PDA

View Full Version : Trade up with Redskins?


CrunkTex
04-26-2007, 09:12 AM
Assuming the first 5 go as scripted(Russell, Johnson, Quinn, Thomas, Adams), Adrian Peterson will be sitting there at 6 when Washington picks. With that said, the Skins appear to be poised to trade down, with the Texans, Bills, and maybe more interested. According to the value chart, it will take our 3rd(73) and 4th(107) to make the deal happen. At 10, the Skins could still get their guy in Amobi Okoye or Jamaal Anderson. Also given that a Texans-Broncos swap may be dead if Patrick Willis goes before 10(Lions trade down or 49ers up), it would be hard for our FO to pass this deal up. Of course, if we had just played nice and folded to the Colts, we wouldn't be in this spot.

Texans trade
10th overall
73rd
107th

Texans receive
6th overall(Adrian Peterson)

infantrycak
04-26-2007, 09:15 AM
That would be a horrible idea. If he falls, which is becoming more likely with the injury news, fine but no way do you trade up for an injured player. Heck let's draft Charles Spencer again to solve the LT position.

Kaiser Toro
04-26-2007, 09:16 AM
I love AP, but not enough to trade up for him. We need all of our picks this draft and should be thinking of trading down ourselves to pick up a second rounder as well.

CrunkTex
04-26-2007, 09:22 AM
That would be a horrible idea. If he falls, which is becoming more likely with the injury news, fine but no way do you trade up for an injured player. Heck let's draft Charles Spencer again to solve the LT position.

I, for one, would be opposed to this...I think. It all depends on the FO's opinion of Peterson. If you think this guy is Eric Dickerson, make it happen. But if we're forced to stay at 10 then I would make this deal. Trading down and adding depth would be optimal but the value of 73 and 107 is not great enough to say no to the consensus #2 prospect in the draft.

hadaad
04-26-2007, 11:11 AM
There's only one player I would have traded up to get: Joe Thomas. And now that we drafted Matt Schaub with our second, I don't want to trade up anymore. Especially not for a running back.

Trade back, I say.

awtysst
04-26-2007, 11:47 AM
Assuming the first 5 go as scripted(Russell, Johnson, Quinn, Thomas, Adams), Adrian Peterson will be sitting there at 6 when Washington picks. With that said, the Skins appear to be poised to trade down, with the Texans, Bills, and maybe more interested. According to the value chart, it will take our 3rd(73) and 4th(107) to make the deal happen. At 10, the Skins could still get their guy in Amobi Okoye or Jamaal Anderson. Also given that a Texans-Broncos swap may be dead if Patrick Willis goes before 10(Lions trade down or 49ers up), it would be hard for our FO to pass this deal up. Of course, if we had just played nice and folded to the Colts, we wouldn't be in this spot.

Texans trade
10th overall
73rd
107th

Texans receive
6th overall(Adrian Peterson)

So we would give them our 3 and 4th? So now all we have is a 5,6,7 in this draft?! Yeah, no thanks.

gwallaia
04-26-2007, 11:49 AM
No way we trade UP for any player. Trading down seems much more possible this year.

TexanAddict
04-26-2007, 11:58 AM
Assuming the first 5 go as scripted(Russell, Johnson, Quinn, Thomas, Adams), Adrian Peterson will be sitting there at 6 when Washington picks. With that said, the Skins appear to be poised to trade down, with the Texans, Bills, and maybe more interested. According to the value chart, it will take our 3rd(73) and 4th(107) to make the deal happen. At 10, the Skins could still get their guy in Amobi Okoye or Jamaal Anderson. Also given that a Texans-Broncos swap may be dead if Patrick Willis goes before 10(Lions trade down or 49ers up), it would be hard for our FO to pass this deal up. Of course, if we had just played nice and folded to the Colts, we wouldn't be in this spot.

Texans trade
10th overall
73rd
107th

Texans receive
6th overall(Adrian Peterson)

Horrible idea. No way we should be trading up at all. If he is there at 10, that's one thing, but he is not a must have player for this team.

Errant Hothy
04-26-2007, 12:14 PM
No way we trade UP for any player. Trading down seems much more possible this year.

Quoted for truth.

Specnatz
04-26-2007, 12:24 PM
Assuming the first 5 go as scripted(Russell, Johnson, Quinn, Thomas, Adams), Adrian Peterson will be sitting there at 6 when Washington picks. With that said, the Skins appear to be poised to trade down, with the Texans, Bills, and maybe more interested. According to the value chart, it will take our 3rd(73) and 4th(107) to make the deal happen. At 10, the Skins could still get their guy in Amobi Okoye or Jamaal Anderson. Also given that a Texans-Broncos swap may be dead if Patrick Willis goes before 10(Lions trade down or 49ers up), it would be hard for our FO to pass this deal up. Of course, if we had just played nice and folded to the Colts, we wouldn't be in this spot.

Texans trade
10th overall
73rd
107th

Texans receive
6th overall(Adrian Peterson)

This sounds more like what the Redskins would do, since they don't like drafting players. They have a 1st and then nothing until the 5th round I believe.

CrunkTex
04-26-2007, 01:06 PM
Horrible idea. No way we should be trading up at all. If he is there at 10, that's one thing, but he is not a must have player for this team.

I don't understand why people are under the impression that we're set at RB. Ron Dayne got hot for a couple of games and Ahman Green is nothing more than a name at this point. In 2 years when Green looks like James Allen, we'll be in an awfully familiar spot. The opportunity to take Peterson would be a blessing. Certainly trading down makes the most sense but with a marginal difference in talent from 10 to 32 and Willis likely gone, we may not be able to find a partner. A guy like Peterson would help Schaub's development and hopefully keep our young D off the field.

CrunkTex
04-26-2007, 01:12 PM
This sounds more like what the Redskins would do, since they don't like drafting players. They have a 1st and then nothing until the 5th round I believe.
After the Texans made the Schaub trade, I'm not so sure they believe in the draft either. That basically forced our hand into building through free agency. Next summer is probably more important than this draft.

Porky
04-26-2007, 01:18 PM
After the Texans made the Schaub trade, I'm not so sure they believe in the draft either. That basically forced our hand into building through free agency. Next summer is probably more important than this draft.

I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. Good QB's are going to command a premium. I'm just glad we didn't have to give up a #1. Sure a HEALTHY Peterson would be a great pick, but under no circumstances do I feel a trade up is a good idea to get him or anyone for that matter. We can either wait, and select at 10, or trade down if any offers make sense. We can build both thru the draft and FA, it's not an either/or situation. And comparing Green with James Allen just makes you look silly by the way.

Honoring Earl 34
04-26-2007, 01:23 PM
I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. Good QB's are going to command a premium. I'm just glad we didn't have to give up a #1. Sure a HEALTHY Peterson would be a great pick, but under no circumstances do I feel a trade up is a good idea to get him or anyone for that matter. We can either wait, and select at 10, or trade down if any offers make sense. We can build both thru the draft and FA, it's not an either/or situation. And comparing Green with James Allen just makes you look silly by the way.

Who is the better prospect Peterson this year or Mcfadden next year ?

How about Slaton or Rice next year ?

Why trade up unless you're one player away .

CrunkTex
04-26-2007, 01:25 PM
I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. Good QB's are going to command a premium. I'm just glad we didn't have to give up a #1. Sure a HEALTHY Peterson would be a great pick, but under no circumstances do I feel a trade up is a good idea to get him or anyone for that matter. We can either wait, and select at 10, or trade down if any offers make sense. We can build both thru the draft and FA, it's not an either/or situation. And comparing Green with James Allen just makes you look silly by the way.
QB's don't command a premium when they're free agents, as Schaub would have been next summer. I like Schaub but ATL fleeced us. In a good draft, we'll be lucky to get ONE starter in rounds 3-7. So on a team that needs about 10, where are they going to come from if not FA?

Hervoyel
04-26-2007, 01:28 PM
I don't understand why people are under the impression that we're set at RB. Ron Dayne got hot for a couple of games and Ahman Green is nothing more than a name at this point. In 2 years when Green looks like James Allen, we'll be in an awfully familiar spot....

Yes we will and we'll have two more drafts between now and then to do something about that inevitability. I wouldn't even consider giving up our 3rd and 4th to get AP "because in a couple of years we're going to need a RB". That pretty much describes half the teams in the NFL.

Every year there's a Cadillac, Reggie, or AP coming out. If you find yourself in a position to get one then take him but if you're not in a position to do it then keep in mind that next draft will have a few similar players waiting for you.

CrunkTex
04-26-2007, 02:01 PM
Yes we will and we'll have two more drafts between now and then to do something about that inevitability. I wouldn't even consider giving up our 3rd and 4th to get AP "because in a couple of years we're going to need a RB". That pretty much describes half the teams in the NFL.

Every year there's a Cadillac, Reggie, or AP coming out. If you find yourself in a position to get one then take him but if you're not in a position to do it then keep in mind that next draft will have a few similar players waiting for you.
This all goes back to the BPA vs need debate. Trade aside, if Peterson is there at 10 and the Texans pass, that would mean they're drafting for need, the same mistake that Casserly made. Hopefully someone either drops to us or we can make the Broncos deal, that is where I stand. I'm not arguing for a trade up but I'm putting it out there as a realistic possibility and see some merit to it. But I'd sure as hell rather trade up for Peterson than sit at 10 and take any of the available CB's.

Specnatz
04-26-2007, 03:52 PM
This all goes back to the BPA vs need debate. Trade aside, if Peterson is there at 10 and the Texans pass, that would mean they're drafting for need, the same mistake that Casserly made. Hopefully someone either drops to us or we can make the Broncos deal, that is where I stand. I'm not arguing for a trade up but I'm putting it out there as a realistic possibility and see some merit to it. But I'd sure as hell rather trade up for Peterson than sit at 10 and take any of the available CB's.

That is why you will be at home on draft day and not in some draft room with an NFL team. Two or three years ago, Seattle looked to see what the market was for Shaun Alexander and the most anyone was willing to give up was a second round pick. RB do not command a lot in trades because there is always another one in the draft the next year. Look at the draft last year, and look what they did during the season. You would waste the draft because there is already 5 rbs on the rost versus upgrading another position that is in desperate need of being upgraded more.

QB's don't command a premium when they're free agents, as Schaub would have been next summer. I like Schaub but ATL fleeced us. In a good draft, we'll be lucky to get ONE starter in rounds 3-7. So on a team that needs about 10, where are they going to come from if not FA?

So you are saying the Atl would have just kept Schaub if houston did not trade for him and then get nothing in return for him? The Texans were the only team that was interested in him? I guess this is just total Bull right......

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38061

Then when he is a free agent you would have even more teams bidding on him, those that do not draft a QB this season. Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Buffalo, and Green Bay because what if Farve hangs it up. Then of course there might be other teams who do not like there QB and would want a change. What you call getting fleeced is a business decision based upon the status of other teams so they did not have to outbid them for his services, with the chances of losing out completely.

Vinny
04-26-2007, 04:52 PM
Every year there's a Cadillac, Reggie, or AP coming out. If you find yourself in a position to get one then take him but if you're not in a position to do it then keep in mind that next draft will have a few similar players waiting for you.
RB's are too easy to get if you really need one from year to year....so I'm not much in the get a back to "groom" mentality. They tend to have short careers and every draft has a few backs that are considered feature back quality. QB's are much harder to come by, project to the NFL level, and are something you have to take more chances on since getting a quality QB is essential if you want to win over the long haul. I'd much rather have this draft come to us than for us to get brilliant and move up for Peterson....a position/commodity that is not near as scarce from year to year.

Goldensilence
04-26-2007, 05:10 PM
QB's don't command a premium when they're free agents, as Schaub would have been next summer. I like Schaub but ATL fleeced us. In a good draft, we'll be lucky to get ONE starter in rounds 3-7. So on a team that needs about 10, where are they going to come from if not FA?

Last year barring the Spencer injury we got five starters and if you include the Moulds trade 6. I don't think we need ten starters but i know it's example by exageration. It's ok if AP doesn't fall to 10 it's not the end of the world and we're forever doomed to mediocrity.

Oakland has already said they were disapointed they didn't land Schaub. I'm pretty sure we weren't the only one at least looking.

I just don't see the need to trade up to acquire one player when we that far away. Good teams aren't built through FA...they might have players that finish off the work but going through the draft is the only way to build championship teams. Too bad Dan Synder has yet to learn that. I still hear they want to acquire Briggs.

I find these people that are dead set the thing that is going to turn the tide of everything is panning all hopes on getting a "franchise" RB quite funny. If we're hell bent on the franchise tag please get a franchise LT to protect our QB's blindside.

hadaad
04-26-2007, 06:10 PM
This all goes back to the BPA vs need debate. Trade aside, if Peterson is there at 10 and the Texans pass, that would mean they're drafting for need, the same mistake that Casserly made. Hopefully someone either drops to us or we can make the Broncos deal, that is where I stand. I'm not arguing for a trade up but I'm putting it out there as a realistic possibility and see some merit to it. But I'd sure as hell rather trade up for Peterson than sit at 10 and take any of the available CB's.

Trading down actually seems like something that Casserly would have done. He mortgaged a lot of potential depth for Babin and Buchanon.

If they draft Peterson at 10, I will not be disappointed. If they give away the majority of what we have left of this year's picks to get Peterson at #6, I will be.

We are so far from one player away (particularly one player who might miss a chunk of the offseason program -- see Curtis Enis) that giving up picks that could turn into solid depth, if not more, is, to me, ill-advised.

kiwitexansfan
04-26-2007, 06:30 PM
I agree that giving up anything to move up in the draft would dissappoint me. There is noone I would move up for in this draft, the one player I love the most (Landry) doesn't even tempt me to move.

Peterson latest injury news, makes me very nervous.

If he fell to us and we took him, I couldn't argue with that because he COULD be all world, but I wouldn't cry if he was gone and that risk was someone elses.

CrunkTex
04-26-2007, 06:50 PM
That is why you will be at home on draft day and not in some draft room with an NFL team. Two or three years ago, Seattle looked to see what the market was for Shaun Alexander and the most anyone was willing to give up was a second round pick. RB do not command a lot in trades because there is always another one in the draft the next year. Look at the draft last year, and look what they did during the season. You would waste the draft because there is already 5 rbs on the rost versus upgrading another position that is in desperate need of being upgraded more.

So you are saying the Atl would have just kept Schaub if houston did not trade for him and then get nothing in return for him? The Texans were the only team that was interested in him? I guess this is just total Bull right......

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38061

Then when he is a free agent you would have even more teams bidding on him, those that do not draft a QB this season. Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Buffalo, and Green Bay because what if Farve hangs it up. Then of course there might be other teams who do not like there QB and would want a change. What you call getting fleeced is a business decision based upon the status of other teams so they did not have to outbid them for his services, with the chances of losing out completely.

We traded 2 2nd round picks and gave top 5 pick money to a guy who has less than 100 NFL completions and you don't see anything risky about that? If Schaub were in this draft, he would probably be the 3rd or 4th QB taken, and we gave up the equivalent of a mid 1st for him. His limited experience and knowledge of the offense are a bonus but this guy is just as big a gamble as any draft pick. And just because other team's have interest doesn't mean that he's good. Look at Culpepper. We were desperate for a QB and you know what, we took a desperate measure. It could still work out but Rich McKay fleeced us, end of story.

As for Peterson, this guy isn't an every year RB prospect. If you think that, you've definitely never watched him play. He could do more for our team than any other draft pick, including Calvin Johnson and Joe Thomas. Yes, RB's are expendable and easier to come by than other positions, but not Hall of Fame potential RB's. If the Texans traded up for him, it would be hard to argue. As that stands, I'd still rather trade down and continue to build the defense.

Goldensilence
04-27-2007, 01:09 AM
We traded 2 2nd round picks and gave top 5 pick money to a guy who has less than 100 NFL completions and you don't see anything risky about that? If Schaub were in this draft, he would probably be the 3rd or 4th QB taken, and we gave up the equivalent of a mid 1st for him. His limited experience and knowledge of the offense are a bonus but this guy is just as big a gamble as any draft pick. And just because other team's have interest doesn't mean that he's good. Look at Culpepper. We were desperate for a QB and you know what, we took a desperate measure. It could still work out but Rich McKay fleeced us, end of story.

As for Peterson, this guy isn't an every year RB prospect. If you think that, you've definitely never watched him play. He could do more for our team than any other draft pick, including Calvin Johnson and Joe Thomas. Yes, RB's are expendable and easier to come by than other positions, but not Hall of Fame potential RB's. If the Texans traded up for him, it would be hard to argue. As that stands, I'd still rather trade down and continue to build the defense.

The way the contract is loaded makes it deceptive in that it looks like top five money. We have a third year option out if things don't pan.

While he has less then 100 completetions he's been in the league three years and worked with a system with similar terminology to the one we use. He's gotten used to the game speed of the NFL and for a QB that's really valuble. Given Vick's past and when down Schaub stepped in and performed well. I think McKay put himself in apostion now with Harrington as the backup with a Rookie Headcoach to boot. It all rests on the arm of Vick and if he can finally turn the corner.

Not like AP has even set foot on a practice field in the NFL and some people here and readying his bust in Canton. I think you're going over board thinking he would have more immediate impact then Johnson and Thomas would have a better long term effect on the team(even if his arms are short as Winston's).

Honestly i don't get how you're talking about us needing starters but then seem to be ok with trading draft picks away. I know nothing said in the thread is going to change you mind....just food for thought.

Specnatz
04-27-2007, 02:56 AM
We traded 2 2nd round picks and gave top 5 pick money to a guy who has less than 100 NFL completions and you don't see anything risky about that? If Schaub were in this draft, he would probably be the 3rd or 4th QB taken, and we gave up the equivalent of a mid 1st for him. His limited experience and knowledge of the offense are a bonus but this guy is just as big a gamble as any draft pick. And just because other team's have interest doesn't mean that he's good. Look at Culpepper. We were desperate for a QB and you know what, we took a desperate measure. It could still work out but Rich McKay fleeced us, end of story.

As for Peterson, this guy isn't an every year RB prospect. If you think that, you've definitely never watched him play. He could do more for our team than any other draft pick, including Calvin Johnson and Joe Thomas. Yes, RB's are expendable and easier to come by than other positions, but not Hall of Fame potential RB's. If the Texans traded up for him, it would be hard to argue. As that stands, I'd still rather trade down and continue to build the defense.


You say that it is a gamble to get a QB with limited NFL experience and then you say about a RB who has been injured he is worth it even those he has never set foot on an NFL field. Isn't that talking out of both sides of your mouth?

So a runningback is more valuable than a LT protecting the QB and any CB who would help the denfese stop the other team so the offense has a chance to win games? GS is right that I doubt anyone will change your mind but your logic is extremely flawed IMO, because every year there is always a back they say is once in a life time player. I think they said the very same thing last year and when McFadden comes out they will say it again.

HJam72
04-27-2007, 06:34 AM
Reggie Bush is a once-in-a-lifetime player. He is the only RB around that can't run straight up-field.

Every year, there's like 10 players that have a group of people calling them the "once-in-a-lifetime-player". I don't buy it. Somebody said that about some QB whose name I'll never remember again, and NE picked Tom Brady on the 2nd day. Somebody said that about God knows who and Dallas took Emmitt Smith. This year alone, the following players are "once-in-a-lifetime-players":

AP
Joe Thomas
JaMarcus Russell
Calvin Johnson
Levi Brown
Dwayne Jaret
Gaines Adams
Alan Branch
Darrelle Revis
Reggie Nelson
Jamaal Anderson
Leon Hall
Paul Posluszny
Adam Carriker
Marshawn Lynch
Chris Houston
Ryan Kalil

...and I'm sure I probably forgot a few. Truth is nobody knows what they're really gonna do in the NFL, so let's take somebody at one of our MANY positions that need help, instead of choosing one of the very few that don't. I know...BPA. My problem with that is NOBODY knows who the BPA is, so BPA is a farse.