Redskins: 2012 Off-Season-Free Agency/Trades

I would make a offer to either one.

NFL.com news: Super Bowls just aren't instantly won in free agency (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82762ece/article/super-bowls-just-arent-instantly-won-in-free-agency?module=HP11_cp)


Every Single Skins fan who wants us to get this guy and that guy and that guy in FA MUST READ this Article!!!!

And those that don't want free agents should pay attention to football. There is no problem with adding through free agency.. it is hard to build solely through the draft in today's game.

For all intents and purposes the Browns are out...for now at least.

Based on... what the Rams want? What the Browns plan to do at the position otherwise? A little A a little B? Or something else?

Let me judge this sentence by sentence:

- I would like to think that but you'll find people on this board who still want to go out and get the big names

- I agree

- I won't freak out, but I don't think its the answer, and it can back fire and go under the 'dumb FA' signing column rather than the 'London Fletcher success' signing column

Big names aren't an issue either.. scheme fits and work ethic are... I.e. Jason Taylor was one of the best DEs but a terrible fit for what we do..

Based on... what the Rams want? What the Browns plan to do at the position otherwise? A little A a little B? Or something else?

Honestly...based off a source that I don't usually rely on because he's not the most reliable. But he is a former Browns exec and does still have some connections there and he tells me they have told the Rams they will not trade the 2nd first round pick, and they're looking elsewhere for QB anyway.

The Redskins would seem to have the market gaged correctly here. I wouldn't be shocked if they drop their offer to the Rams just before the league year starts because they know that they can't be topped.

I thought the Seahawks would be a darkhorse for the pick, but I totally forgot that the Rams would have no reason to deal RG3 to the Seahawks, a division rival. It's a really tiny market about the Browns, and the Rams need to keep the Redskins in it, or we're talking about the Dolphins and some way-down-the-board teams being the market for RG3.

You're not getting three first rounders out of that.

I actually think the Redskins' willingness to trade a 2013 first rounder alone kicks out any team that isn't Miami, Denver, or Philadelphia out of this.

And those that don't want free agents should pay attention to football. There is no problem with adding through free agency.. it is hard to build solely through the draft in today's game.

True, you go and sign a FA or two at the most. You don't go out and sign 3+ FA's and make them starters. Who was the last Super bowl team to do that?

Why would Philly give 2 first rounders for a back up to Vick? I think they are in it to drive up our cost.

The Redskins would seem to have the market gaged correctly here. I wouldn't be shocked if they drop their offer to the Rams just before the league year starts because they know that they can't be topped.

I thought the Seahawks would be a darkhorse for the pick, but I totally forgot that the Rams would have no reason to deal RG3 to the Seahawks, a division rival. It's a really tiny market about the Browns, and the Rams need to keep the Redskins in it, or we're talking about the Dolphins and some way-down-the-board teams being the market for RG3.

You're not getting three first rounders out of that.

They would be smart to sit and wait till draft day and see what other teams offer instead of jumping in and giving away the farm. I personally think the Browns won't give away 2 1st round picks.