Network News

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

Trading up for Sam Bradford still a possibility

Talking to people around the league this morning, it seems the Redskins are definitely busy working the telephones. While some of those calls have been about the possibility of trading down, the Redskins are expected to be in play for quarterback Sam Bradford during tonight's draft, as we've been talking about here for several weeks.

Bradford will not slip to No. 4, and if the Redskins want him, they can't count on the St. Louis Rams passing on him at No. 1. It seemed at one point that St. Louis might have entertained the possibility of taking a defensive tackle, but now that seems unlikely. Bradford will be the draft's top pick -- it's just a matter of figuring out who takes him. And early Thursday, there seems to be only two scenarios, according to a league source: Bradford to St. Louis or Bradford to Washington.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bernie Miklasz tweeted this morning that Rams sources tell him there's nothing brewing between the Rams and Redskins. I'm told, however, that it's too early to rule out Washington. In fact, until the Redskins actually make their pick, they should be considered to be in play. Even if the Rams take Bradford at No. 1, the Redskins could still make an offer for the Oklahoma quarterback when they're on the clock three picks later.

Fanhouse.com also is reporting that the Redskins are still in the mix.

There have always been two major reasons why the Redskins might not chase after Bradford, and neither has anything to do with Donovan McNabb. For starters, Bradford will command a record contract that will likely pay him somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 million of
guaranteed money. That's a lot to give a player who might not start a game until 2012 (remember, there's a possible lockout looming in 2011).

The other problem is obviously the trade compensation. What would St. Louis demand? Remember, to get Eli Manning in 2004, the Giants had to give up their first-round pick Phillip Rivers, plus a third-rounder in 2004 and first- and fifth-round picks in 2005. The Redskins won't give up that much, and the Rams know they won't receive that much.

But the Redskins probably can put together a package for St. Louis to consider, and that package could contain future picks.

"We're open to hearing trades that involve picks in 2017 if somebody wants to talk about it," GM Bruce Allen joked recently. But there was a hint of truth to that. Allen knows something about 2011 that many fans might not be considering. If there is any time to enter the offseason with
few draft picks, it's next year.

If this year was the weakest class of unrestricted free agents in the modern free agency era, then next year will be the best. Remember those 200-plus four- and five-year veterans who were only restricted free agents because the labor issues? Well once a new labor deal is struck, they should all become unrestricted free agents, joining with players who were already set to become unrestricted free agents following the 2010 season. Together, they'll form a monster class, and
if a team wanted to fill its needs via free agency rather than the draft, 2011 is the year to do it.

By Rick Maese  |  April 22, 2010; 10:46 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Redskins' prospects with No. 4 pick: Sam Bradford
Next: Eric Berry possibility remains intriguing

Comments

Get off it you two fat idiots, your wrong and have been wrong the whole time. They were never going to trade up for Bradford, so keep posting this useless BS if you want to waste your time.

Posted by: Flounder21 | April 22, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Shanahan smoke-screen?

...and F Dallas.

Posted by: JohnnyRyde | April 22, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

7:30 can't get here fast enough.

If they do move up to get Bradford, then how and when do they expect to draft some offensive linemen?

If they move up, what are they using to move up? Picks, with only four (again with the least amount of all other teams)? Players?

That's why I think all this Bradford talk is pure horsesh*t.

Posted by: RedDMV | April 22, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

If this comes to pass, this might possibly be the dumbest thing I've ever seen the team do in all my years of fandome, and I go back a pretty long way. Yikes. Hopefully this is just the RI staff repeating other people's rumors again.

Posted by: skinsfan713 | April 22, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Mike Florio
April 22nd, 10:50
Rams/Redskins negotiations heat up

Negotiations between the Redskins and Rams have heated up to the point where the deal is considered to be almost completed. In the aforementioned deal the Rams would get the Redskins first round pick, #4 overall, as well as Jason Campbell, and Albert Haynesworth, in exchange the Redskins would get the Rams first round pick, #1 overall, as well as a 4th round pick. It is assumed that the Redskins would then use that first pick in the draft to take quarterback Sam Bradford.

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | April 22, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

For the love of Sweet Mary can someone please explain why the Skins would have ANY interest in trading to the #1 slot to pick a QB who may not even pan out and will take years to develop? If his shoulder gets hit again that could be it for him....too many questions....too much $$$$. Especially since we traded away our 2nd round pick for a veteran QB and have only 4 picks.

Please tell me Shanahan and Allen are not that crazy.

Posted by: Lisa_R | April 22, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Just take Colt McCoy at #4.

Posted by: hockey023 | April 22, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday I posted 19 years of Skins first rounders, and concensus said there was success on 5 of 19 picks.

This CSN Washington link documents Shanahan and Allen's choices in the first round. It's an interesting read.

By my count, Shanahan was batted around 0.500 in first round picks. I'd say Allen is batting a little under 0.500, keeping in mind that he was in Oakland fro '96 to 2003.


One other interesting thing the bear in mind, Shanahan made a trade involving a first-round pick 6 times in his last 9 drafts in Denver.

Posted by: Alan4 | April 22, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

If the Rams don't take Bradford... Who on Earth will be their QB next season?

Posted by: JohnnyRyde | April 22, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Fat, drunk & stupid is no way to go through life, son.

Posted by: DikShuttle | April 22, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

WHY? I have nothing against Bradford but didn't we just give up draft picks for a QB? I we were going to give up draft picks for a QB then why wouldn't we do it for the one that we really want? IDK..... I just don't think that we are going to draft Bradford..... We should just trade down and get more picks so that we can fill that offensive line out.

Posted by: antoniologan | April 22, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Pleeeezzz. Noooooo!

Posted by: heyjoe728 | April 22, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: suliman215 | April 22, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Greg is reeling them in.

Posted by: Flounder21 | April 22, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Mike Florio
April 22nd, 10:51
As suspected BeantownGreg1 is a homo

Our sources have confirmed that BeantownGreg1 is a homo. While speculation has been ongoing for weeks, we now can confirm the story after he and Washington Post Beat-off writer JR we caught together in a bathroom stall at a gas station close to Redskin Park.

Posted by: slimbo-Rice | April 22, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

"...Bradford played in a spread offense in college and will need some time to adjust to the pro style.."


Just what is the 'pro style' anymore when more and more pro football offenses use 3-4 wide sets and use the pass to set up the run.

And then, the running action is a draw or 'stretch'--a play that's an offshoot of the old sprint draw action (or, a passing play where the q-back sprints one way like he's about to throw, then hands off to a back).

There are more advantages to having a big, strong-armed, accurate college quarterback who's used to passing out of the 'spread' than a traditional under the center quarterback who's never had the weight off and offense on his shoulders.

S Bradford will be a great pro quarterback for the smart team that uses spread concepts in the NFL: or, like what's already happening in NE, Indy, Houston

Posted by: MistaMoe | April 22, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Won't happen...move on, WaPo.

Posted by: brownwood26 | April 22, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

The Redskins are NOT interested in Bradford. At all. Won't happen.

Posted by: Carl739 | April 22, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

That was weak slimbo...try again, dude.

Posted by: brownwood26 | April 22, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

It's a left tackle at #4. Book [Autographed, hard copy version] it!

Posted by: 4-12 | April 22, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Fish

In

Barrell

BOOM

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | April 22, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Do it yes!!!

Posted by: Redskins001 | April 22, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Biggest draft smoke screen ever Skins are not looking to draft Bradford.

Posted by: wstclair | April 22, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

#4 Okung/TWilliams

Trade AH92 to TEN for the #16

#16 Dez Bryant

Posted by: SkinsfaninKaneohe | April 22, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

redskins please tell me these rumors are false.. Take sam bradford who want play for another two years b/c of mcnabb. and u still want have no offensive line man to protect either one. No wonder the skins been sucking for 10 years..J reid i hope u wrong. I odnt mind trading campbell or Fat Albert but to to give up the 4 spot and all u get is the first pick and a 4th rounder

Posted by: chinngy23 | April 22, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

"There are more advantages to having a big, strong-armed, accurate college quarterback who's used to passing out of the 'spread' than a traditional under the center quarterback who's never had the weight off and offense on his shoulders.

S Bradford will be a great pro quarterback for the smart team that uses spread concepts in the NFL: or, like what's already happening in NE, Indy, Houston

Posted by: MistaMoe"

I wonder -- and I admit to not knowing much about college FB -- but did Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, or Matt Schaub play out of the spread in college?

What about Phil Rivers, Big Ben, Drew Brees, or Aaron Rodgers?

It would be an interesting analysis to see. Which QBs fare more successfully: "spread" college QBs that have to learn traditional drops in the pros, or "pro-style" QBs in college that adjust to more spread-style offenses once they hit the pros?

Posted by: psps23 | April 22, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

People we want confusion about what we will might do....

Posted by: chrislarry | April 22, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Just take the left tackle and let's stop talking about the next Heath Shuler. Let the rams pick him and be done with it.

Posted by: justskinfan1 | April 22, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

When free agency began, agents tried to use the Skins to drive up the price of their players by planting stories about the Skins being interested. Now, a few teams are doing the same to force some teams to give up more than they'd otherwise surrender to move up.

Shanahan and Allen are not going to break the bank by drafting Bradford. A number of QBs will be available later, if needed.

Posted by: Carl739 | April 22, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Just take the left tackle and let's stop talking about the next Heath Shuler. Let the rams pick him and be done with it.

Posted by: justskinfan1 | April 22, 2010 11:13 AM


Bradford won't be THAT bad...I'd say worst case scenario, he's Trent Dilfer.

Posted by: brownwood26 | April 22, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

If the Skins brass truly believe that Bradford will be a top 5 QB from 2012 through 2022, they have an obligation to trade for him.

Posted by: Dellis2 | April 22, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Considering our previous dealings with the Rams, maybe they will give us the #1 pick and just swap 3rd rounders?

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

If the Skins brass truly believe that Bradford will be a top 5 QB from 2012 through 2022, they have an obligation to trade for him.

Posted by: Dellis2 | April 22, 2010 11:18 AM

I'd put it a little differently: "If they truly believe that they KNOW whether he'll be a top 5 QB for then years, then they have an obligation to resign from their jobs." Only a Vinny would be that sure about an injury-prone QB and Vinny is humping Clausen.

Posted by: League-Source | April 22, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

If the Skins brass truly believe that Bradford will be a top 5 QB from 2012 through 2022, they have an obligation to trade for him.

Posted by: Dellis2

So trade for Bradford at all costs?


'Skins need more draft picks. The only way to achieve this is to move down in the draft or trade players.


Got to get down to get up.

Posted by: RedDMV | April 22, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Get off it you two fat idiots, your wrong and have been wrong the whole time. They were never going to trade up for Bradford, so keep posting this useless BS if you want to waste your time.

Posted by: Flounder21 | April 22, 2010 10:51 AM |

Flounder, you really need to chill out. If you're so worked up over what's posted on RI then you might need to reexamine your priorities. You (and others) would be much better served if you harnessed your passion towards something that's more redemptive. Football is...well, football. Wasting your life calling people "two fat idiots" reflects more on you and the need for you to mature.

Posted by: humen8r | April 22, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I can't understand the rationale behind moving up to take Bradford. This team has mixed motives. If you trade draft pickss for McNabb, then it appears that the team believes they can be competitive now. However, immediate success is dependent upon having an offensive line that can protect and run block. If, however, you take Bradford because he's the QB of the future at the expense of bolstering the line, then you can't possibly expect to win this year. Furthermore, as Antoniologan pointed out, acquiring Bradford renders the McNabb trade totally inexplicable b/c you gave up a 2nd rounder to have a seatwarmer in McNabb when JC could have been a perfect seatwarmer for a year.

Posted by: ZardsFan1 | April 22, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Ben to Niners for 2nd and 3rd?

Posted by: SMACK1 | April 22, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

There is no way that the skins are interested in Bradford.

If they were, there would be no rumors what so ever.Bruce/Mike are smarter than that.

They want Clausen.

But I believe that they can't/won't pull the trigger unless they have a trade in place to get a LT, like Jammal Brown.

If they don't... Trent Williams is the pick

Posted by: byrdinthesky | April 22, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Trade Haynesworth and McNabb and our #4 for their #1 and their 2nd rd pick, Trade the 2nd for Gaithers. Keep Campbell for one more year while Sam gets ready.

Posted by: Redskinsdan | April 22, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Agreed Red...even if Bradford is the 2nd coming of Peyton Manning, you can't give up damn near two drafts worth of picks for one guy. If the Colts had done some sh*t like that to get Manning, they'd be awful since they wouldn't have guys like Reggie Wayne or Marvin Harrison (you know, the whole "keeping your 1st rounders and using them on future starters, not trading them for other people's trash" philosophy).

We've probably got McNabb for the next 3-5 years. Roll with DMac and if we HAVE to get a QB, we can wait until 2011 when the QB class will be much deeper.

Posted by: brownwood26 | April 22, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Mike Florio
April 22nd, 11:12
Boston fan traded for future consideration

Reliable sources have confirmed that an unnamed transplanted Boston resident has been traded from WaPo RI to one (or both) of two Philadelphia institutions: either the Inquirer or the Daily News. The trade was for future consideration, likely a ham sandwich.
Both papers have agreed to put themselves up for auction rather than accept the trade.

Sorry I don't know how to include a link, but this is true!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

http://www.boston_trade_debacle

Posted by: CynicalFan1 | April 22, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Trade Haynesworth and McNabb and #4 for #1 and their 2nd rd pick. Use the 2nd to trade for Gaithers. Keep Cambell one more year while Sam gets ready.

Posted by: Redskinsdan | April 22, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Trade Haynesworth and McNabb and our #4 for their #1 and their 2nd rd pick, Trade the 2nd for Gaithers. Keep Campbell for one more year while Sam gets ready.

Posted by: Redskinsdan | April 22, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I knew there would be some crazy sh!t posted today.

Posted by: skinsfanintampa | April 22, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"I wonder -- and I admit to not knowing much about college FB -- but did Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, or Matt Schaub play out of the spread in college?...What about Phil Rivers, Big Ben, Drew Brees, or Aaron Rodgers?"


Excellent question.

From what I remember, Manning, Brees, Rivers, and McNabb (you failed to mention him) played in offenses where they were in a mix of being under center or in the gun.

The other quarterbacks you mention are guy who played in college during the period where college teams moved into more spread formations.

Thing is, you can use spread concepts with a quarterback under center--he must drop back, though, and read as he does.

That's why teams increasingly put their players in the shot gun, spread the field with multiple receivers, and design plays where the reads are quick and simple to execute.

If you look around, you'll see that more pro teams are adapting spread passing concepts as the rules are passing friendly.

And if you draft a college quarterback who's had successs with pro mechanics in a spread system, you've probably will draft a winner.

Posted by: MistaMoe | April 22, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I knew there would be some crazy sh!t posted today.

Posted by: skinsfanintampa | April 22, 2010 11:30 AM

...and you knew it because there is crazy sh!t posted up here every day that the sun rises in the East.

Posted by: League-Source | April 22, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

This report makes absolutely no sense...

If they are saying NEXT oddseason will be the best free agent class out there, why on earth would they tie up considerable $$$$ on a QB that may be a backup for the next three seasons.

Wouldn't tying up that money in a backup defeat the purpose and hinder the teams ability of going all in next year during free agency?

This is just a truly stupid stupid article!!

Posted by: dglelite | April 22, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Flounder, you really need to chill out. If you're so worked up over what's posted on RI then you might need to reexamine your priorities. You (and others) would be much better served if you harnessed your passion towards something that's more redemptive. Football is...well, football. Wasting your life calling people "two fat idiots" reflects more on you and the need for you to mature.

Posted by: humen8r | April 22, 2010 11:24 AM |

Whatever, did you see the video yesterday they are fat and if they actually think the Skins will trade up for Bradford there idiots as well.

Wasting your life telling me I'm wasting my life, reflects more on you then me and shows that you need to worry more about yourself and leave me the f-ck alone.

Posted by: Flounder21 | April 22, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Beeps, btw

Posted by: CynicalFan1 | April 22, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Redskins can get a 2012or 2022 top five QB in 2011 or 2012.

Locker. Barkley.

McNabb is a bridge to those future QB classes.

Bradford is accurate, smart, and damaged.

Dark horse for THIS year: Skelton, round 5. Big, strong, accurate, raw. Perfect to bring along.

Posted by: SkinsfaninKaneohe | April 22, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Maybe the Rams don't actually want Bradford and the $50M of guaranteed cash that it would take to sign him. If the Skins can basically trade #4 straight up for #1, why not do it? Then the Rams can take Okung at 4 and McCoy/Tebow at 33. And McNabb can use his mobile abilities to flee from Heyer's freeway on the blind side for a year until Sammy is ready to roll in 2011.

Posted by: Dellis2 | April 22, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Flounder, presumably you are not fat, but you sure are an idiot.

Posted by: ZardsFan1 | April 22, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=nfp-report_skins_still_trying_to_land_bradford_html-2010422

It doesn't make sense. If they get Bradford the supposed plan would be to sit behind McNabb for a year. That would mean they don't sign McNabb to an extension. That would mean the Skins gave up a #2 and #3 for one year of McNabb. They could have lived with JC for one year.

Posted by: skinfanman | April 22, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

...and you knew it because there is crazy sh!t posted up here every day that the sun rises in the East.

Posted by: League-Source | April 22, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

RI = The Mecca of crazy sh!t.. Gotta love it!

The frontrunner so far is Redskindan, but the day is still young...

Posted by: skinsfanintampa | April 22, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Trading McNabb as part of the deal is the same as using a 2nd this yr and a 4th next year to move up. What is crazy about that? Based of the value chart, it is a steal. Trading Haynesworth for a 2nd and using that to get Gaithers would solved the LT problem. I don't mind being called Crazy, just as long as I am right.

Posted by: Redskinsdan | April 22, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

I really starting to get convinced that Bradford is the target. How they swing that and get a quality LT is up for debate. They could go with Flozell. They could trade for Jamal Brown (AH or future pick?). IMO Bradford is their target.

Posted by: TWISI | April 22, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

I will repeat what I said in another thread since it looks like it got missed I read the following quote somewhere:

"One thing you know about Mike Shanahan is he's going to protect his quarterback," center Casey Rabach said.


Didn't we hear the same thing about Joe Gibbs when he came in? And he drafted who as an OL? (Answer noone, we had Samuels and Jansen already, Dockery was drafted when Spurrier was in office.)

So who got drafted as OL?

2006: 7th Rd Kili Lefotu guard (gone now)

That's it. So I don't buy that because he wants to protect his QB that means he will go OL, in fact, that's more reason to get experienced OL like Shawn Andrews or Flozelle Adams as to draft a rookie in some people's minds.

I don't know if we would trade up for bradford, but as 730 approaches the more I feel that the Skins won't do what to many of us is obvious (take a tackle), and may not want to trade down. Left with that, what do you do? Who do you take? If not a tackle, is it Clausen, is it Berry? Is it a corner since Carlos was disgruntled? Is it a WR? Who knows.

Posted by: Veretax | April 22, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

seriously J Reid. you are slipping into the journailism vacuums where you lose your integrity for the sake of page space.

Posted by: oknow1 | April 22, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

the Rams don't want Campbell - the deal would have to be #4, Haynesworth, and McNabb for #1 and whatever else the Skins can get. Campbell would be a deal breaker

Posted by: coparker5 | April 22, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Let's trade next 2 years number 1 picks for this years number 1. Then flush the toilet, record it, and presto, we have the new Redskins fight song.

Posted by: richs91 | April 22, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

We could just trade all our picks to the Rams for Maxie Baughn, Jack Pardee, and Diron Talbert.

Posted by: AsstGM | April 22, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Flounder, you really need to chill out. If you're so worked up over what's posted on RI then you might need to reexamine your priorities. You (and others) would be much better served if you harnessed your passion towards something that's more redemptive. Football is...well, football. Wasting your life calling people "two fat idiots" reflects more on you and the need for you to mature.

Posted by: humen8r | April 22, 2010 11:24 AM |

Whatever, did you see the video yesterday they are fat and if they actually think the Skins will trade up for Bradford there idiots as well.

Wasting your life telling me I'm wasting my life, reflects more on you then me and shows that you need to worry more about yourself and leave me the f-ck alone.

Posted by: Flounder21 | April 22, 2010 11:34 AM |

Flounder, you obviously can take the liberty to write what you may as it pertains to your analysis of comments made on RI. However to have the audacity to belittle someone because they're overweight is a poor choice in judgment. Plus your language and tone is quite revealing to the rest of us that you're lacking in areas that are pertinent to a life of true significance that elevates the lives of others. I'm sure you're a swell guy. But its a given that if you don't address such issues in your own heart, you're going to continue to spew venom and animosity that will curtail your potential. What you do ultimately comes out of who you are.

Posted by: humen8r | April 22, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Flounder, you really need to chill out. If you're so worked up over what's posted on RI then you might need to reexamine your priorities. You (and others) would be much better served if you harnessed your passion towards something that's more redemptive. Football is...well, football. Wasting your life calling people "two fat idiots" reflects more on you and the need for you to mature.

Posted by: humen8r | April 22, 2010 11:24 AM |

Whatever, did you see the video yesterday they are fat and if they actually think the Skins will trade up for Bradford there idiots as well.

Wasting your life telling me I'm wasting my life, reflects more on you then me and shows that you need to worry more about yourself and leave me the f-ck alone.

Posted by: Flounder21 | April 22, 2010 11:34 AM |

Flounder, you obviously can take the liberty to write what you may as it pertains to your analysis of comments made on RI. However to have the audacity to belittle someone because they're overweight is a poor choice in judgment. Plus your language and tone is quite revealing to the rest of us that you're lacking in areas that are pertinent to a life of true significance that elevates the lives of others. I'm sure you're a swell guy. But its a given that if you don't address such issues in your own heart, you're going to continue to spew venom and animosity that will curtail your potential. What you do ultimately comes out of who you are.


Humen8r, I agree that Flounder could use an enima every now and then, but you sure do sound like a wuss!

As for the Redskins, there sure is a lot of smoke here. Why all the smoke unless they have something in mind. I hope they go tackle, but wouldn't be surpised if they surprise us and take Berry.

Posted by: mj25 | April 22, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Honestly - our schedule sucks. McNabb is only here for a couple years (one?) and we're likely to finish 8-8 at best (Vikings, Packers, Colts, Titans). Next year is a potential lock-out. If a new labor agreement is put in place, the free agent market will be ample for linemen or a QB. So, in the grand scheme of things, who cares who we take. Just take a tackle to prove that we're changing our philosophy? Haven't we done that with the hiring of Allen and Shanny? When did a tackle EVER win a game? This is a QB league - more now than ever (Breez, Manning,Rothlesberger, Warner, Manning, Brady, etc...). No "average" QB's win the Bowl. No "defensive" teams win the Bowl. It's the QB. Sure we have McNabb, and he's been to the SB - that's great. But do we really think we're 2 years from a Super Bowl? I don't. I've watched this team underperform and have seen their lack of discipline since the Turner days. Apart from Schotty - nothing has changed. Maybe Shanny can change all that, but it'll take time, and talent, and luck, but above all it will take a quarterback. Of that, I'm certain.
Tonight will be interesting. And I'll still be drinking the kool-aid if we take a tackle, a QB or a long-snapper with the No. 4 pick. Or trade it. And so will all of you Skins fans.
No more Zorn. No more Vinny. Things are better already.

Posted by: t_ewers | April 22, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

If 21 was still here...half this bullsh1t wouldn't be going down...and the entire league would be COOKT.

Posted by: jmicrodoc | April 22, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

I heard the Rams would give the 1 pick to the Redskins in exchange for all-pro Jason Campbell, however, the Redskins are reluctant to give JC because his potential, according to knowledgeable sources on this blog, is out of this world.

Posted by: nimes1 | April 22, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Who knows what it would take to draft Bradford? Actually..if the Rams don`t think they can sign him..they may just swap choices with the Skins vs. having him hold out. If they could have signed him..why didn`t they do so earlier? Washington needs a left tackle more than a rookie QB.

Posted by: blazerguy234 | April 22, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Who knows what it would take to draft Bradford? Actually..if the Rams don`t think they can sign him..they may just swap choices with the Skins vs. having him hold out. If they could have signed him..why didn`t they do so earlier? Washington needs a left tackle more than a rookie QB.

Posted by: blazerguy234 | April 22, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

F-Dallas

Posted by: vexed50verizonnet | April 22, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company