Next Year's First Rounder

[VaFinFan]

if we could pick up a high first and second in a trade for ogun and our first next year i would say go for it... get to two maybe three possible starters or solid backups would be great for us now and the future...... plus u never know if will make a deal next offseason to get one back.. we could have a qb situation if feely and fiedler go neck and neck like i think they will

 

[Phinzone]

Id' package to move WAY up, but not for a 2nd. 2 firsts and O-gun for a top 5 pick, and franchise player, sure.

 

[LarryFinFan]

Ogun is not going to be traded on draft day...he is not under contract. He won't sign the tender while we are on the clock just so that he can renegotiate with some team after the draft.

The trading down scenario is interesting and could possibly happen...With FA the way it is now, something like this is very possible. The guy were talking about, RS would have to have a REAL strong opinion on. When we drafted Surtain, with the same ploy, we needed a JJ corner. (meaning his type of player)...Surtain fit that bill...I don't know if there is anyone that is so important to us this particular year...But stranger things have happened...

 

[Jimmy James]

Originally posted by LarryFinFan
Ogun is not going to be traded on draft day...he is not under contract. He won't sign the tender while we are on the clock just so that he can renegotiate with some team after the draft.

I somehow doubt this -- a chance to get the payday Wale is in line for has to be better than the certainty of playing for the tender or holding out. In other words, this just only alters his position to the good side. To me, the question is how difficult it would be to get it done in a 15 minute period. If it is Minnesota, I guess we would have a half hour since the Patriots couldn't rush them unless we submitted our pick first.

 

[Phinsdude]

Will someone read the Sentinal and look at the grades and Analysis of they OLinemen taken in the first. Also, take a look at the #20 pick. Why does everyone feel that drafting 1 or 2 or 3 lineman is going to win the super bowl for us. Lee Evans, or a Williams' at reciever, Vilma or Williams at LB, Wilfork if he falls at DT would all be better fits for this team. We have how many young linemen, Taylor Whitley, Seth Mckinney, Yates, all are reserves, young, and need to step it up. How many more do we need. Unless we got Robert Gallery, this O-line stuff is annoying.

 

[Phinzone]

Originally posted by Phinsdude
Will someone read the Sentinal and look at the grades and Analysis of they OLinemen taken in the first. Also, take a look at the #20 pick. Why does everyone feel that drafting 1 or 2 or 3 lineman is going to win the super bowl for us. Lee Evans, or a Williams' at reciever, Vilma or Williams at LB, Wilfork if he falls at DT would all be better fits for this team. We have how many young linemen, Taylor Whitley, Seth Mckinney, Yates, all are reserves, young, and need to step it up. How many more do we need. Unless we got Robert Gallery, this O-line stuff is annoying.

wow, somebody else said it too. Outside of gallery, and POSSIBLY Andrews, you have potential and depth players, ones that probably won't start and make an impact fromt he get go. It COUDL happen, but Im not putting tha tmuch stock in it. We added 2 top tier linemen this off season, and added yougn potentially great OL in the process, it will take another off season of concentrating on OL to get it full ofsolid starters, so why panic and reach for talent in the draft? And I do say reach for talent, this year is shallow in OL, linemen that can be had high 2nd this year would be low 2nd other years, so why take them this year?

If we're going to try to get someone to take us to the SB we need to trade UP, not down. We can add young potential in the FA for relatively cheap that costs us NO draft picks. Trade up and get Gallery, or a franchise QB if you want ot make ad ifferent this year, I'm not getting htis movement to trade down, and grab a bunch of reaches at OL.

 

[Danny]

Originally posted by Little Danny


I believe my post specifically said that I didn't like the idea but could see it happening. I don't mind people putting words in my mouth if they bother to get the right ones...

Anyway - If we truely feel next year's draft will be weak and we see a guy we specifically targetted in round 1 slipping (ala Chris Chambers) then it wouldn't be a horrible idea. Heck Jimmy pulled a great move picking up Surtain in a similar situation. Still I think that was the exception not the rule.

I do disagree with the idea that you have to get a great rookie spaced out every year. If you get two this year and none next year vs one this year and one next - I see very little difference.

I'm sorry if it looked as if I was trying to put words in your mouth cos that wasn't my intention. As I wrote down, I can see some logic that if the draft is so weak next year we could go for a player this year so I agree with you to a point. Anyway, is ok for us to disagree respectfully and a guy name Danny can't be all that bad...lol

BTW, I hated the wait last year and more so the year before when we had no pick till round 3 so I don't wanna go tru that again...lol

Ozzy rules!!

 

[Jimmy James]

Originally posted by Phinzone
I'm not getting htis movement to trade down, and grab a bunch of reaches at OL.

It's all about reacting to 2003 instead of planning for 2004. Some people wouldn't be satisfied unless we got 5 brand new bodies to start next year. The same guys who are so eager to do what you're talking about are the guys who would be willing to spend the entire draft on secondary help if there was a crappy unit the year before. I understand the motive, and I respect wanting the team to correct its problem. The problem I have with the philosophy is that every team has problems -- the important thing is having compelling strengths to offset the weakness and making sure the weaknesses aren't quite as glaring as the OLine was last year for us. That's how teams win championships in the salary cap era.

I can understand getting one more solid young body at OL, but I am in no way for reaching to do it. That's why I hope we go DT or maybe LB if these "nightmare" scenarios without Rivers/Andrews/Evans or any WR better than him/Vilma/any worthy DE available at 20. We might have an awesome D, but I think the Eagles showed us last year why depth is important. We're getting old at DT and LB, and we must get youth in the next two years if not before then. The sooner we do it, the more likely it is that we won't end up in a situation where one subpar reserve has to come in and play half a season and screw up the scheme.

We have depth at OL -- if anything, we need quality there. We won't know whether our line is any good or not whether or not we add an Andrews AND a Carey until those guys start working as a unit. Anybody who thinks different needs to look at the paper tigers that the Redskins put together and learn a hard lesson.

I'm open to just about any position other than G, S, K, or P at #20. If an amazing G or S was available, I might even be okay with them. I just want to know that the team got the best guy they could. If that's D. Hall because he cusses out a cop, gets arrested, and makes 19 teams nervous, I want his butt on the team. I don't care about Surtain, Madison, and Howard. An embarassment of riches is fine with me just as long as we get a quality guy.

 

[mbmonk]

Originally posted by TeeMoney
First, MBMonk I love that .gif (The Office is a great show).

Second... we could get Andrews at #20, Grove in the 2nd round, and Snee in the 3rd!!! Whoooohoooo

I have never seen The Office. I saw that gif and laughed my *** off and so I stole it from another guy.

I have heard its a great show but I cant seem to find it on TV here in america.

But damn that guys has moves.

 

[Y-TownPhinVet]

I think Jim makes sense. theres too much ballyhooing about the draft. I'll add my thoughts in a new thread. Way to go Jimmy!!!:D

 

[mbmonk]

Originally posted by PhinsmissedFG
Why? They got their QB, and if the NFL hadn't screwed them they would have had their WR. The Balt. FO played that whole scenario perfectly and just got screwed because the NFL caved.

Balt. then didn't have anyone left to go after because they were already picked up when Balt. was sitting there thinking they had TO. They would have re-signed Robinson, then drafted a WR with their 2nd and been perfectly fine in that situation IMO.

Ok you may be correct. First the NFL didnt cave in to TO they made a mistake and a 3rd party was going to rule in TO's favor. Besides if TO would rather be in Philly then there was more than likely no chance as a free agent he would have been in baltimore. So they wouldnt have been able to get a top flight reciever. There maybe a really good reciever for them at 51, I have no clue. I am sure baltimore fans are happy they have their QB but with the glaring hole at WR I am sure there is a peice of them that wishes they had a better pick to fill that hole.

I admit there are alot of assumptions in my arguement that could be COMPLETELY wrong.

 

[finsnchips]

Baltimore picked up Suggs and Boller in a similar manner last year. I am aware that it is slightly different.

Assuming Andrews is gone, and we draft, say DJ Williams, and Grove is available. I would trade our 1st next year for Jake. Though I would not be happy about not picking until the third next year.