Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: RedskinsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Does McNabb to Redskins alter team's plans for No. 4 pick in draft?

One thing we'll be monitoring closely: Just how did the Easter trade for Donovan McNabb affect the Redskins' draft-day plans?

The obvious answer would seem to be that the Redskins will no longer chase a quarterback and might opt to address their offensive line in the first round. But we've been warned that this might not be a slam-dunk decision in the Redskins' draft room.


Remember, McNabb's contract expires at the end of the 2010 season. Until we hear that an extension has been signed, you have to consider the possibility that McNabb is merely a rental, and he's simply holding down the spot until a younger quarterback steps under center. If you follow this line of thought, drafting a quarterback is still very much a possibility. Of course, it'd require a major financial commitment from the Redskins to have two pricey quarterbacks on their payroll in 2010.

You can bet Sunday's trade will have a major impact on the draft plans. They now have just one pick in the first three rounds, which means they can expect to get only one of the top 100 prospects. With a roster that still has plenty of glaring holes, that's a problem. Even before giving their third-round pick to Philadelphia, the Redskins looked like a team that could've used more picks.

It would make sense for the Redskins to listen to offers for the No. 4 spot, if it gives them a chance to move down and pile up a couple more picks. The top of the draft is an expensive proposition and we don't typically see a lot of movement down, but if Washington wants to build through the draft, it will need more draft picks.

Parker on the Redskins

Willie Parker, overshadowed a bit by the arrival of McNabb, spoke Friday about joining the Redskins. Dan Steinberg has the story at D.C. SportsBog.

No word yet on Eagles-Redskins games

The NFL schedule won't be released until later this month, but ESPN this morning seemingly revealed that the Redskins would appear on "Monday Night Football" against Philadelphia Eagles, his former team, on Oct. 25 at FedEx Field.

An exciting stage for an exciting storyline -- only it wasn't true.

The network said later during "SportsCenter" that their report relied on last year's schedule, noting that the 2010 schedule hasn't been released yet. (The Redskins and Eagles played at FedEx Field on Oct. 26 last year.)

As division rivals, the two teams will obviously play each other twice, but it's not known when McNabb will return to Philadelphia for the first time. Despite ESPN's erroneous report, don't be surprised if McNabb vs. Eagles finds itself on primetime.

By Rick Maese  |  April 5, 2010; 11:00 AM ET
Categories:  Donovan McNabb , NFL Draft  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: In wake of McNabb trade, what can Redskins hope to get for Campbell?
Next: Mike Shanahan, Jason Campbell to meet Monday afternoon

Comments

It kind of pisses me off that we didn't go after any of the other FAs early on in the offseason.

We are suddenly in "win-now" mode, and Karlos Dansby and/or Julius Peppers would look nice on a new 3-4 defense that needs to make a Superbowl run in the next year or 2.

There were plenty of serviceable veteran linemen that we let slip away b/c apparently we were being conservative and fiscal as we positioned ourselve to rebuild. Guys like Pashos or Sims would have been nice additions, but we low-balled them.

Now we need to draft a couple rookies to be our bookend tackles and expect them to anchor an Oline for a Superbowl contending team.

Does any of this make sense to anyone???

Posted by: p1funk | April 5, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

"To say the least, Campbell's trade value is not very high, thanks in large part to how some in the organization have privately demeaned him throughout the league the past two seasons."
----------------------------------

Nah. Campbell DEVALUED himself over the past two seasons by his play on the field.

In any event, I love the move. McNabb gives us something we haven't had in a long time: a competent QB who can make plays and throw an accurate long ball.

I hope they take Okung if he's available at #4, and try to get Jake Locker in the 2011 draft.

Looks like the depth chart will be McNabb, Grossman, Brennan for the 2010 season.

Works for me.

Posted by: MrRedskin21 | April 5, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

I say yes or trade back and then get a LT later in the first round.

Posted by: alex35332 | April 5, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

First to say, Skins will end up drafting Bradford.

Posted by: Havemercyplz | April 5, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Kyle Shanahan is most pleased with this trade.

Posted by: Chia_Pet | April 5, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

First

Posted by: hokiesmokie | April 5, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

not the FIRST espn FAIL!!

Posted by: Zeebs | April 5, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Trade the 4th pick to the Broncos for their 11th and Brandon Marshall.

Posted by: coparker5 | April 5, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Of course it alters their draft plans, but we don't know how it alters it because we didn't know what their draft epxectations were before the McNabb trade, so it's all moot.

""Remember, McNabb's contract expires at the end of the 2010 season. Until we hear that an extension has been signed, you have to consider the possibility that McNabb is merely a rental, and he's simply holding down the spot until a younger quarterback steps under center.""

That would really piss me off. If we gave away 2 high-round draft picks for a 1 year rental, I'll be tempted to start demanding the return of Vinny C.

Posted by: p1funk | April 5, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Even before giving their third-round pick to Philadelphia, the Redskins looked like a team that could've used more picks.

----------

Maese...

We just took care of our MOST GLARING NEED.

and some will say we "lost" a second round pick to get him.

heck, brother you ain't gonna get somethin for nuthin.

Posted by: Chia_Pet | April 5, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Someone on the west coast needs to give Al Davis a weed brownie and try to trade him AH and JC for his first two picks. Hell, throw in CR22 for good measure.

Posted by: hokiesmokie | April 5, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Manning's production and durability are way ahead of McNabb's - they may be the same age, but Manning is still playing like he's in his prime.

Last night I heard a stat that McNabb has missed something like 17 games through injury over the past 4 seasons. That's more than a whole season of standing on the sideline. What do we think is going to happen over the next 3-4 years? What do we think is going to happen this year if we can't get a decent Oline?

It's not like we are talking about McNabb of the early 2000's who will scramble. Now when he "scrambles", he pulls up limp on the sidelines without contact.

Posted by: p1funk | April 5, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I would say McNabb is still very much in his prime.. threw for 3500+ yards, 2nd behind only Drew Brees for most 40yrd+ TDs. 22 TDs vs. 10 picks..

Just to narrow your 17 games in 4 yrs.. I think the better assesment would be 2 games missed in the past 2 years.

Posted by: skinsfanintampa | April 5, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

So let me get this straight: the team rumored to want to trade down and not spend big $ at #2 is gonna pass on the better player (Suh) who will demand less money and take the guy (Okung) will potential for lesser impact and MORE money?

I don't buy it. Lions take Suh, McCoy to Tampa, Okung to Washington.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

Posted by: brownwood26 | April 5, 2010 11:08 AM


BW - Of Suh and Okung...Okung is more valuable because he would be protecting their $60Mil investment of Franchise QB Stafford, who was IR'd last year because of 2 different injuries he incurred during the season. Their current LT BAckus is 33 and is sucky at Pass Pro, but a good Run Blocker.

From what I see/hear...I see Suh dropping to #4.....I wish Okung would be available, but he won't, is what I see clear as day.

Suh, is not a playmaker. HE is a faboulous Run Stuffer, but that's it at this point in his carreer.

Posted by: 4thFloor | April 5, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

p1, true he had good chemistry with DeSean Jackson. I just think that the current WRs on the 'Skins roster > the Eagles WRs. Besides, With guys like Thomas, Kelly, and Marko, McNabb has big targets to hit over the middle.

Again, that's excluding Cooley and Davis -- assuming both are still here.

I can admit while I think this was a good trade, there are still a few questions that need to be answered.

Like what becomes of Campbell and other tendered players, and the offensive line?

Posted by: RedDMV | April 5, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse


Maybe Moss can rediscover that 4.2 speed and be a slightly older DeSean Jackson?

I do like the potential for Davis and/or Cooley. McNabb has always been good at getting the ball to TEs to make plays.

Posted by: p1funk | April 5, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

We just took care of our MOST GLARING NEED.

and some will say we "lost" a second round pick to get him.

heck, brother you ain't gonna get somethin for nuthin.

Posted by: Chia_Pet | April 5, 2010 11:13 AM

"We just took care of our MOST GLARING NEED."

Is that a joke?

Posted by: Diesel44 | April 5, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 4thFloor | April 5, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Please no more mock drafts. And even Cerrato was right from time to time. You got one right among alot of other retarded posts. The mere suggestion of the Redskins taking Spiller at 4 was foolish enough, don't really care if you backtracked on it later, because you were beating everyone over the head with that for the longest time.

Edvar: I agree, I hope they don't trade Albert, but if they do, I think the Raiders would be a perfect fit and they would be willing to give up alot. You could atleast threaten Albert by saying you'll trade him to the Raiders if he doesn't get with the program.

And what I really want to know is what does Pabrian2003 think?

Posted by: ga8085 | April 5, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Does any of this make sense to anyone???

Posted by: p1funk | April 5, 2010 11:11 AM

No it doesn't. I wonder when they made the decision to for it this year? This move seems to be a 180 degree turn from what they were doing all offseason. Let's hope they make a solid commitment to get a vet OT in before the draft.

Posted by: TWISI | April 5, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

"Everyone in the NFC East already knows how to beat McNabb."

Well, they beat the eagles, not McNabb.

You have to remember that Mike Shanahan will run the ball in ways that Andy Reid didn't.

It's obvious that pressure in McNabb's face ruins his passing: re-visit the three losses to the pokes and all you see is him being flushed out of the pocket and into bad throws.

But the antidote for this defensive action is a steady diet of running plays.

And it is a diet that'll completely change McNabb's game.

Posted by: MistaMoe | April 5, 2010 11:00 AM

Agree completely. McNabb with a consistant running game could be very interesting.

Draft OT at #4 or trade down if possible for more picks.

Posted by: skinswest | April 5, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Now we need to draft a couple rookies to be our bookend tackles and expect them to anchor an Oline for a Superbowl contending team.

Or at least a playoff contender.

I just don't understand folks who think the Skins can just grab two quality lineman who will be ready to step in right away.

With nothing behind them.

And if either goes down, what do they have?

Maybe they've got this all worked out but looking over the FA and league, quality lineman aren't just easily acquired.

And rookies are hit-or-misses a lot.

One thing for sure: they're not playing it safe are they?

Posted by: SteveMG | April 5, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

We are suddenly in "win-now" mode, and Karlos Dansby and/or Julius Peppers would look nice on a new 3-4 defense that needs to make a Superbowl run in the next year or 2.

There were plenty of serviceable veteran linemen that we let slip away b/c apparently we were being conservative and fiscal as we positioned ourselve to rebuild. Guys like Pashos or Sims would have been nice additions, but we low-balled them.

Now we need to draft a couple rookies to be our bookend tackles and expect them to anchor an Oline for a Superbowl contending team.

Does any of this make sense to anyone???


Posted by: p1funk | April 5, 2010 11:11 AM

There was a plan in place. Dansby asking price was too much and Miami didn't let him leave....which means they overpaid. Peppers wasn't worth the value either.

Let's have confidence in these people.....I already stated I can see HEyer starting this year......We just need a starting LT and some back up tackles....

Posted by: 4thFloor | April 5, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Let's hope they make a solid commitment to get a vet OT in before the draft.

Posted by: TWISI | April 5, 2010 11:19 AM

Who do you have in mind? Why before the draft? Levi Jones is available now, but there will be a lot more guys available after the draft. I don't see the rush.

Posted by: League-Source | April 5, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

a deal is in the making for AH and JC to Oakland, wait and see....

(keeping my fingers crossed)

Posted by: 1965skinsfan | April 5, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

You don’t give up 2 draft picks to use a starting QB for only 1 year as a “rental”….they will extend him. They guy hasn’t even set foot in DC yet. They will need a little bit of time to work it out, but admittedly often times the contracts are extended as part of the deal…..

Posted by: dlhaze1 | April 5, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Suh, is not a playmaker. HE is a faboulous Run Stuffer, but that's it at this point in his carreer.

Posted by: 4thFloor | April 5, 2010 11:17 AM


Wow...you are officially the first person I've heard say anything bad about Suh. From what I've heard, he's the closest thing to a "can't miss prospect" (if any such thing exists).

If I'm the Lions, I take Suh at #2 and get my tackle atop Round 2. You'll still get a solid starting LT and you'll do it at a fraction of the cost.

You know, the same kinda logic the Skins could have employed if they still had a 2nd rounder...

Posted by: brownwood26 | April 5, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: MrRedskin21 | April 5, 2010 11:11 AM

So that McNabb is here you think Moss is going to have a 90 catch 1400yd year. Yall dont get it. McNabb even though he never had good receivers in Philly except for TO he always had a good line. Remember how he played the last two games in Dallas? Thats what we are going to see unless they find a way to fix the line. And it has nothing to do with McNabb, they keep hiring these return to glory coaches who are shortsighted and make questionable personnel decisions.

Posted by: KingJoffeJoffer | April 5, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Suh, is not a playmaker. HE is a faboulous Run Stuffer, but that's it at this point in his carreer.

Posted by: 4thFloor | April 5, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Ok, there you go again, glad to see you're back in form. Please go check Suh's stats again and watch his games before making that ridiculous comment again. If Suh is available at 4, (I think he'll go before McCoy), I think there will be several teams interested in moving up to get him.

Posted by: ga8085 | April 5, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I hate to get a former Cowdung, but you gotta think picking up Flozell becomes an option now, right?

Posted by: brownwood26 | April 5, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: brownwood26 | April 5, 2010 11:22 AM

Are you saying this because you (personally) want Okung to be available at 4 for your favorite team? You do understand that the Skins are not the Lions' favorite team and are not going to forgo a serious need so that the Skins can have a LT. The Lions o-line is as bad as the Redskins'. They are taking Okung. Book it.

Posted by: learnedhand1 | April 5, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

I would say McNabb is still very much in his prime.. threw for 3500+ yards, 2nd behind only Drew Brees for most 40yrd+ TDs. 22 TDs vs. 10 picks..

Just to narrow your 17 games in 4 yrs.. I think the better assesment would be 2 games missed in the past 2 years.

Posted by: skinsfanintampa | April 5, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse


Alot of McNabb's yards came in big chunks throwing bombs to D.Jackson and (to a lesser extent) Jeremy Maclin.

The Skins do NOT have a deep threat on their roster that can get open downfield like D.Jackson.

The Skins do NOT have an Oline that can protect the QB long enough for guys to get deep.

Frankly, I think last season McNabb's numbers benefitted alot from the youth/speed that Andy Reid had put around him and the investment made in the Oline. Gone are the days of McNabb single-handedly being able to carry a team. I think Reid knew that and so didn't mind trading him away, even to a division rival.

..and 22 TDs to 10 picks is not all that great...by comparison JC17 threw 20 TD to 15 picks last year...Brees threw 34 TDs to 11 picks.

McNabb is closer in comparison to JC17 than to Drew Brees.

Posted by: p1funk | April 5, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

We did upgrade at QB sure, but will people knock it off with this BS that we just fixed the offense.

The redskins just went from an offense that looked like this
Passing Game: C-
Running Game: F
O-Line: F

to a overall offense that looks like this:
Passing Game: B-
Running Game: F (maybe D-)
O-Line: F

Posted by: alex35332 | April 5, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Sorry - had to actually WORK there for a bit... lol.

Now, do I think an EARLY second round pick would give us a GREAT offensive line automatically. No.

Do I think we desparately needed that pick to be spent on a lineman. Yes. I don't believe I'm alone there.

Do I think the 37th pick for a lineman was worth more, potentially, in the long run for this team than an aging, played out QB? Absolutely.

Will I be eating crow come mis-season? Let's hope so.

Posted by: DikShuttle | April 5, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Let's hope they make a solid commitment to get a vet OT in before the draft.

Posted by: TWISI | April 5, 2010 11:19 AM

Who do you have in mind? Why before the draft? Levi Jones is available now, but there will be a lot more guys available after the draft. I don't see the rush.

Posted by: League-Source | April 5, 2010 11:22 AM

Jones is one of the guys I had in mind. Again offer the multi year deal to him and be done with it. Also, if you spent a draft pick in next year's draft for a 33 year QB, why not invest another for a 25 year LT (Gaither). Do it now because they need to be felxible with the #4 pick while still get good value for the pick. They need more than 4 picks in this draft, so they should trade down. Problem is the further down they drop, the more likely a team needing an LT can move up and get one. If you wait after the draft to address the LT spot, I think it will cost more in terms of draft pick order.

Posted by: TWISI | April 5, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

So that McNabb is here you think Moss is going to have a 90 catch 1400yd year. Yall dont get it. McNabb even though he never had good receivers in Philly except for TO he always had a good line. Remember how he played the last two games in Dallas? Thats what we are going to see unless they find a way to fix the line. And it has nothing to do with McNabb, they keep hiring these return to glory coaches who are shortsighted and make questionable personnel decisions.

Posted by: KingJoffeJoffer | April 5, 2010 11:23 AM |
-------------------------------------

Wait a second....

Aside from McNabb being the QB here, keep in mind that the Redskins will NOT be running Jim "Bizzaro" Zorn's goofball offense in 2010.

So yes, I think ALL of the WRs will have better numbers than they did last year.

Posted by: MrRedskin21 | April 5, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I hate to get a former Cowdung, but you gotta think picking up Flozell becomes an option now, right?

Posted by: brownwood26 | April 5, 2010 11:26 AM

Doubt it. He couldn't do the job in Dallas and he is a penalty factory. There will be options available after the draft (including Gaither) either as free agents or in a trade of next year's draft pick.

Posted by: League-Source | April 5, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

beep

Posted by: alex35332 | April 5, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | April 5, 2010 11:11 AM

There was a plan in place. Dansby asking price was too much and Miami didn't let him leave....which means they overpaid. Peppers wasn't worth the value either.

Let's have confidence in these people.....I already stated I can see HEyer starting this year......We just need a starting LT and some back up tackles....

Posted by: 4thFloor | April 5, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse


I'm sure there was a plan in place, I'm just wondering what the heck it was.

If you see Heyer starting this year, I don't see us in the playoffs.

Posted by: p1funk | April 5, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

McNabb is closer in comparison to JC17 than to Drew Brees.

Posted by: p1funk

UFB!
This is why stats don't work in Football. McNabb has what I'd hoped JC would, the ability to lead his team to victory late in games. Would you have rather had him or JC the last 5 years,since statistically you say they are close?

Posted by: 1965skinsfan | April 5, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

beeps

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | April 5, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

"Everyone in the NFC East already knows how to beat McNabb."

Well, they beat the eagles, not McNabb.

You have to remember that Mike Shanahan will run the ball in ways that Andy Reid didn't.

It's obvious that pressure in McNabb's face ruins his passing: re-visit the three losses to the pokes and all you see is him being flushed out of the pocket and into bad throws.

Posted by: MistaMoe | April 5, 2010 11:00 AM

Agree completely. McNabb with a consistant running game could be very interesting.
-------------------------------

Where did this 'QB doesn't lose games' and 'support your QB with a run game' attitude come from? If JC was our problem, and we just got a Super Bowl caliber QB, than we should be booking tickets for wherever the Bowl is this year, right?

Fickle, fickle, crowd.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | April 5, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Suh, is not a playmaker. HE is a faboulous Run Stuffer, but that's it at this point in his carreer.

Posted by: 4thFloor | April 5, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Ok, there you go again, glad to see you're back in form. Please go check Suh's stats again and watch his games before making that ridiculous comment again. If Suh is available at 4, (I think he'll go before McCoy), I think there will be several teams interested in moving up to get him.

Posted by: ga8085 | April 5, 2010 11:24 AM

Then tell me why McCoy rates higher in most 'experts' Best Available? Including the stars of Mocks, Mayock, Kiper, and McShay??

And I agree with you if Suh will be available at #4, there were be alot of teams looking to get him....And that team will be our trade partner.....

Posted by: 4thFloor | April 5, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | April 5, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

What?! Moss is still a viable deep threat and damn sure gets open more times then not down the field. JC just would overthrow him or just plain not see him. You're kidding me right?

Posted by: ga8085 | April 5, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Suh, is not a playmaker. HE is a faboulous Run Stuffer, but that's it at this point in his carreer.

Posted by: 4thFloor | April 5, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

You throw enough shat against the wall and something is bound to stick.

Now this was a farm's worth but let's not get carried away.

Posted by: Diesel44 | April 5, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

McNabb is closer in comparison to JC17 than to Drew Brees.

Posted by: p1funk | April 5, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I could see your side on a few thoughts but then you had to go and do this?

Posted by: skinsfanintampa | April 5, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Then tell me why McCoy rates higher in most 'experts' Best Available? Including the stars of Mocks, Mayock, Kiper, and McShay??

And I agree with you if Suh will be available at #4, there were be alot of teams looking to get him....And that team will be our trade partner.....

Posted by: 4thFloor | April 5, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

That still doesn't mean he's not a playmaker. By saying that, you're completely mislabeling a player that made big plays throughout his career. I don't care what the "experts" say. I'll wait to the actual NFL guys draft, to see what they think, not a bunch of pencil neck geeks. "Not a playmaker" sounds ridiculous.

Posted by: ga8085 | April 5, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

So to those who think that this trade automatically makes us a playoff contending team, a superbowl contending team, can you explain that to me? I am at a loss at how this takes our 4-12 team and makes it a 10-6, 11-5 team. I understand Shanny is a better coach than Zorn, and Mcnabb is a better Qb than Campbell... but we still have Heyer as our right tackle, we do not have a LT, we have BMW as our starting RG and a backup from the vikings as his competition... we still have Landry as our FS (unless by some miracle we find a FS to replace him), we still have Carlos Rogers and DHall as our top corners, and we still have 3 linebackers playing out of position in the new 3-4 (Fletcher will be eaten up in the middle of a 3-4, Rocky is not meant to play inside, and Andre Carter has already proven he cannot play outside linebacker in a 3-4)... even if we do have a hybrid our 3-4 talent is lacking.... We have a wr core lacking a true #1 threat, with 2 young wrs who have proven to be inconsistent and a 5-8 speedster who has lost a step and has proven an inability to catch the ball consistently... and best of all we have 3 RBS who were pro bowl players in 2006 but have fallen off the map... seems like we are not just 1 QB away from competeing...

This trade is typical Redskin football. We were not the offseason champs... we had lost our offseason trophy and had to retake it... This trade is meant for a team that is 2 players away... not an entire team away.

Mcnabb obviously makes us a better team but again we are going to be stuck in that 8-8, 9-7 position in which we are never great, but not 4-12 bad... I for one am tired of this and would like to see a different philosophy. I would like to blow up the roster, suck for 2-3 years and completely rebuild... Pull a Capitals... completely retool and try again. This whole mediocre cra% is getting to me and i can't take it...

Posted by: peoplearestupid1 | April 5, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Has there been any talk of Levi Jones? He was a Pro Bowl left tackle, and came to us after rehabbing a knee injury. He started rounding into shape late last season, and is only 30. Can he hold down one of the tackle spots for us? I am intrigued by Berry at the safety spot and wouldn;t be opposed to trading JC for a pick or two and drafting some OL in rounds 2 or 3. Also keep in mind, with the play of Fred Davis, Cooley could be trade bait and get us good value in return.

Posted by: ckny97948 | April 5, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Everyone needs to understand that we were already better than 4-12 once we got Shanahan. I can think of at least 4-5 games that we lost last year clearly due to bad coaching. McNabb is clearly an upgrade at QB...even though I felt that JC would be given a chance to work under a real coach/system....you cant tuen down a trade like this one....Mcnabb for a 2nd rd pick...this team is headed in the right direction. I trust that the rest of the needs will be taken care of with time....this new regime knows what needs to be done..this is not Cerrato and Zorn....I repeat..this is not Ceratto and Zorn!!

Posted by: chicoexcell | April 5, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Count me in as probly the only person on RI that wants the redskins to trade for Jared gaither and draft Eric berry 4th overall the reason berry is like getting two picks LL30 can play SS again. Defense top 10 and now all the focus on the o-line

Posted by: Superman321 | April 5, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Do I think we desparately needed that pick to be spent on a lineman. Yes. I don't believe I'm alone there.

Do I think the 37th pick for a lineman was worth more, potentially, in the long run for this team than an aging, played out QB? Absolutely.

Will I be eating crow come mis-season? Let's hope so.

Posted by: DikShuttle | April 5, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

We were never going to spend both of our top two picks on O-linemen, as many on this blog were advocating. One of them (or both, if in a trade to move up for Bradford) were going to be spent on a QB. At least, this way we get a proven commodity instead of a guy who, history shows, is as likely as not to crap out.

Posted by: rbpalmer | April 5, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Gotta pick up McNabb's sidekick - Westbrook. Shanny can fix the line (at least temporarily) by signing Levi and sliding him to RT and picking up Flozell to play LT. Then he could draft Berry, Dez Bryant, or McLain with the 4th pick.

Posted by: coparker5 | April 5, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Shany and Al Davis have had long history of bad blood and I don't for see any trades happening with Oakland ... well but then again who now Eagles will trade in with the division ....

Posted by: wedidc | April 5, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I think it was a good move to get McNabb - He should be decent for 2 to 3 more years.

1. Trade down. I've read this draft is full of decent OL. I'd like to see 2 or 3 drafted this year.

2. Give T Owens a 1 year contract.

3. Hope they can get a pick or two for campbell or Haynesworth (this guy needs to go).

4. Let's see how the next 2 or 3 drafts go. Lot of good moves in a very limited free agent market so far this year. So I see the vets who are being signed now as buying time to gradually get younger over the next 2 - 3 years and still field a competitive team.

Posted by: Timotious | April 5, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

If Detroit takes Okung, trading down from #4 seems like a good move if Suh and Clausen are both there. A lot of teams need a QB or DT, so we'd likely have a choice of decent 1st-round trading partners. Then get a LT who fits Shanahan's blocking style and something extra.

OTOH, if we can move Haynesworth and Campbell for decent picks that give us an LT we could take Suh at #4. I saw a couple of Suh's games and he was a one-man wrecking crew, although I don't know if he's big enough to play NT in a 3-4 front.

PLEASE don't pick Clausen at #4 to be groomed behind McNabb and leave the OL in tatters yet again!

Posted by: pyrotech | April 5, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company