Any news on Gardner?

Amen to that. Getting a third rounder would mean we bamboozled somebody.

If it came down to it, I would trade Gardiner for a 7th round pick, and if we can't even get that, then I would just cut him after the June cuts.

That is how little I think of 50/50.

Like I said long ago... a 7th and a six pack. Or just 3 6-packs.

Like I said long ago... a 7th and a six pack. Or just 3 6-packs.

Would that be Red, White, and Blue beer or USA (U Save Alot) beer brand?:laughing2

Hahahaha... maybe some Country Club, King Cobra or PBR?

Dude, I'm NOT talking about the expensive stuff. You think we could get some Guiness or Labatt for Gardner? Come on, we have to be real here. ;) LOL

C'mon guys, give Rod a little credit...he's more like 60/40. lol Atleast he was a big enough target that even Brunell could find him in the endzone.

Portis stated that Moss will be a no show if does not receive a long term contract. From his stats I don't think he is much of an upgrade from gardner. Can we trade Moss and gardner together and pick a WR in the first round or for WR from another team. I don't like Mosses attitude for a marginal WR. Just a thought.

We Redskin fans tend to have a negative view towards Gardner, but actually he is a decent, but average NFL WR. Yes his drops have been frustrating as hell, but his stats are really no worse than the majority of #2 receivers in the league. That is why he has trade value, and why it is mid-round value, not top, and not bottom....i.e. average.

Portis stated that Moss will be a no show if does not receive a long term contract. From his stats I don't think he is much of an upgrade from gardner. Can we trade Moss and gardner together and pick a WR in the first round or for WR from another team. I don't like Mosses attitude for a marginal WR. Just a thought.

That is an excellent thought. Do we have any salary cap obligation to Moss?

Nope, not yet....but what team would want not one, but two new WR's that haven't reached their potential, but want new contracts that will pay them as if they have? That's the problem with that scenario...