Woz Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 Just now, MKnight82 said: There's no way to know whether they will be better players though. Isn't it better to have more chances to land a stud than put all your eggs in one basket? Fair enough. But if that's your fear, you shouldn't trade back up and sacrifice the eggs you just gained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 Just now, Woz said: Fair enough. But if that's your fear, you shouldn't trade back up and sacrifice the eggs you just gained. I'm not for trading back up, but trading down should be a real consideration since we lack our 3rd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woz Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 Just now, MKnight82 said: I'm not for trading back up, but trading down should be a real consideration since we lack our 3rd. I could understand trading back from 13, but in most cases, I'd rather stay put there. All things being equal, there's a reason certain players are ranked higher on public big boards. Yes, I realize those mean jack and squat (and Jack left town), but it would be easier to swallow staying in line. Now, if there's a run on front seven players (which I worry about), then trading back makes sense. That said, I have no problem trading back from 44 or sliding around with the other picks to get talent. Yes, you won't be able to move as much, but that's where you do what you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavar703 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Woz said: Because: The Redskins would trade down in the first, missing out on better players. The Redskins would trade back into the first, losing out on depth they need at other positions. Maybe they manage to finagle the trades such that they get more by giving up on top players than they give up to get Guice, but that's an awfully thin needle. That "plan" feels like making trades to make trades. Like who? Who would they get in the first two rounds that would be better than the combination of Payne and Guice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtle28 Posted April 18, 2018 Author Share Posted April 18, 2018 4 hours ago, MKnight82 said: Seems pretty hard to accomplish w/o overpaying like Vinny used to. If they could pull it off those that’d be a nicea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 It's only overpriced if the players you draft don't work out. A lot of things get overlooked for some reason, two players in the first means two 5th year options. Could really come in handy down the road. We can't always play it safe, if the opportunity is there now to dramatically improve your team next season you do it 100% of the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtle28 Posted April 18, 2018 Author Share Posted April 18, 2018 22 minutes ago, Eric said: It's only overpriced if the players you draft don't work out. A lot of things get overlooked for some reason, two players in the first means two 5th year options. Could really come in handy down the road. We can't always play it safe, if the opportunity is there now to dramatically improve your team next season you do it 100% of the time Well my point was we shouldn’t give up a too much to trade up like a future 1st to trade back into round 1 to get Guice. Thats what Vinny did in order to draft Jason Campbell. But, to your point if Campbell had turned out to be a pro bowler it would’ve been worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 I'm just ready to see a risk, I'd rather do that than tank. Can't knock the team for their lack of effort, if it succeeds or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e16bball Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 On 4/14/2018 at 1:02 PM, Woz said: It's possible, albeit unlikely, that we could have the horrific scenario of Chubb, Edwards, Smith, Vea, Fitzpatrick, James, and Ward all off the board at 13. This is the nightmare scenario I’ve been worrying about for a month. Although the good news is that with those 7 defenders plus the 4 QBs plus the 2 offensive non-QBs, at worst we’re probably guaranteed either (a) one of those defenders or (b) a golden trade-down opportunity with one of the QBs falling. My concern would be if Edmunds is the one left on the board. I think he’s an incredible talent, but he’s very young and raw — and I’m just not sure I’d trust the Redskins to be the team that will properly mold a lump of clay like that. If it was a QB for Gruden to develop, or if they were handing him to Callahan or Tomsula, that would be one thing. But a sort of tweener LB who they’d really have to move around to maximize his abilities? Not sure that’s really our bailiwick, unfortunately... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 11 minutes ago, e16bball said: This is the nightmare scenario I’ve been worrying about for a month. Although the good news is that with those 7 defenders plus the 4 QBs plus the 2 offensive non-QBs, at worst we’re probably guaranteed either (a) one of those defenders or (b) a golden trade-down opportunity with one of the QBs falling. My concern would be if Edmunds is the one left on the board. I think he’s an incredible talent, but he’s very young and raw — and I’m just not sure I’d trust the Redskins to be the team that will properly mold a lump of clay like that. If it was a QB for Gruden to develop, or if they were handing him to Callahan or Tomsula, that would be one thing. But a sort of tweener LB who they’d really have to move around to maximize his abilities? Not sure that’s really our bailiwick, unfortunately... We should go Davenport in that situation. His upside would be more than anyone left on the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e16bball Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 47 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: We should go Davenport in that situation. His upside would be more than anyone left on the board. I think Edmunds probably still has the higher upside due to the out-of-this-world athleticism, but I wouldn’t really be upset with Davenport. I’d still really like to see them move down in that position, though. Even if they’re not really getting appropriate “value” in return. With Edmunds, Payne, Guice, and Davenport all still on the board — plus Hernandez, Wynn, Evans, Jackson, or even break glass in case of emergency and take someone like Ridley or Landry — I really think you could move down 6 or 8 or even 10 slots and still get a player of similar quality along with additional asset or two. But if they feel compelled to stay put, it would still be a positive thing to get a big explosive LB into the fold. Whether it’s Edmunds or Davenport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripsean21 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 12 hours ago, turtle28 said: Seems pretty hard to accomplish w/o overpaying like Vinny used to. If they could pull it off those that’d be a nicea! I posted this the other day before Cooley I felt like those two are the two players they want and they are going to do their best to acquire both of possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtle28 Posted April 18, 2018 Author Share Posted April 18, 2018 10 hours ago, e16bball said: This is the nightmare scenario I’ve been worrying about for a month. Although the good news is that with those 7 defenders plus the 4 QBs plus the 2 offensive non-QBs, at worst we’re probably guaranteed either (a) one of those defenders or (b) a golden trade-down opportunity with one of the QBs falling. My concern would be if Edmunds is the one left on the board. I think he’s an incredible talent, but he’s very young and raw — and I’m just not sure I’d trust the Redskins to be the team that will properly mold a lump of clay like that. If it was a QB for Gruden to develop, or if they were handing him to Callahan or Tomsula, that would be one thing. But a sort of tweener LB who they’d really have to move around to maximize his abilities? Not sure that’s really our bailiwick, unfortunately... I don’t know, Manusky knows LBs and has coaches some great ones over the years, I trust him to ba able to put Edmunds in a position to maximize his talents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavar703 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 3 hours ago, ripsean21 said: I posted this the other day before Cooley I felt like those two are the two players they want and they are going to do their best to acquire both of possible And I have no problem with it. As long as we don’t part with next years first this would be a hell of a draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavar703 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 20 hours ago, MKnight82 said: lmao at HogsHaven's Mark Tyler ripping this scenario off and acting like he came up with it himself. His article gives no credit to Cooley or Burgundy Blog for posting about it. Just acted like he thought of it out of the blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.