PDA

View Full Version : Skins could trade to #3 before the draft


KCStud
04-20-2009, 10:21 AM
According to SI's Peter King, Redskins owner Daniel Snyder is "beyond smitten" with USC QB Mark Sanchez and "will likely pursue him this week."
King believes Snyder will have to give up a 2009 and 2010 first or a collection of picks this year in order to move in front of Seattle at No. 4. Chiefs GM Scott Pioli, the NFL leader in draft-day trades over the past eight years, is dying to move out of the No. 3 spot. Sanchez now looks like a near lock to go Top-5


I could see Snyder doing this. He doesn't value the draft that much and will give up picks. As a KC fan I would love this

eazyb81
04-20-2009, 10:26 AM
This would be a dream scenario for the Chiefs.

parrish_lemar24DBSkins
04-20-2009, 10:27 AM
I love my Skins, but Dan Snyder is a friggin idiot if he makes this deal.

Sanchez only started for one year, and isn't that much better a prospect than Colt Brennan who's already on the roster.

He definitely isn't better than Matt Leinart, who couldn't beat out Kurt Warner in Arizona, so I don't see how Cerrato or Snyder believe that Sanchez is worth 2 #1s.

Losing out on Cutler to the Bears did a major head-trip on Danny boy!!

Please, Mr. Snyder, just say no!!

Babylon
04-20-2009, 10:32 AM
I love my Skins, but Dan Snyder is a friggin idiot if he makes this deal.

Sanchez only started for one year, and isn't that much better a prospect than Colt Brennan who's already on the roster.

He definitely isn't better than Matt Leinart, who couldn't beat out Kurt Warner in Arizona, so I don't see how Cerrato or Snyder believe that Sanchez is worth 2 #1s.

Losing out on Cutler to the Bears did a major head-trip on Danny boy!!

Please, Mr. Snyder, just say no!!

I think the real question is how much better he is than Jason Campbell.

As for the Chiefs getting a 1st in 2010 would be big. With the 13th pick i think they could get themselves a pretty good LB or WR.

BPhilb
04-20-2009, 10:46 AM
I heard King this morning on Sirius radio and he made it sound like they would move to 5 if Sanchez fell past the Seahawks. As a Chiefs fan I would love to see this happen but I don't even think Snyder is crazy enough to move up all the way to 3. I also think Pioli will be working like crazy to get either into the late first or early second round of this draft and any trade would include a 2nd round pick this year. Just my thoughts.

PossibleCabbage
04-20-2009, 10:46 AM
#3 in exchange for #13 and a future first? You do that in a second this year if you're the Chiefs, since none of the elite prospects on the board line up well with your needs.

jnew76
04-20-2009, 10:52 AM
I see the Redskins making a move for Sanchez, but I would see it happening for the #8 or #9 pick to get ahead of San Francisco. I just don't see them getting from 13 into the top 5.

D-Rod
04-20-2009, 10:56 AM
That would be so good for the Chiefs, and so silly for the Skins. They're in compete now mode (especially with the signing of Haynesworth, and the aging team generally), and Sanchez wouldn't be even close to ready to performing at an adequate level.

initial_flo
04-20-2009, 10:56 AM
#3 in exchange for #13 and a future first? You do that in a second this year if you're the Chiefs, since none of the elite prospects on the board line up well with your needs.

The draft talent does line up because their team is all needs... But yeah I totally agree with you.

And knowing the Redskins, the Chiefs could/should get more. Another 2nd/3rd this year at least? The Skins usually trade picks like its their job.

drowe
04-20-2009, 11:00 AM
i love draft week drama.

-i first thought..."wow, this could really shake up the top 10." but, if ya had Monroe going to KC and Sanchez going to Seattle, it really doesn't affect much. this would just put Sanchez at 3 and Monroe at 4 to the 'Hawks.

-BUT, let's just pretend this deal went down today...and let's also assume/pretend that Seattle was also in love with Sanchez. they could probably trade up with the Rams at #2 fairly easily...leaving the 'Skins sitting at #3 with nothing to do...so, the OP said Snyder was looking to trade up THIS WEEK. i hope it happens...but can't imagine anybody would be that stupid.

broadstbullies
04-20-2009, 11:02 AM
I fully expect Washington to go after Sanchez but unless they are sold Seattle is gonna take him or someone is trading up to 4 or even 3 then no need to do this. But Danny Boy is known for this.

I fully support this move as an Eagles fan

RaiderNation
04-20-2009, 11:10 AM
If Sanchez drops to 7 raiders better trade back

LonghornsLegend
04-20-2009, 11:13 AM
That would be funny if he did trade up before the draft for all that, and STL pulls the trigger on Sanchez at the 2 spot before them lol...Perfect Synder move, has to make the splash, and if he wants to pay that much by all means then do it, most likely that 2010 1st rounder will be top 15 too so it's going to cost them.

Babylon
04-20-2009, 11:14 AM
If Washington does make a move up for Sanchez what do they do with Campbell? Could he be part of a trade with the Rams or Seahawks? I doubt it would sit well with him if the Skins brought Sanchez in.

parrish_lemar24DBSkins
04-20-2009, 11:17 AM
I think the real question is how much better he is than Jason Campbell.

As for the Chiefs getting a 1st in 2010 would be big. With the 13th pick i think they could get themselves a pretty good LB or WR.

If Campbell doesn't have a pro-bowl type season and get the SKins into the playoffs, he's done in DC.

This is the last year of his contract, and I can't see VinDanny signing him to a franchise QB type deal.

Moving up into the top 5 BEFORE THE DRAFT to pick Sanchez would be such an idiotic move, but the upside is maybe it would force Danny to fire Cerrato and finally hire a real GM.

the decider13
04-20-2009, 11:20 AM
That would be funny if he did trade up before the draft for all that, and STL pulls the trigger on Sanchez at the 2 spot before them lol

That was the first thing I thought of after I read this story lol

Abaddon
04-20-2009, 11:22 AM
If Sanchez drops to 7 raiders better take him.

:cool:

Sanchez...isn't that much better a prospect than Colt Brennan who's already on the roster. He definitely isn't better than Matt Leinart.

lolwut?

SeanTaylorRIP
04-20-2009, 11:28 AM
If we effing move up to #3 it better be for flipping Aaron Curry. We have HB fcking Blades starting at SLB, if you go to 3 and don't take Curry you are nuts. BTW sorry parrish_lemar24DBSkins but did you just say Sanchez isn't any better of a prospect than Colt Brennan??? Damn the lovefest for this guy has been driven out of control.

D-Unit
04-20-2009, 11:42 AM
I smell a smokescreen.

parrish_lemar24DBSkins
04-20-2009, 11:44 AM
This is my personal feeling based on what they both did in college, despite the gimmicky spread system Colt played in at Hawaii.

There's no strong argument either way for both QBs, at this point it's all opinion until one of them proves it on the field in the NFL.

They're both the same height,( 6'2), I give Sanchez a slightly stronger arm, very similar intangibles.

But for Colt to drop all the way to 6th round because of a bad Sugar Bowl against Georgia, ( couldn't block Georgia's front 7), and mediocre play in predraft games while he was recovering from weight loss/loss in strength from the flu, I think was a mistake.

When I see Sanchez, I don't see Peyton Manning or Carson Palmer, and if he's only a slightly better prospect IMO than Brennan, let's see what we have before mortgaging the team's future for a one year starter at USC.

Matthew Jones
04-20-2009, 11:45 AM
Sanchez only started for one year, and isn't that much better a prospect than Colt Brennan who's already on the roster.

This is one of the stupidest statements I've read on this site. Also, Seattle trading up to #2 would be contingent on the Rams agreeing to help a division rival get a franchise quarterback. Not likely.

SeanTaylorRIP
04-20-2009, 11:45 AM
I smell a smokescreen.

Haha I don't. Snyder has met with Sanchez and now has a permanent hard on. Any time Snyder has a hard on for someone he will announce his intentions publicly. I guess drafting Sanchez would be an easier more natural solution than having to take Viagr. Remember when we drafted Jason Campbell at 25??? We traded for the 25th pick 3 days prior to the draft. We announced that we would be taking Campbell with the 25th pick 3 days before the draft. Every analyst said it was smokescreen because we wanted Matt Jones and that there was no way that we could be dumb enough to announce that pick prior to the draft, guess what happened, we took him, lol.

the decider13
04-20-2009, 11:45 AM
This is my personal feeling based on what they both did in college, despite the gimmicky spread system Colt played in at Hawaii.

There's no strong argument either way for both QBs, at this point it's all opinion until one of them proves it on the field in the NFL.

They're both the same height,( 6'2), I give Sanchez a slightly stronger arm, very similar intangibles.

But for Colt to drop all the way to 6th round because of a bad Sugar Bowl against Georgia, ( couldn't block Georgia's front 7), and mediocre play in predraft games while he was recovering from weight loss/loss in strength from the flu, I think was a mistake.

When I see Sanchez, I don't see Peyton Manning or Carson Palmer, and if he's only a slightly better prospect IMO than Brennan, let's see what we have before mortgaging the team's future for a one year starter at USC.

Yes...they are similar prospects. That's why Colt was a 6th rounder and Sanchez is top 10. Extremely similar...

Geo
04-20-2009, 11:47 AM
Haha I don't. Snyder has met with Sanchez and now has a permanent hard on. Any time Snyder has a hard on for someone he will announce his intentions publicly. I guess drafting Sanchez would be an easier more natural solution than ******. Remember when we drafted Jason Campbell at 25??? We traded for the 25th pick 3 days prior to the draft. We announced that we would be taking Campbell with the 25th pick 3 days before the draft. Every analyst said it was smokescreen because we wanted Matt Jones and that there was no way that we could be dumb enough to announce that pick prior to the draft, guess what happened, we took him, lol.
Yes or no, wasn't Snyder "smitten" with Calvin Johnson?

And yet he didn't give up what it would cost to get him. Instead they took the best defensive player on their board in Laron Landry (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/04/29/draft/5.html).

killxswitch
04-20-2009, 11:53 AM
If Jason Campbell played for a team not run by idiots he might be a good QB by now.

parrish_lemar24DBSkins
04-20-2009, 12:03 PM
This is one of the stupidest statements I've read on this site. Also, Seattle trading up to #2 would be contingent on the Rams agreeing to help a division rival get a franchise quarterback. Not likely.
Considering your avatar, I find it odd you're basing the value of a player solely on where they were picked in the draft.

'Cause we all know those lowly 6th round QBs suck much a@@, right RavenofProphecy?

Keep the stupid statements to youself, brah. Sanchez hasn't done squat in the pros, he started for a loaded USC squad for one year, couldn't manage to beat Oregon State, and blew a shot at the National Championship.

He's a nice prospect, but far from a given. For two years Sanchez couldn't even beat out John David Booty, for chrissake!!

1st round QBs fall far short of expectations all the time, ( see Matt Leinart), so check yourself before you drop the "stupidest statement I've read on this site".

the decider13
04-20-2009, 12:06 PM
Considering your avatar, I find it odd you're basing the value of a player solely on where they were picked in the draft.

'Cause we all know those lowly 6th round QBs suck much a@@, right RavenofProphecy?

Keep the stupid statements to youself, brah. Sanchez hasn't done squat in the pros, he started for a loaded USC squad for one year, couldn't manage to be Oregon State, and blew a shot at the National Championship.

He's a nice prospect, but far from a given. For two years Sanchez couldn't even beat out John David Booty, for chrissake!!

1st round QBs fall far short of expectations all the time, ( see Matt Leinart), so check yourself before you drop the "stupidest statement I've read on this site".


RoP was wrong...this is the stupidest statement on this site. You obviously don't understand the word prospect. Tom Brady was a crappy prospect. Tim Couch was an elite prospect. Colt Brennan is a crappy prospect. Mark Sanchez is a good prospect.

parrish_lemar24DBSkins
04-20-2009, 12:06 PM
Yes...they are similar prospects. That's why Colt was a 6th rounder and Sanchez is top 10. Extremely similar...

I said similar INTANGIBLES, Decider.

Read carefully before you attempt to crack back.

I've never seen so many people quick to drop the "stupid" or "dumb" bomb when they vehemently disagree with someone else's opinion.

You obviously have a problem reading, Decider, but notice I never once questioned your intellectual aptitude.

You have a hard on for Sanchez, I don't, and I don't want the SKins to waste picks to move into the top 5 to grab him.

PossibleCabbage
04-20-2009, 12:17 PM
Yes or no, wasn't Snyder "smitten" with Calvin Johnson?

And yet he didn't give up what it would cost to get him. Instead they took the best defensive player on their board in Laron Landry (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/04/29/draft/5.html).

At the same time though, trading up in the top 10 this year is quite possibly the cheapest it's ever been. You can probably get from 10 to 5 with only a third round pick thrown in, just due to the fairly flat distribution of talent in this draft and the inflating salaries of top picks. Trading up in 2007 was a lot more expensive, since a team trading down five spots would likely miss out on several elite prospects and have to settle for someone a tier down.

the decider13
04-20-2009, 12:18 PM
How is recognizing that Sanchez is a MUCH better prospect than Colt having a "hard on" for Sanchez?

SeanTaylorRIP
04-20-2009, 12:19 PM
Yes or no, wasn't Snyder "smitten" with Calvin Johnson?

And yet he didn't give up what it would cost to get him. Instead they took the best defensive player on their board in Laron Landry (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/04/29/draft/5.html).

But that was taken after he drafted Landry. Don't know the full story but doubt the Lions were going to trade out of that spot.

If Jason Campbell played for a team not run by idiots he might be a good QB by now.

Eh as a WC QB he just doesn't fit. He has slow reads, locks on defenders and has a slightly slow wind up release. I truly believe he could be successful in a pro traditional drop back play action pro style offense, but Zorn has changed the face of the team, good or not.

Matthew Jones
04-20-2009, 12:19 PM
I said similar INTANGIBLES, Decider.

Actually, you said this:

"Sanchez only started for one year, and isn't that much better a prospect than Colt Brennan who's already on the roster."

Matthew Jones
04-20-2009, 12:21 PM
Also, need I remind you that Sanchez sat behind John David Booty because Booty had seniority and was one of the top high school prospects in the country coming out? It's not rare for that to happen. See Joe Flacco behind Tyler Palko, etc.

parrish_lemar24DBSkins
04-20-2009, 12:23 PM
It didn't happen for Leinart, and it shouldn't happen for any qb if you're the best guy on the team.

Sanchez sat for 2 years because Pete Carroll saw marginal difference on the field when they both played.

Honestly, nowadays how can anyone can get geeked up on where a QB prospect is rated before the draft, as if it's a lock predictor of what they're going to do on the field?

QB is one of the hardest positions to project success on the next level based solely on what they've done in college, so for you to go ballistic RoP because I prefer what I've seen from Colt in training camp and in preseason over the potential of Sanchez, is nonsense.

DiG
04-20-2009, 12:25 PM
If Jason Campbell played for a team not run by idiots he might be a good QB by now.

Not true IMO. Maybe on 4-5 teams in the NFL where he would fit perfectly but hes a poor leader with no emotion and some bad habits (staring down receivers,slow release).

Matthew Jones
04-20-2009, 12:29 PM
It didn't happen for Leinart, and it shouldn't happen for any qb if you're the best guy on the team.

Sanchez sat for 2 years because Pete Carroll saw marginal difference on the field when they both played.

Matt Leinart was not a four-year starter. He was a backup to Carson Palmer his redshirt freshman year. John David Booty was an outstanding quarterback in high school who had two years more than Sanchez to learn the playbook and get used to the offense.

parrish_lemar24DBSkins
04-20-2009, 12:37 PM
The point is, John David Booty is a booty-stank QB in the NFL, yet even the gifted Mark Sanchez sat for 2 years behind him.

Carroll only starts upperclassmen over younger players if they both give similar production on offense/defense, or the upperclassmen is a superior player.
At best, Carroll thought for 2 years Sanchez was the equal of Booty, which is in part why Carroll was begging Mark to come back to USC because he wasn't ready in terms of playing experience to make the jump to the pros.

Babylon
04-20-2009, 12:46 PM
If Jason Campbell played for a team not run by idiots he might be a good QB by now.


I actually think he's pretty good now and i just dont see this move unless he's involved in a trade.

Matthew Jones
04-20-2009, 12:49 PM
The point is, John David Booty is a booty-stank QB in the NFL, yet even the gifted Mark Sanchez sat for 2 years behind him.

Carroll only starts upperclassmen over younger players if they both give similar production on offense/defense, or the upperclassmen is a superior player.
At best, Carroll thought for 2 years Sanchez was the equal of Booty, which is in part why Carroll begging Mark to come back to USC because he wasn't ready in terms of playing experience to make the jump to the pros.

Joe Tereshinski started over Matthew Stafford originally when he got to Georgia. Are you saying Colt Brennan is better than Stafford as well? Also J.D. hasn't even gotten a chance to play in the NFL yet. I agree he doesn't have very good future prospects as a starter, but he was still picked ahead of Colt Brennan.

parrish_lemar24DBSkins
04-20-2009, 12:59 PM
It's not so much that Sanchez had to sit when he first got to USC, it's the fact he only started for only one year and had to sit for 2 years behind a QB who has limited prospects as a pro.
Stafford was a three year starter, but if he had to sit for 2 years behind Tereshinski(who??), I'd be skeptical of how talented Stafford was too.

Look, if you revel RoP in twisting the words of other posters on this forum to prove a point, be my guest.

For the record, I never said Colt was a better prospect coming out of college than Sanchez.
I said, IMO, that Sanchez isn't that much better a prospect than Colt.

Similar statements, but still a very different argument than the one you imply I made.

Personally, I'd rather let Sanchez ride and let Colt play next year.

SeanTaylorRIP
04-20-2009, 01:01 PM
I actually think he's pretty good now and i just dont see this move unless he's involved in a trade.

Knowing our luck we will trade #13 and next years first and 2nd rounders for Sanchez. JC will start this year while Sanchez learns. JC does well and we are stuck having to force Sanchez the starter after giving up so much and we end up trading JC for a 3rd rounder and Sanchez sucks it up. Worst case scenario of course, lol. Well actually JC could suck next year and Sanchez could suck which would be worse.

derza222
04-20-2009, 01:04 PM
If the Jets trade for a QB I'd have Campbell on my short list. At least he's got some experience at the position, as opposed to a guy like Brady Quinn, and would cost considerably less as well. If we want to bring in some TC competition for Clemens, Campbell is probably one of the better guys on the market for that.

SeanTaylorRIP
04-20-2009, 01:09 PM
Yeah honestly if I were a Jets fan Id rather get JC for a 3rd rounder than Josh Freeman for a first rounder. JC is still young too.

D-Unit
04-20-2009, 01:27 PM
Love how the word "smitten" is always used when Snyder likes someone. :p

That guy is always smitten, but it doesn't mean he always gets what he wants.

I have a hard time believing he'll give up what is rumored, considering he was "smitten" over Cutler and was going to give up anything... and then lost out. The rumored terms are BETTER than what Denver got for Cutler.

You guys gotta see through the smoke. Don't believe every flying rumor the week of the draft. Especially when you consider the source. Peter King? Fat man don't know jack.

SeanTaylorRIP
04-20-2009, 01:28 PM
Love how the word "smitten" is always used when Snyder likes someone. :p

That guy is always smitten, but it doesn't mean he always gets what he wants.

I have a hard time believing he'll give up what is rumored, considering he was "smitten" over Cutler and was going to give up anything... and then lost out. The rumored terms are BETTER than what Denver got for Cutler.

You guys gotta see through the smoke. Don't believe every flying rumor the week of the draft. Especially when you consider the source. Peter King? Fat man don't know jack.

No I think not getting Cutler had mostly to due with McDaniels not liking Campbell at all and preferring Orton.

Babylon
04-20-2009, 01:29 PM
Knowing our luck we will trade #13 and next years first and 2nd rounders for Sanchez. JC will start this year while Sanchez learns. JC does well and we are stuck having to force Sanchez the starter after giving up so much and we end up trading JC for a 3rd rounder and Sanchez sucks it up. Worst case scenario of course, lol. Well actually JC could suck next year and Sanchez could suck which would be worse.

To me if they make a trade with a St. Louis or a Seattle Campbell would be part of the deal maybe with picks going both ways. Campbell has been jilted to an extent with the Cutler soap opera now you would be doing it all over again. Seems unlikely for that to happen with a former 1st but you know how they do things there better than i do.

Babylon
04-20-2009, 01:33 PM
It's not so much that Sanchez had to sit when he first got to USC, it's the fact he only started for only one year and had to sit for 2 years behind a QB who has limited prospects as a pro.
Stafford was a three year starter, but if he had to sit for 2 years behind Tereshinski(who??), I'd be skeptical of how talented Stafford was too.

Look, if you revel RoP in twisting the words of other posters on this forum to prove a point, be my guest.

For the record, I never said Colt was a better prospect coming out of college than Sanchez.
I said, IMO, that Sanchez isn't that much better a prospect than Colt.

Similar statements, but still a very different argument than the one you imply I made.

Personally, I'd rather let Sanchez ride and let Colt play next year.

I'm not sure i'd draw too many conclusions about Booty starting over Sanchez at SC, 1st year he was redshirted and after that Booty was having a lot of success. Keep in mind Booty was as heralded out of HS as Sanchez and who projects to the better pro QB doesnt factor into Pete Carroll's thinking. He might actually go with an upperclassmen there this year in Mustain (or Corp) over better pro prospect Barkely.

killxswitch
04-20-2009, 01:35 PM
Eh as a WC QB he just doesn't fit. He has slow reads, locks on defenders and has a slightly slow wind up release. I truly believe he could be successful in a pro traditional drop back play action pro style offense, but Zorn has changed the face of the team, good or not.

You have probably watched a lot more of him than I have. Is he that bad or is he a product of bad coaching and constantly-changing QB styles? There was early-season talk of him as an MVP candidate last year.

SeanTaylorRIP
04-20-2009, 01:38 PM
You have probably watched a lot more of him than I have. Is he that bad or is he a product of bad coaching and constantly-changing QB styles? There was early-season talk of him as an MVP candidate last year.

Well the MVP talk was funny, that was all Portis. Campbell is big and strong, pretty mobile, with an absolute cannon. Some of the problem has to do with having 7 different systems the last 8 years of him playing football. Some of it has to do with awful conservative playcalling. Some of it has to do with not having a legit WR outside of Santana Moss. At the root of it though he has choppy footwork and isn't great at reading defenses. The tools are definitely there but I think he needs to start off in a more simplified system. Al Saunders 1 billion page playbook of trash really messed with his mind. He goes from that to Zorn's hopeful WCO that doesn't fit any of the team personnel.

3pac
04-20-2009, 01:45 PM
Parrish_lemar, I actually kind of agree with you. People favor being a "good prospect" waaaaaaaay too much on this board. If being a "good prospect" was so important or useful, we wouldn't have so many 1st round busts....let alone 1st round QB busts.

D-Unit
04-20-2009, 02:41 PM
No I think not getting Cutler had mostly to due with McDaniels not liking Campbell at all and preferring Orton.
Oh, I can see that. Thanks for clearing it up.

I'm still very relieved that you guys didn't get Cutler. ...at the same time, I'm scared that you have Colt Brennan cause he's something special.

ChiFan24
04-20-2009, 02:54 PM
I feel this is the perfect opportunity to shamelessly plug my mock, since I projected this trade in it a couple days ago, and gave it a pretty long explanation.

http://draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32723

So needless to say I'm on the bandwagon. And there's no way this is a smokescreen, IMO. First of all, I don't even see the point, since Sanchez will go #12 in the absolute worst case scenario. Second of all, they've already alienated Campbell enough; I think they just legitimately want to start over at the position.

the decider13
04-20-2009, 03:00 PM
No I think not getting Cutler had mostly to due with McDaniels not liking Campbell at all and preferring Orton.

Bingo...that's what I think too

HChu
04-20-2009, 03:02 PM
http://apublicdefender.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/facepalm.jpg

I'm on life tilt.

SeanTaylorRIP
04-20-2009, 03:02 PM
I feel this is the perfect opportunity to shamelessly plug my mock, since I projected this trade in it a couple days ago, and gave it a pretty long explanation.

http://draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32723

So needless to say I'm on the bandwagon. And there's no way this is a smokescreen, IMO. First of all, I don't even see the point, since Sanchez will go #12 in the absolute worst case scenario. Second of all, they've already alienated Campbell enough; I think they just legitimately want to start over at the position.

I would cry if we traded #13, Jason Campbell, and a 2010 first rounder to take Sanchez. Man what a way to set back the franchise, although that is probably what it would take to get him which is ridiculous.

TonyGfortheTD
04-20-2009, 03:04 PM
If Washington wants Sanchez that bad, I'm sure Pioli is willing to accept a phone call from Daniel Snyder.

JRTPlaya21
04-20-2009, 03:04 PM
I think I would cry even more. I really think we could break through this year.

gameplaya2435
04-20-2009, 03:09 PM
Yes, please.

How much money would Snyder have tied up in 3 players? Good God.

Splat
04-20-2009, 03:16 PM
Kansas City trades #3 overall to Washington for #13 overall, #59 overall, and a 2010 first round pick.


Yes please.

Unlikely but a guy can dream...

Geo
04-20-2009, 03:18 PM
Btw, I'm staggered that Patriots ********** Peter King would float a story about Washington trading up all the way from #13 to #3 with Kansas City, the Monday before the Draft. The Chiefs who just happened to be managed by Scott Pioli, and desperately seeking a trade down.

Staggered.



PS. I hope I was sarcastic enough.

Splat
04-20-2009, 03:21 PM
PS. I hope I was sarcastic enough.

It came across and I must say well played.

the decider13
04-20-2009, 03:22 PM
Parrish_lemar, I actually kind of agree with you. People favor being a "good prospect" waaaaaaaay too much on this board. If being a "good prospect" was so important or useful, we wouldn't have so many 1st round busts....let alone 1st round QB busts.

I swear, neither of you understand what a prospect is. You rank a prospect by how well you THINK they can do, and how far their physical tools will carry them. It's easy to say someone is a crappy prospect 3 years later, because they aren't prospects anymore.

Like people rip on the Wizards for picking Kwame Brown, but he was the undisputed best prospect that year. Everyone thought that the Titans got a steal with Vince Young @ 3, but he was a total bust.

SeanTaylorRIP
04-20-2009, 03:23 PM
I swear, neither of you understand what a prospect is. You rank a prospect by how well you THINK they can do, and how far their physical tools will carry them. It's easy to say someone is a crappy prospect 3 years later, because they aren't prospects anymore.

Like people rip on the bobcats for picking Kwame Brown, but he was the undisputed best prospect that year. Everyone thought that the Titans got a steal with Vince Young @ 3, but he was a total bust.

Unfortunately it was the Wizards who drafted Kwame.

the decider13
04-20-2009, 03:24 PM
Unfortunately it was the Wizards who drafted Kwame.

oops thanks for the catch, still a good point though. I knew MJ did it.

JRTPlaya21
04-20-2009, 03:25 PM
If the Skins trade next years first I will be beyond pissed off. Next year is going to be deep.

gpngc
04-20-2009, 03:35 PM
Also in the article (I found this most interesting):

I've heard Cleveland (picking fifth) and Washington have already discussed a deal if Sanchez is still on the board at five. I don't expect Sanchez to be there at five.

3pac
04-20-2009, 04:42 PM
I swear, neither of you understand what a prospect is. You rank a prospect by how well you THINK they can do, and how far their physical tools will carry them. It's easy to say someone is a crappy prospect 3 years later, because they aren't prospects anymore.

Like people rip on the Wizards for picking Kwame Brown, but he was the undisputed best prospect that year. Everyone thought that the Titans got a steal with Vince Young @ 3, but he was a total bust.

Um, that's my point. Being a "good prospect" is worthless. Did you even read the post I made that you quoted?

CC.SD
04-20-2009, 04:49 PM
I swear, neither of you understand what a prospect is. You rank a prospect by how well you THINK they can do, and how far their physical tools will carry them. It's easy to say someone is a crappy prospect 3 years later, because they aren't prospects anymore.

Like people rip on the Wizards for picking Kwame Brown, but he was the undisputed best prospect that year. Everyone thought that the Titans got a steal with Vince Young @ 3, but he was a total bust.

Vince always had a monster bust factor attached to him, the common belief was he would need a couple years of development. Kwame was pretty unquestionably the top prospect of his respective draft though, MJ got screwed.

But then again, how much of Kwame's fail was due to Michael destroying his psyche?

Menardo75
04-20-2009, 05:02 PM
Oh Dan you and your money.

Canadian_draft_fan
04-20-2009, 05:27 PM
I smell a smokescreen.
God I hope so D-Unit, I hope so.

SeanTaylorRIP
04-20-2009, 05:29 PM
If the Skins trade next years first I will be beyond pissed off. Next year is going to be deep.

There is no way you move up from 13 to 3 without giving up next years first along with 13 and probably a bit more.

farfromforgotten
04-20-2009, 05:55 PM
I love my Skins, but Dan Snyder is a friggin idiot if he makes this deal.

Sanchez only started for one year, and isn't that much better a prospect than Colt Brennan who's already on the roster.

lol. I find comments like this from "fans" of teams to be hilarious.

Obviously every franchise is made up of people who spend their lives evaluating talent and coaching the talent that is on their teams. So you say that Sanchez isnt that much better of a prospect than what Brennan was. Youre saying that you can do a better job of evaluating QB prospects than your own team can? Because it is apparent that someone or a group of someones in the Redskins FO must disagree with you, as they waited a long time to draft Brennan and it looks like they would love to move up in this draft to take Sanchez.

But then again... what do they know?

parrish_lemar24DBSkins
04-20-2009, 06:20 PM
Decider, you need to chill in the timeout corner.

Being a great college prospect means absolutely nothing once training camp and the regular season starts, it's only relevant when one is attempting to rank football players prior to the draft.

The NFL the draft isn't a science, never has, never will be, no matter how many quantifiable measures are including in determining which college football players are the best pro prospects.

Prospect is a polite way of saying a player has "potential", but if that talent never comes to fruition, what does it matter how great a prospect they were, except to the team who wasted a draft pick on him?

There's too many 1st round QB prospects who flame out in the NFL that it makes no sense to be so rigid about where a QB was ranked coming out of college.

The fact is, talent evaluators are frequently wrong about players and their potential at the next level to be successful.

That's why I can look at Sanchez and compare him to Brennan, and think, IMO, he's not that much better a pro prospect than Colt.

It has nothing to do with who's the better draft prospect, it's about whether or not I think Colt has as much chance to be a winning, successful QB in the league as Mark Sanchez.

To me, Colt has the tools, intelligence, accuracy, toughness, and leadership skills to be a quality starting QB in the league, but for you to harp on there's no way the two should even be mentioned in the same sentence because Sanchez is a much more highly rated QB prospect heading into the draft, misses the point.

EDIT: Farfromforgotten, how many people on this site are paid to evaluate college talent?
It's my OPINION, meaning, it's how I personally view the situation. I don't base what I think about a player exclusively on what an "expert" says. I'm sure you don't either.

Otherwise, why post on a forum like SWDC?

Trust me, Vinny Cerrato and Dan Snyder are no great talent evaluators, especially when it comes to Day 2 of the draft. Colt Brennan was a throwaway pick given to Zorn who wanted to bring in someone to develop.

Pro scouts have reasoned, knowledgeable, experienced opinions, but they aren't clairvoyants.
Otherwise Romo wouldn't have gone undrafted, and Marc Bulger and Tom Brady wouldn't have gone in the 6th round.

You call it the way you see it, and if the player goes to your team, you hope they can play.

espnhatesthe49ers
04-20-2009, 06:24 PM
Anyone know their cap situation? Matt Ryan got a 72 million dollar deal last year and I doubt Sanchez signs for any less than that. Do they have the cap space to trade up that high?

I like the move on both ends providing Washington doesn't give up too much. Sanchez would excel in Zorn's system.

TonyGfortheTD
04-20-2009, 06:38 PM
Anyone know their cap situation? Matt Ryan got a 72 million dollar deal last year and I doubt Sanchez signs for any less than that. Do they have the cap space to trade up that high?

I like the move on both ends providing Washington doesn't give up too much. Sanchez would excel in Zorn's system.

Like Snyder would be worried about the cap space.

DiG
04-20-2009, 06:46 PM
first rounder this year + Colt McCoy in 2010 > Sanchez. Someone gimme a phone, I need to call Snyder and explain.

B-Dawk
04-20-2009, 07:40 PM
i cant imagine it would take much for Seattle to get to 2 if the skins did this before the draft. Assuming Detroit goes Stafford, Seattle would trade up for Sanchez, then St. Louis would still be in position to get one of the top T's or Curry for less money.

Splat
04-20-2009, 07:48 PM
i cant imagine it would take much for Seattle to get to 2 if the skins did this before the draft. Assuming Detroit goes Stafford, Seattle would trade up for Sanchez, then St. Louis would still be in position to get one of the top T's or Curry for less money.

If the Skins make this deal it would be a draft day trade they would not make the trade before IMO they would make sure Sanchez fell first they might have a ball park offer worked out but that is it.

BaLLiN
04-20-2009, 07:50 PM
i really hope they dont trade all the way to 3 unless its for stafford or Monroe or Smith, otherwise ill be disappointed in a rival team and disgraced to call them a fellow NFC East team

703SKINS202
04-20-2009, 07:53 PM
God I hate our FO's ignorance. The NFL draft is the greatest day of the year. Do you know what it is like as a Skins fan, it's like Christmas with no presents and a hole in your stocking. No fun.

Hokie_Pokie08
04-21-2009, 12:07 AM
lol. I find comments like this from "fans" of teams to be hilarious.

Obviously every franchise is made up of people who spend their lives evaluating talent and coaching the talent that is on their teams. So you say that Sanchez isnt that much better of a prospect than what Brennan was. Youre saying that you can do a better job of evaluating QB prospects than your own team can? Because it is apparent that someone or a group of someones in the Redskins FO must disagree with you, as they waited a long time to draft Brennan and it looks like they would love to move up in this draft to take Sanchez.

But then again... what do they know?

Yeah that is normally true when talking about any regular NFL team's FO, but we are talking about the Redskin's FO.

TonyGfortheTD
04-21-2009, 12:23 AM
i cant imagine it would take much for Seattle to get to 2 if the skins did this before the draft. Assuming Detroit goes Stafford, Seattle would trade up for Sanchez, then St. Louis would still be in position to get one of the top T's or Curry for less money.
I can't imagine a reason why the Seahawks would bother moving up to secure Sanchez when they have other pressing needs and have a great opportunity to fill one by staying put.


God I hate our FO's ignorance. The NFL draft is the greatest day of the year. Do you know what it is like as a Skins fan, it's like Christmas with no presents and a hole in your stocking. No fun.

I laughed, but I understand. This perfectly describes 20 years of the Carl Peterson era.

SeanTaylorRIP
04-21-2009, 03:00 PM
As much as drafting an OT makes all too much sense it just isn't happening. Dan Snyder and Vinny Cerrato will not let that happen. With that said Snyder is smitten over 2 guys, Mark Sanchez and Brian Orakpo. To be honest I pray that we just swing that Browns trade for the 5th pick before the draft. That way Sanchez will likely be gone and we can draft Orakpo who we plan on using as a LB on first and 2nd round and as a hand down pass rusher on 3rd down. That actually makes a lot of sense. Phillip Daniels and Renaldo Wynn are great run stoppers who can play the run on first and second down, but they provide no pass rush at all. We can do a lot with Orakpo rushing on third downs from the DE spot, and even bringing in Reed Doughty to play coverage LB.

HokiesSkins2621
04-21-2009, 08:59 PM
Our franchise is pathetic...


If we trade future picks for Mark Sanchez I will still watch the games. I just won't give the **** if we win or lose becuase apparently ownership does not care.

keylime_5
04-21-2009, 09:05 PM
Here's to hoping Curry falls to #5. Do it Wash'.

Geo
04-21-2009, 09:07 PM
I forgot where I read it, but it made some sense:

Joe Gibbs sold Dan Snyder on Jason Campbell being his franchise quarterback. Campbell hasn't become that yet, with only one year on his contract left, and Gibbs is gone.

That's not to say Campbell is finished in Washington, but Snyder knows he needs a franchise quarterback to get to/win a Super Bowl. Hence the huge interest in Cutler.

Sanchez can only succeed in a West Coast offense (imo), which is what the Washington Redskins run under Zorn/Shanahan, but does he have the arm strength to play in the NFC East?

Smokey Joe
04-21-2009, 09:07 PM
I'll believe it when I see it.

BigBanger
04-21-2009, 09:32 PM
Peter King said this?

Not happening.

Brent
04-21-2009, 09:34 PM
I just read this whole thread and have a few comments.

Especially when you consider the source. Peter King? Fat man don't know jack.
My thoughts exactly. I'd rep you if I could.

PS. I hope I was sarcastic enough.
Hilarious post.

But then again... what do they know?
See: Donahue, Terry

Texas Homer
04-22-2009, 12:00 AM
I hope the Redskins don't trade up to take take Sanchez. Just don't do it.

derza222
04-22-2009, 07:08 PM
Yeah honestly if I were a Jets fan Id rather get JC for a 3rd rounder than Josh Freeman for a first rounder. JC is still young too.

Just saw on NFL Total Access that it's a possibility we make the move if the Redskins move up for a QB. Honestly if that's the case and it takes out the possibility of Freeman plus we need to give up 76 I do that in a heartbeat.

Splat
04-24-2009, 09:08 PM
Snyder: Redskins won't trade 2010 1st-round pick (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-redskins-snyder&prov=ap&type=lgns)

SeanTaylorRIP
04-24-2009, 09:10 PM
Snyder: Redskins won't trade 2010 1st-round pick (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-redskins-snyder&prov=ap&type=lgns)

Lol, Snyder said "As a franchise we don't like trading away picks."

JRTPlaya21
04-24-2009, 11:39 PM
If he traded away 2010's first I would just flip.

farfromforgotten
04-24-2009, 11:59 PM
See: Donahue, Terry

Awe man, did you have to go there as well? lol.

farfromforgotten
04-25-2009, 12:00 AM
Lol, Snyder said "As a franchise we don't like trading away picks."

This is great.