View Full Version : Clayton reporting #9 a WANTED Pick!!
Cskin
April-23rd-2005, 10:17 AM
Listening the sports radio and the NFL Live draft feed with the Greenbean and Garlic and Clayton.
CLayton says that Cleveland wants Alex Smith, which isn't going to happen, or they are really high on Demarcus Ware at #3. Because Ware is going to go so high... that it's causing a rippling effect in the draft and teams wanting D-lineman are scared that a run on defensive will blow up their draft boards so a number of teams are tring to get to #9. St Louis, Seattle, and others.
He said the Redskins are probably entertaining offers from four to six teams to move up.
I like hearing that.... because I'm hoping we slide down into the teens and pick up a 2nd and 3rd to go with our late 1st.
Zen-like Todd
April-23rd-2005, 10:18 AM
Hot baby, Hot. I'm all for a tradedown.
sashae
April-23rd-2005, 10:20 AM
As long as we end up with a CB... ;)
bulldog
April-23rd-2005, 10:21 AM
the Redskins need to end Day 1 with a catch at CB and WR IMO. If we can trade down and also grab a DL in round 2 that drops that would be ideal.
those are the need areas on the club.
then we could enter day 2 and pick up some line depth, perhaps a linebacker and a developmental quarterback.
SkinsNut73
April-23rd-2005, 10:21 AM
Now this would be good news...
sammino
April-23rd-2005, 10:21 AM
this is a perfect scenario for us
spjunkies
April-23rd-2005, 10:22 AM
If Mike Williams is there we better put it in the freezer.
Bazooka Tooth
April-23rd-2005, 10:22 AM
I would love a trade down to #15, still get one of the corners while recouping a 2nd rounder. I really do not want a trade up. We need to gain picks at this point, not give anymore up.
redman
April-23rd-2005, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by bulldog
the Redskins need to end Day 1 with a catch at CB and WR IMO. If we can trade down and also grab a DL in round 2 that drops that would be ideal.
those are the need areas on the club.
then we could enter day 2 and pick up some line depth, perhaps a linebacker and a developmental quarterback. A 2 of the 3 of a WR, CB or DE would be a home run; all three would be a grand slam. I'd be very happy with the first, and ecstatic at the second.
GSF
April-23rd-2005, 10:23 AM
Man I hope that's true. There are a lot of CBs, WRs, and DE that are going to be around in the bottom of the first and into the second. This is the way to go IMO.
TXREDSKINS44
April-23rd-2005, 10:25 AM
I like this idea!
bulldog
April-23rd-2005, 10:27 AM
The Redskins aren't one player away and the grand mistake would be to mortgage the 2005 and now 2006 drafts to acquire one WR like Edwards or Williams and then be left with holes at CB, WR, DE with no high picks to address them.
techiecool
April-23rd-2005, 10:28 AM
they better pick up a DE. they got no DE pressure last year and the defense relied to much on the CBs.
Art
April-23rd-2005, 10:31 AM
I've been saying for some time that the No. 9 pick is laid out in an interesting spot for us because ONE early suprise can create a real heat on that spot. This would be it.
Fifty Gut
April-23rd-2005, 10:32 AM
Wow, Ware is blowing up to the #3 spot? That's huge for us.
redman
April-23rd-2005, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by bulldog
The Redskins aren't one player away and the grand mistake would be to mortgage the 2005 and now 2006 drafts to acquire one WR like Edwards or Williams and then be left with holes at CB, WR, DE with no high picks to address them. Absolutely. What you see with the successful teams is that they're well-rounded, not that they have studs in every position.
For example, Branch, Patten, Brown and Co. didn't exactly strike fear into the Patriots' opponents in recent years, and yet that was a pass-first offense that won 3 championships.
A team that is full of B+/A- players will beat a team that has a few A+ players with a lot of C- players. We've been the latter far too often in recent years.
SnyderShrugged
April-23rd-2005, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by techiecool
they better pick up a DE. they got no DE pressure last year and the defense relied to much on the CBs.
But it worked, I think a mid round DE, LB or even CB could still help in that area.
techiecool
April-23rd-2005, 10:35 AM
Redman, took the words out of my mouth. they trade down and they trade down more than once. i really think they end up w/ 3-4 extra picks.
demarc007
April-23rd-2005, 10:35 AM
We love it baby, now hopefully someone can tape Snyder's mouth shut if Edwards slides to 4 we'll be in the clear.
frankbones
April-23rd-2005, 10:36 AM
I heard if one of the big 3 RB's are available at 8-11 that Carolina is looking to move up a few spots.
The only player I would happy with if we traded up is Mike Williams
Cskin
April-23rd-2005, 10:36 AM
At this point... if the perceived Top 10 is turned upside down with the addition of Ware at #3.... there are going to be a number of guys, including Williams, that could be sitting there at #9 and 6-8 teams are going to be all over the FO like white on rice to move up to get them.
Because Gibbs says we aren't tied to one particular need.... we are in the perfect position to take advantage of other team's desires and capitalize by acquiring picks on the 1st day that could be turned into starters.
I say trade down... to the teens.... and load up on guys who can help us.
Oldskool
April-23rd-2005, 10:48 AM
If Williams is there at #9, the Skins would be absolutely foolish to trade the pick or take any other player.
redman
April-23rd-2005, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by Oldskool
If Williams is there at #9, the Skins would be absolutely foolish to trade the pick or take any other player. I agree, but that's not inconsistent with what we're saying given that WR is an area of need for us.
stevenaa
April-23rd-2005, 10:50 AM
If we trade down from 9, we should get a lower #1 and a 2nd and 3rd rounder. We will be in a position of great strength if the first picks fall in our favor.
Ironically i'm listening to the draft online through the local cowpukes radio station
Oldskool
April-23rd-2005, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by redman
I agree, but that's not inconsistent with what we're saying given that WR is an area of need for us.
true but the talent level of Mike WIlliams at #9 vs. any other WR at #25 is greater than the talent level of a CB between #9 and #25.
Unless someone gives you the goose and all of her golden eggs, we shouldnt trade down.
redman
April-23rd-2005, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Oldskool
true but the talent level of Mike WIlliams at #9 vs. any other WR at #25 is greater than the talent level of a CB between #9 and #25.
Unless someone gives you the goose and all of her golden eggs, we shouldnt trade down. I agree again. But this means that we won't/shouldn't trade down from 9 unless/until we know that we can't get Williams (or Edwards for that matter) at 9. This is the way I think we'll play it.
Mister Happy
April-23rd-2005, 11:01 AM
Unless the FO thinks there is a better WR than Mike that we can get by trading down.
LightenupSandyBaby
April-23rd-2005, 11:01 AM
Better to go down than to mortgage everything to go up
TC4
April-23rd-2005, 11:02 AM
I can live with a trade-down if we get value for it
Cskin
April-23rd-2005, 11:05 AM
At this point... if the perceived Top 10 is turned upside down with the addition of Ware at #3.... there are going to be a number of guys, including Williams, that could be sitting there at #9 and 6-8 teams are going to be all over the FO like white on rice to move up to get them.
Because Gibbs says we aren't tied to one particular need.... we are in the perfect position to take advantage of other team's desires and capitalize by acquiring picks on the 1st day that could be turned into starters.
I say trade down... to the teens.... and load up on guys who can help us.
Cskin
April-23rd-2005, 11:18 AM
I've been saying for some time that the No. 9 pick is laid out in an interesting spot for us because ONE early suprise can create a real heat on that spot. This would be it.
Um......:paranoid:..... do you also see dead people? :D
Someone mentioned the WR corp. of the Pats. I think one thing I've noticed in their offensive scheme is that the scheme itself that gets their receivers open. All they have to do is catch it. Additionally, once they get down in the redzone their scheme creates mismatches and the balanced attack, the possibility of a Dillon carry, makes it difficult to defend.
With Portis, Cooley, Royal, and a receiving corp. of Patten, Moss, Jacobs or a rookie could make defending us just as difficult as the Pats. I think last year our problem was undisciplined receivers that couldn't be relied on to catch the football coupled with an patchwork offensive line that couldn't hold the point of attack and allow for the receiver patterns to progress and the running lanes to develop.
mookie0720
April-23rd-2005, 11:38 AM
Best idea ever if we picked up a 2nd and a 3rd!!!
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.6 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.