fill our holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsRback04 Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Originally posted by DJCrash34 I just don't see the point in us trading up, it just doesn't make sense to me, we can get a guy to help us out in Winslow or Taylor at 5, or trade down for more picks and improve our D-line. I just don't get what trading up will do to help fill our holes. Essentially if you're dealing flesh for picks it's not trading up as it is commonly known. Of course the only one I would go North for is Gallery. We would like to keep our current #1 but failing that we would like to come out with a lower #1 that is valuable to the D-Line. If we get Gallery then Samuels is traded outright in the deal or later to Cleveland who still need a Tackle bigtime. But this would be blockbuster stuff. I kinda like it:cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 i could see a trade up/swap that sends samuels to the raiduhs iot draft gallery and gain a 2nd rounder....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNatsFan Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Maybe the Raiders will throw in Sean Gilbert and Dana Stubblefield!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streater101 Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Originally posted by ArmchairRedskin Assinine. Shoo rumors, shoo. I concur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Tooth Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 I hate rumors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLiNT0N P0RTiS Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 No trade and let's get Taylor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVSkinsfan Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 No No we can't trade OUR FUTURE qb!!! if they do that then IMO that would be a big mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akrpsu Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 no way, there is no point in trading ramsey. We already know that he has game, and once he is afforded the luxury of max protection, he will flourish. This is your brain on staying at #5: This is your brain on trading up: any questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannyboy70 Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Hey Streater101, is that Art Monk in a Lavar Arrington uniform? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgunner Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Oh my god, I can't wait for draft day to end this nonsense.:moon: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.