Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Commanders Football > Locker Room Main Forum

Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion


Redskins and Vikings agree on McNabb trade (updated: deal is done)

Locker Room Main Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-26-2011, 06:51 PM   #1
mooby
Hug Anne Spyder
 
mooby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,577
re: Redskins and Vikings agree on McNabb trade (updated: deal is done)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Well, you can't move up in the 1st round on the backs of those three picks, but if there's a quarterback of second round value that fits your scheme, those three picks should be more than enough to position the team to get a second tier target.

And yeah, a 5 and a 7 for McNabb's contract is a bargain. It's not that friendly of a deal to the team that is acquiring it, unlike Haynesworth's. Which is why this hasn't gone through yet.
How much did Jacksonville give us to move up 6 spots in the first? A 2nd and what else? Maybe if we threw in our 3rd and Oakland's 4th. Either way all this trading of our players for picks will only give us more ammo in next year's draft, which is a good thing.
__________________
Hail to the Football Team
mooby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2011, 06:55 PM   #2
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 37
Posts: 15,994
re: Redskins and Vikings agree on McNabb trade (updated: deal is done)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooby View Post
How much did Jacksonville give us to move up 6 spots in the first? A 2nd and what else? Maybe if we threw in our 3rd and Oakland's 4th. Either way all this trading of our players for picks will only give us more ammo in next year's draft, which is a good thing.
Just the two.

Even if we were able to move up from 10 to 7, we still couldn't position ourselves to get a quarterback unless he was falling, and we already saw the falling QB scenario play out with Gabbert, and that we passed on him because taking him would have been counterproductive to rebuilding. Even though the value and need were more than there at no. 10.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.14714 seconds with 11 queries