So The Superbowl is Over (Unofficial 2007 NFL Draft/Free Agency Thread)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

As opposed to Mario Williams?

[beargrowlz]

SI has the latest rumors as being the Fish want David Carr, moving Daunte Culpepper to the Raiders, and Trent Green ending up with the Lions.

Interestingly enough, Matt Millen is damned if he does damned if he doesn't this year. If he makes a deal for a QB and drafts Calvin Johnson, he gets ragged on for using yet another #1 on a wideout.

But Johnson is by far the best talent in this year's draft, if he can pick up an established QB and land Johnson, and he chooses not to, maybe he should get ragged on for not drafting the best player available simply because he (Millen) screwed up in the past.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

Brilliant argument. How you could possibly think that's a legit reason to pick Bush instead is mind-boggling . They made a bad pick. Bush would also have been a bad pick at #1 overall. Young was at least a legit player at a much more important position.

As for Williams, he was a solid LDE once they stopped trying to play him along the entire DL with October being a good month. 47 tackles and 4.5 sacks is bad for a #1 overall, but it's a much more important position than RB and he wasn't a complete flop. Bad pick, but not the colossal blunder that many talking-heads want him to be.

Offbase. We're talking decision-making at the time. Not 20/20 hindsight. Please give me your arguments that Mario Williams was a better pick than Reggie Bush or Vince Young on draft day 2006.

The thrust of my thread wasn't that Bush was the best player in the draft last year. Obviously, he wasn't. It's arguable the best guys didn't even go int the first round or the first day.

So, my "Mario Williams" comment was a criticism of the draft day strategy by Houston on that day. You've already had Carr for 4 years - you should already know what you got when you decide to pass on Young. But then you dump him a year later? Same with Bush and Dominack Davis. They had Davis for a couple of years and he missed the last five games of the 2005 season with his knee injury. Knowing about the injury and having NO ONE as a capable backup even, they passed on Bush.

Simply stated, the Texans head office are morons. The recent trade for Schaub is another perfect example.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Vince Young was a questionable pick that turned out to be great for Tennessee. If he played behind that Houston line he would have looked like a supreme bust and everybody would be complaining that they took him over Reggie Bush. If they took Bush, then he would have been miscast as a feature back and overused running behind a line that doesn't open many holes. He can only run outside so many times before he wears down from all the shots he would take. People would then bitch that they didn't take D'Brickashaw Ferguson, since they need that o-line to eventually come together. If they took Ferguson...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Simply stated, the Texans head office are morons. The recent trade for Schaub is another perfect example.

But as bad as the trade looks for the Texans, I think the contract they gave him is exponentially worse (although I suppose if you're going to make the bad trade, you pretty much have to lock him up for several years).

[RedKingGold]

Who the Texans should have taken #1 overall = D'Brickashaw Ferguson (hindsight and foresight)

Also, the Texans should have been doing everything in their power to try and trade up to get OT Joe Thomas, not trading down.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But as bad as the trade looks for the Texans, I think the contract they gave him is exponentially worse (although I suppose if you're going to make the bad trade, you pretty much have to lock him up for several years).

I think you're forgetting two important things:

1. The salary cap is going to increase by a ridiculous amount each year until the expiration of the labor agreement (2010). So, if you consider that the Texans are paying him that contract with the guaranteed money of 21 mil for essentially three season, that's not bad starter money considering that available QB's in the future will be getting as much. (I guarantee you some stupid team will offer Kyle Boller a similar contract next year) It's pretty much the same argument where people said the Steve Hutchinson was a horrible contract last year that looks like a contract bargain this year.

2. By making this trade, the Texans are forced to have at least two years with Schuab as the QB. When you look at the contract, it's phrased to not have the buy-back option until the third season. So, it's seems pretty reasonable in that part.

[AlexB]

Steve Hutchison's contract only looks like a bargain now because this year's FAs have to have bigger deals than the last year's. That's how it works, same with draft picks - it's not how only good the player is, it's how much the equivalent draft pick or top rated guy in his position got last year.

So Steinbach and the other guy who I forget right now got deals because the Vikings & Hutchison raised the bar so much, and it only 'looks like a bargain' if you are comparing a pretty good player who is horribly overpaid against average players who are disgustingly overpaid.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Steve Hutchison's contract only looks like a bargain now because this year's FAs have to have bigger deals than the last year's. That's how it works, same with draft picks - it's not how only good the player is, it's how much the equivalent draft pick or top rated guy in his position got last year.

So Steinbach and the other guy who I forget right now got deals because the Vikings & Hutchison raised the bar so much, and it only 'looks like a bargain' if you are comparing a pretty good player who is horribly overpaid against average players who are disgustingly overpaid.

What you are forgetting in your argument is that the reason these player's are seeming "overpaid" is because you are comparing today's market with the market of last year. The new collective bargaining agreement brought more money into the salary cap this year from some intellectual property rights being included into the overall salary available to each team. This was why so many teams had a windfall of cash that they did not have previous seasons.

As the market is, when there is a lot of cash in the market, more players are going to get more money. Thus, deals which looked extreme two years ago are now mild in comparison.

In all honesty, I don't begrudge teams from paying these large amounts of money and mediocre players accepting it. Why? Because, we are the machine that feeds the mouths of the NFL. The NFL is the most popular sport in America, thus, it has more cash flow to spend on players.

Also, one more thing to keep in mind. As extreme as these salaries sound, what the top players earn in the NFL is easily dwarfed by what the top players earn in both MLB and NBA (where all contracts are guaranteed). For example, Alex Rodriguez will earn more this year than ALL of the guaranteed money that Matt Schuab will make over the next three years of his deal (where it will likely be restructured again in terms of market value or he will be given his outright release). Compare Leonard Davis's contract (likely the most extravagant of the NFL off-season) with Alphonso Soriano and you'll catch my drift.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

Better than Bush is a feaseable argument. Williams play at NCState was good, but below his tremendous physical traits. He played on a talented D and stood out enough to be a legit 1st round pick on most boards. He did not belong in consideration for #1 overall

Bush was a backup RB even in college. He was more flash than substance and his mental meltdown against Fresno State was only overlooked because he made up for it with a couple of big plays. Once he got put against a talented D (Pac-10 defenses were mediocre at best in '05) he got thoroughly dominated by Texas and showed again his tendency to do some boneheaded things at very bad times. This trend continued right into the pros where he's not a good running RB, but is more a 3rd down back/slot receiver/punt returner. There was no legit way, other than ESPN hype, that Bush belonged anywhere near the top of the draft. Given what I've seen so far, and the Chicago playoff game just confirmed what a mindless idiot Bush is, Reggie will be a career highlight reel with little meaningful impact on the result of big games.

With that said, I would have moved Carr and drafted Young in that situation as well as Young's physical abilities and mental maturity would have been useful behind that pitiful excuse for an OL.

Wow. Quite the revisionist history on Bush. Bush was clearly the top tailback over Lendale White and he was clearly one of the most electric RB's in college and still has tremendous potential to be a game breaking RB in the NFL. When did we start judging guys as complete failures as #1 or #2 picks after a single year?


Here are the highlights of Bush's 05 season since clearly you need to be reminded of just how great he was. That 8.9 YPC is insane:

TCB	YDS	AVG	TD	REC	YDS	AVG	TD	KOR	YDS	AVG	PR	PR	PR	AVG
187	1,658	8.9	15	31	383	12.4	2	23	391	17.0	18	179	9.9	1

• Winner of the Doak Walker Award and Walter Camp Award.
• Pigskin Club of Washington D.C. Offensive Player of the Year.
• Was 1 of 3 finalists for the 2005 Maxwell Award and 1 of 4 finalists for the Cingular-ABC Sports All-America Player of the Year Award.
• He made the 2005 Football Coaches, Football Writers, Walter Camp, ESPN.com, SI.com and CBS Sportsline.com All-American first teams.
• He was named the 2005 Pac-10 Offensive Player of the Year for the second consecutive year (just the fifth player ever so honored and the first non-quarterback to do it in 20 years) and also made the All-Pac-10 first team as a tailback (the squad's only unanimous pick) and second team as a punt returner.
• He was USC's team MVP (for the second consecutive year) and won the USC Player of the Game versus Notre Dame, Co-Player of the Game versus UCLA, Co-Lifter and Jack Oakie "Rise and Shine" (for longest run) awards.
• He is currently first nationally in all-purpose running (217.6, first in Pac-10), fourth in rushing (138.2, second in Pac-10) and tied for 18th in scoring (9.0, tied for fifth in Pac-10).
• His 8.9 yards per carry in 2005--nearly a first down every carry--is tops in the nation.
• With 1,658 rushing yards in 2005, he became USC's 24th 1,000-yard runner (his first time).
• His 1,658 rushing yards (sixth on USC's season rushing list and ninth on the Pac-10 season chart) are the most at USC since Marcus Allen's 2,427 in his 1981 Heisman Trophy season.
• He is averaging 10.1 yards on his 259 touches in 2005 (he has 2,611 all-purpose yards, within range of Marcus Allen's USC and Pac-10 record of 2,683 in 1981 and ninth on the USC season list).
• The average length of his 16 touchdowns in 2005 is 31.9 yards.
• He is averaging a touchdown every 14.4 times he touches the ball in 2005 (18 TDs on 259 touches).
• His 5 consecutive 100-yard rushing games in 2005 (Arkansas, Oregon, Arizona State, Arizona State, Notre Dame) was the first time a Trojan did that since Ricky Ervins also had 5 in a row in 1989.
• He has rushed for 100 yards 11 times in his career (8 times in 2005, the most in a season by a Trojan since Ricky Ervins had 9 in 1989).
• In USC's 5 games against AP ranked opponents in 2005, he is averaging 198.8 rushing yards (10.0 per carry), with 10 rushing TDs, and 302.2 all-purpose yards.
• He and Marcus Allen are the only Trojans to twice rush for at least 260 yards in a game.
• He is the only Trojan to rush for 200 yards twice against UCLA.
• His combined 554 rushing yards versus Fresno State (294) and UCLA (260) were the most ever by a Trojan in back-to-back games.
• He has 93 plays of 20-plus yards in his career (including 36 in 2005).
• He caught a pass in 27 consecutive games before his streak was snapped against UCLA in 2005.
• He has 6,338 all-purpose yards in his career, averaging 10.3 yards on each of his 615 touches, to rank second in USC history (behind Charles White's 7,226 in 1976-79) and 13th in NCAA history.
• In his career, he has averaged a touchdown every 15.0 times he touches the ball (41 TDs on 615 touches).
• His 2 seasons with 2,000-plus all-purpose yards (he had 2,330 in 2004) ties an NCAA record.
• He has produced touchdowns 5 different ways as a Trojan (rushing, receiving, kickoff returns, punt returns and passing).
• He has scored 41 TDs in his 38-game career (24 rushing, 13 receiving, 1 on kickoff returns, 3 on punt returns).
• His 3,087 career rushing yards is seventh on USC's career chart.
• He is averaging 7.4 yards per carry in his career (420 rushes).
• His 89 career receptions is 19th on USC's career ladder.
• His 1,420 career kickoff return yards is second on USC's all-time list and his 559 career punt return yards is fifth on USC's all-time chart.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

Bush was a backup RB even in college. He was more flash than substance and his mental meltdown against Fresno State was only overlooked because he made up for it with a couple of big plays. Once he got put against a talented D (Pac-10 defenses were mediocre at best in '05) he got thoroughly dominated by Texas and showed again his tendency to do some boneheaded things at very bad times. This trend continued right into the pros where he's not a good running RB, but is more a 3rd down back/slot receiver/punt returner. There was no legit way, other than ESPN hype, that Bush belonged anywhere near the top of the draft. Given what I've seen so far, and the Chicago playoff game just confirmed what a mindless idiot Bush is, Reggie will be a career highlight reel with little meaningful impact on the result of big games.

So, a back-up RB won the Heisman trophy? Is that the argument your making. Also, where the heck did LenDale White disappear to after being drafted by Tennessee? Actually, it was USC's average defense that kept Fresno State in the game. If you're talking about Bush's fumble on the punt return as a "mental meltdown", then I think you need to have your eye-sight checked.

Under your argument, RB Brian Westbrook and Tiki Barber are scrubs who should never have been drafted, and Barry Sanders was the worst running back you ever saw, correct?

[AlexB]

When I said disgustingly overpaid, I meant in the terms of more than 'horribly' overpaid - I don't mind the guys earning it. I was just querying your use of the term 'bargain'.

There's no way in my mind $7m for seven years for a guard is a bargain, although I appreciate they likely won't actually receive all £49m. You could maybe argue the Chargers got a deal that was a bargain for the position. Given the extra cash around, maybe Hutchison would have gotten up to $55m this year - but as I say, until he came around that was tackle money.

The top money in our football is generally bigger than this - players are on up to £140k a week, which translates to £7.25m per year, or about $13.5m. The main differences are the length of contracts, but they guys are guaranteed to get the cash. So the level of money isn;t the problem.

Anyway, I'm tired, and just realised I'm rambling horribly. Hopefully you see where I'm coming from

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

When I said disgustingly overpaid, I meant in the terms of more than 'horribly' overpaid - I don't mind the guys earning it. I was just querying your use of the term 'bargain'.

There's no way in my mind $7m for seven years for a guard is a bargain, although I appreciate they likely won't actually receive all £49m. You could maybe argue the Chargers got a deal that was a bargain for the position. Given the extra cash around, maybe Hutchison would have gotten up to $55m this year - but as I say, until he came around that was tackle money.

The top money in our football is generally bigger than this - players are on up to £140k a week, which translates to £7.25m per year, or about $13.5m. The main differences are the length of contracts, but they guys are guaranteed to get the cash. So the level of money isn;t the problem.

Anyway, I'm tired, and just realised I'm rambling horribly. Hopefully you see where I'm coming from

I do, and I think the bolded part is the key thing to remember. Everyone gets caught up in the 7-years, 8052 million gajarbage. The best way to evaluate a contract in the NFL is to just see the guaranteed money and when the guaranteed money is parceled out. You'll see that the contracts are not as extreme as you might think.

Now go to sleep....ya Euro bastard!

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Well said, EF27.

[stevew]

Santonio Holmes rulez. That's all I have to add.

[albionmoonlight]

I am not one to get into the "Player X plays for my team, so he rulzzzzzzzzzz! Player Y plays for our rival so he is the suxxors" arguments.

Bush plays for the Saints, so I hope that he does well. But I acknowledge that he might not. And I care much more about the team winning than any one player on the team doing well.

All that said, I did watch every play that Reggie Bush played last season, and I can say that it is just wrong to say that he has shown himself to be nothing more than a 3rd down back/slot receiver. He played very poorly in the beginning of the season. Baltimore in particular made him look very foolish.

All that said, he improved his game over the course of the year. He adjusted his game to fit the NFL, demonstrating both the ability and the desire to do so. Does this mean that he will be the next Marshall Faulk? No. Does it mean that he will be able to handle 30 carries a game? No. Does it mean that he will make the Hall of Fame? No.

But, none of those things are off the table. The jury is still out because he's still getting better.

Saying that he's nothing more (and will never be more) than Larry Centers with speed is premature.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

There was no legit way, other than ESPN hype, that Bush belonged anywhere near the top of the draft.

Congratulations.

You've managed to make one of the stupidest comments I've ever seen on this forum before you even cracked the hundred post mark.

That's quite an accomplishment, I can't wait to see what you can do by the time you reach a thousand.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

He was more flash than substance and his mental meltdown against Fresno State was only overlooked because he made up for it with a couple of big plays.

This was a good one too. So, he gets no credit for the "couple of big plays" that rectified a mistake? Most 3rd down backs just make the mistake, with no big plays coming afterwards.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

With that said, I would have moved Carr and drafted Young in that situation as well as Young's physical abilities and mental maturity would have been useful behind that pitiful excuse for an OL.

So you then agree with my main point that the Texans front office are morons and should have picked Young, which was the main point of my post which was back a few?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

But, the Texans have Ahman Green now, so they don't need to worry about that.

Nice, I loled.

[Dr. Sak]

The Eagles have traded defensive tackle Darwin Walker to the Buffalo Bills for two-time Pro Bowl outside linebacker Takeo Spikes, backup quarterback Kelly Holcomb and future considerations, league sources said tonight.

[stevew]

Comp picks were announced......

3 33-96 San Diego
3 34-97 San Francisco
3 35-98 Indianapolis
3 36-99 Oakland

4 33-132 Pittsburgh
4 34-133 Atlanta
4 35-134 Baltimore
4 36-135 San Francisco
4 37-136 Indianapolis
4 38-137 Baltimore

5 33-170 Pittsburgh
5 34-171 New England
5 35-172 San Diego
5 36-173 Indianapolis
5 37-174 Baltimore

6 33-207 Baltimore
6 34-208 New England
6 35-209 New England
6 36-210 Seattle

7 33-243 Green Bay
7 34-244 Atlanta
7 35-245 Tampa Bay
7 36-246 Tampa Bay
7 37-247 New England
7 38-248 St. Louis
7 39-249 St. Louis
7 40-250 New York Giants
7 41-251 Jacksonville
7 42-252 Jacksonville
7 43-253 Cincinnati
7 44-254 Oakland
7 45-255 Detroit

[stevew]

Skins at it again?

PHOENIX -- While a proposal has yet to be formalized, the Washington Redskins will make a trade offer to the Chicago Bears aimed at acquiring two-time Pro Bowl weakside linebacker Lance Briggs, agent Drew Rosenhaus and two league sources told ESPN.com late Monday night.

Washington will propose a swap of first-round draft picks in this year's draft -- the Redskins own the sixth overall selection and Chicago has the 31st choice in the lottery -- in exchange for Briggs. The potential deal, which is expected to pick up steam on Tuesday morning as the annual NFL meetings continue here, would be contingent on the Redskins signing Briggs to a long-term contract.

Having failed last spring to consummate a long-term contract with Briggs -- reportedly a seven-year, $33 million deal on which both sides worked for several weeks before the negotiations collapsed-- the Bears employed the franchise tag last month to keep the four-year veteran off the open market.

Briggs, 26, told ESPN.com three weeks ago that he preferred to be traded or have Chicago rescind the franchise tag and make him a free agent, rather than return to the Bears. He said he would "not play one more day" for the Bears. He subsequently told Fox Sports that he would sit out the entire 2007 season rather than play for Chicago under terms of the franchise marker.

On Monday afternoon, Briggs arrived at the resort hotel where NFL owners are meeting and met briefly with Bears general manager Jerry Angelo.

"It was good, in the sense that we talked man-to-man," Briggs said. "But not much changed [during the meeting]. But it was good, a positive step, in that we both know where each other stands in this thing."

Subsequent to that meeting, Briggs spoke with representatives with a few teams, including the Redskins. The standout linebacker spoke with Washington owner Dan Snyder, coach Joe Gibbs and general manager Vinny Cerrato. At some point in the evening, the Washington brass determined to make a play for Briggs, and there were discussions with Rosenhaus about potential contract parameters.

Rosenhaus, who has struck several deals with Snyder, said later Monday that reaching a contract agreement with the Redskins was "a strong likelihood." But he also acknowledged that Washington still had to formalize a trade proposal and the Bears had to accept.

"But it's a win-win situation," Rosenhaus said. "Chicago only wants to sign Lance to a one-year contract anyway. If they made the trade, they would move up 25 spots in the first round, and be able to choose one of the premier players in the draft. And Lance, obviously, would get the long-term deal he wants [from the Redskins]. It's a good resolution for everyone."

By using the franchise marker on Briggs, the Bears ostensibly made him a one-year qualifying offer worth $7.206 million. Briggs has the right to negotiate with any team and to sign an offer sheet. If the Bears decline to match the offer sheet, the team which signed Briggs would have to send Chicago a pair of first-round draft choices as compensation. But such compensation is considered prohibitive, and pretty much precludes an offer sheet.

The kind of trade the Redskins will propose makes more sense for all of the parties involved. There have been rumors for much of the offseason that the Redskins wanted to trade out of the No. 6 slot in the first round. And a deal for Briggs, one of the NFL's top young linebackers, would represent the kind of big splash Snyder likes to make. It would also allow Chicago to get value for Briggs and to rid itself of an unhappy player.

A former University of Arizona standout, Briggs was chosen by the Bears in the third round of the 2003 draft. He earned a starting job as a rookie, emerged by his third season as one of the NFL's top young weakside linebackers, and was chosen for the Pro Bowl in each of the past two seasons.

Even playing in the lengthy shadow of middle linebacker Brian Urlacher, with whom he has become close friends, Briggs is regarded leaguewide as a top defender and playmaker.

[TazFTW]

The Jets signed Andre Wadsworth, who hasn't been in the NFL since 2000.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by bsak16

The Eagles have traded defensive tackle Darwin Walker to the Buffalo Bills for two-time Pro Bowl outside linebacker Takeo Spikes, backup quarterback Kelly Holcomb and future considerations, league sources said tonight.

I like this move for the Eagles as things were getting pretty bloated on D-Line while the linebackers have been rather thin for a couple of years now. Spikes is not what he used to be but he should be better than what we have right now.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

The Redskins are proposing trade for Lance Briggs...

Briggs & the 31st pick for the 6th.

Wow.

What would the Bears do at #6? Brady Quinn???

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

What would the Bears do at #6? Brady Quinn???

I don't think Quinn is still going to be on the board at #6...so, unless they are looking at moving up even further.

[wade moore]

The Redskins are killing me...

How many LB's do they need?! They make it harder and harder every year to be a fan.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

I don't think Quinn is still going to be on the board at #6...so, unless they are looking at moving up even further.

I'm positive he'll be there. There's a decent chance he'll be there for the Dolphins at 9.

[Logan]

Also, there was some news about the Niners (#11) and Redskins talking about swapping their picks, so it looks like they really do want to move.

I would jump at that offer if I was Chicago. I think the consensus is that the blue chip players end around that 6th pick.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Logan

Also, there was some news about the Niners (#11) and Redskins talking about swapping their picks, so it looks like they really do want to move.

I would jump at that offer if I was Chicago. I think the consensus is that the blue chip players end around that 6th pick.

I wonder who the 49er's target if they get 6th overall. Quinn, Peterson, and JaMarcus Russell wouldn't interest them. It appears to be a little low to get Calvin Johnson. I guess one of the defensive line studs? I was kinda hoping that the 49er's would stay put and take that Louisville defensive tackle.

Also, very sweet that San Francisco gets an additional 3rd and 4th round picks through compensation.

[Bee]

I'd love to see the draft pick value chart the Redskins use.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

I wonder who the 49er's target if they get 6th overall. Quinn, Peterson, and JaMarcus Russell wouldn't interest them. It appears to be a little low to get Calvin Johnson. I guess one of the defensive line studs? I was kinda hoping that the 49er's would stay put and take that Louisville defensive tackle.

Also, very sweet that San Francisco gets an additional 3rd and 4th round picks through compensation.

I think Okoye is out for their needs. He's not going to be a true NT and it's questionable whether he can be a 3-4 DE. If they did move, I think the only player they would do it for (and it would have to be a "Redskins are on the clock" move) is Gaines Adams. After him, there's a pretty good chance that one of Carriker, Branch, or Willis will be available at 11.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Bee

I'd love to see the draft pick value chart the Redskins use.

I think it's something like:

#1: 2000 points
#2: 1750 points
Old Overpaid Guys: 55,000 points

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

I like this move for the Eagles as things were getting pretty bloated on D-Line while the linebackers have been rather thin for a couple of years now. Spikes is not what he used to be but he should be better than what we have right now.

Who steps up to take Walker's spot? He's pretty good.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Logan

I think it's something like:

#1: 2000 points
#2: 1750 points
Old Overpaid Guys: 55,000 points

Egotistical Overrated Money Grubbers: 44,000 points

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Logan

I think Okoye is out for their needs. He's not going to be a true NT and it's questionable whether he can be a 3-4 DE. If they did move, I think the only player they would do it for (and it would have to be a "Redskins are on the clock" move) is Gaines Adams. After him, there's a pretty good chance that one of Carriker, Branch, or Willis will be available at 11.

Yeah, I would actually love the 49er's to trade down (maybe pick up a 2nd rounder next year) to move down into the lower teens and take Willis. However, Willis's stock is really rising, so he might not make it out of the top 15. But Willis is a really good player who would fit the 49er's needs perfectly (well, other than a huge NT).

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Yeah, I would actually love the 49er's to trade down (maybe pick up a 2nd rounder next year) to move down into the lower teens and take Willis. However, Willis's stock is really rising, so he might not make it out of the top 15. But Willis is a really good player who would fit the 49er's needs perfectly (well, other than a huge NT).

I totally agree with you, although trading down from the spots around 5-15 is always hard. Teams might want to trade into the top 3 or 4 in most drafts to get 5* players, but most teams would be happy with any number of the 4.5* players in the top half of the draft, and they are not willing to trade from, say, 20 to 10 to get someone.

As for Willis, his stock is rising like crazy. Since he went to Ole Miss, a lot of Saints fans knew about him early on and were wanting him at 27. Now, it looks like he might end up in the top 10. I think that if you guys want him, you should just make sure to stay put and get him at 11.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I totally agree with you, although trading down from the spots around 5-15 is always hard. Teams might want to trade into the top 3 or 4 in most drafts to get 5* players, but most teams would be happy with any number of the 4.5* players in the top half of the draft, and they are not willing to trade from, say, 20 to 10 to get someone.

As for Willis, his stock is rising like crazy. Since he went to Ole Miss, a lot of Saints fans knew about him early on and were wanting him at 27. Now, it looks like he might end up in the top 10. I think that if you guys want him, you should just make sure to stay put and get him at 11.

Yeah, i think i read that dude ran in the 4.4 range for his 40. It wouldn't suprise me to see the Steelers nab him at 15, so if the 9ers want him, they need to stay put. I think the niners and steelers lists of players will be very similar in the first round at least.

[Logan]

From the Niner boards I read, I gotta give a lot of those guys credit. They were all over Willis from the day the order was set. The reasoning was usually "While he's the perfect fit for Nolan's system, we'll get killed for taking him so early."

I think they'll end up sticking at 11 as well, with a decent possibility of moving back into the 1st round.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Who steps up to take Walker's spot? He's pretty good.

Well, I think they spent that first round pick on Bunkley for a reason. Besides, Walker seemed to play more like a big defensive end, worried more about getting after the QB than plugging holes...evidenced by the pretty bad run defense they displayed for most of the season. Let the ends take care of the sacks...they've got some pretty good ones. Also, I'm sure Reid will take a lineman or two for depth.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

Marcus Washington may have a much worse injury than initially thought. He played on a bad hip all year and that is an injury you just shouldn't mess with. After that you've got Fletcher, Marshall, McIntosh and Posey, so LB depth isn't there. I'd rather stay at 6 and take Gaines Adams, Jamaal Anderson or Alan Branch as DL is a much bigger need that LB, but if they are going to move out of that spot, getting a top tier LB and staying in the 1st round isn't the worst of possibilities.

If you look at the overall roster, LB depth is pretty far down the least of needs below DLINE, DLine, dline, CB, Safety depth, DLine, DLINE!

So yeah.. this 1st rounder has to be used on the DLine. I don't mind them moving down a little, but we need a guy that can really make an impact on the Dline.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by wade moore

If you look at the overall roster, LB depth is pretty far down the least of needs below DLINE, DLine, dline, CB, Safety depth, DLine, DLINE!

So yeah.. this 1st rounder has to be used on the DLine. I don't mind them moving down a little, but we need a guy that can really make an impact on the Dline.

So, WM, what exactly are you saying??

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

So, WM, what exactly are you saying??

I know, I beat around the bush sometimes .

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

The Redskins are proposing trade for Lance Briggs...

Briggs & the 31st pick for the 6th.

While I'd love for the Bears to pull the trigger on this. I fear Angelo and his ability (or lack thereof) to draft high 1st rounders.

[rkmsuf]

Lance Briggs thinks he's way better than he actually is.

Washington is perfect for him.

[JPhillips]

The Redskins evaluate talent level by salary level. The number six pick won't make as much as Briggs and is therefore less desirable.

If they make this trade I'd also expect them to trade the #31 to Denver for Dre Bly.