Jump to content
Superduperman

Picking #3

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

So the Redskins didn't get the guy they wanted in Doctson, plus extra assets from the Texans to move down one spot in the 2016 first round of the draft?

So...you're telling me you truly believed that deal hinged upon an agreement that the Texans wouldn't take Doctson?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

So...you're telling me you truly believed that deal hinged upon an agreement that the Texans wouldn't take Doctson?

I'm 100% sure the Texans told us who they would take (Fuller).  I even remember Scott McCloughan saying that after the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

I'm 100% sure the Texans told us who they would take (Fuller).  I even remember Scott McCloughan saying that after the draft.

They may have said that they knew who they were taking, but there was never an agreement to not select X.  As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been a single instance of a team agreeing not to select a player in a trade down scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CWood21 said:

They may have said that they knew who they were taking, but there was never an agreement to not select X.  As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been a single instance of a team agreeing not to select a player in a trade down scenario.

Okay man.  You keep moving the goal posts.  You said:

"That's not how the NFL works.  You either get the guy you want or you get the extra assets.  Which is worth more to you?"

I gave a specific example of that being false.  Either way, this argument is going nowhere so it's best we end it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HTTRDynasty said:

Okay man.  You keep moving the goal posts.  You said:

"That's not how the NFL works.  You either get the guy you want or you get the extra assets.  Which is worth more to you?"

I gave a specific example of that being false.  Either way, this argument is going nowhere so it's best we end it.

It's not moving the goalposts.  My argument has been the same since the beginning.  First, the Redskins aren't getting a mid-SRP worth of value out of Ryan Kerrigan.  I've made that opinion very clear.  I don't see any team feeling the need to give up that kind of value for a guy who is on the wrong side of 30 and only has 1 year left on his contract.  Secondly, I've already said that I don't think there's ever been a trade in which a contingency was put in place to not select a player.  You mentioned that the Texans "told" the Redskins who they were selecting.  And as I asked you before, if the Lions told the Redskins they were selecting Chase Young, would you still say yes to the deal?  And you emphatically said no.  So why would the Lions even consider making that stipulation part of the trade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

I'm 100% sure the Texans told us who they would take (Fuller).  I even remember Scott McCloughan saying that after the draft.

HTTR, I think the issue at hand is a team communicating "we want player X" and taking that as gospel or an agreement that they won't take another player. It all depends on the relationship between the managers and how transparent you're willing to be in your draft plans. We all know that the league works on smokescreens, back room deals, etc. So if Quinn calls up Washington and says we want a chance at Burrow (assuming that Joe Burrow has dug in his heels that he won't play for Cincy), they trade up, Cincy calls his bluff and Young is now sitting there at #2.. it's possible that they'd take (Young) there at #2 even though they made the deal for a different player. Washington would have made the deal and taking the risk of potentially losing out on their guy. It's the same reason that some teams will trade up to guarantee they'll get their guy rather than leave things to chance. Perfect example was the Mitch Trubisky trade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if we promised to not take Young, if you promise not to take who we want next year.  So a first round promise for a promise to be named later?  :P

I joke, I joke... all in fun.

Edited by LionArkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Tua's health issues are a problem, we'll know about it before the draft. As of right now I'm assuming he will be fine until I hear otherwise.

If Kerrigan is such an impact player, why are you hyping him up to trade him so badly? He's a good player who is going to be 32, not an age for a DE where you trade for them to make them a big piece of your team for the future.

Also there's no need on Earth for the Lions to trade up from 3 to 2, just to reiterate that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

I'm over it guys.  I come bearing gifts...

 

On a scale of 1 - 10, with this news and a new coaching staff, what is probability of Washington taking Tua at #2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Karnage84 said:

On a scale of 1 - 10, with this news and a new coaching staff, what is probability of Washington taking Tua at #2?

0.

To expand on this:

1. Snyder would never allow this to happen.

2. There is a strong belief in Haskins within the organization after the way he finished the season last year.

3. A big part of Rivera's interview involved selling Snyder on his plan to develop Haskins.

4. We have a defensive-minded HC who reportedly loves Chase Young.

5. Snyder would never allow this to happen.

Edited by HTTRDynasty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

0.

To expand on this:

1. Snyder would never allow this to happen.

2. There is a strong belief in Haskins within the organization after the way he finished the season last year.

3. A big part of Rivera's interview involved selling Snyder on his plan to develop Haskins.

4. We have a defensive-minded HC who reportedly loves Chase Young.

5. Snyder would never allow this to happen.

Even if Tua is back at 100% and is the guy they expect him to be? I have to imagine Haskins would generate at least a 1st round pick in a trade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Karnage84 said:

Even if Tua is back at 100% and is the guy they expect him to be? I have to imagine Haskins would generate at least a 1st round pick in a trade. 

I also should have mentioned we have a long and sordid history with picking injury-prone QBs #2 overall.  I guess that can be lumped in with "Snyder would never allow this to happen".

Anyway, if Haskins was as terrible as Rosen was last year, it would be an interesting debate.  He wasn't though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HTTRDynasty said:

I also should have mentioned we have a long and sordid history with picking injury-prone QBs #2 overall.  I guess that can be lumped in with "Snyder would never allow this to happen".

Anyway, if Haskins was as terrible as Rosen was last year, it would be an interesting debate.  He wasn't though.

 

Oh I get that. Which is why Haskins would net more than a 2nd like Rosen did. It's just a matter of a healthy Tua being that much better than Haskins and being able to add pieces around him with the 1st + you'd get for Haskins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Karnage84 said:

Even if Tua is back at 100% and is the guy they expect him to be? I have to imagine Haskins would generate at least a 1st round pick in a trade. 

If I was a washington fan, I would think Young + Haskins >>>> Tua.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×