And with the 6th pick in the 2012 NFL Draft, the redskins select...........

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If I told you that the Redskins could trade up to the first overall pick creatively, and it wouldn't cost us any of our young players, but it would cost you in sum: the 6th overall pick in 2012, our second round pick in 2012, our first round pick in 2013, and our second round pick in 2014, would you do that?

That's the price the Buccaneers paid to get Jon Gruden in 2002. And I think the same price could get the Redskins the first overall pick in this draft. I can explain if you wish.

Yes I would and I predicted something like that in an earlier post

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Yes I would and I predicted something like that in an earlier post

Didn't catch that before. Good call.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If I told you that the Redskins could trade up to the first overall pick creatively, and it wouldn't cost us any of our young players, but it would cost you in sum: the 6th overall pick in 2012, our second round pick in 2012, our first round pick in 2013, and our second round pick in 2014, would you do that?

That's the price the Buccaneers paid to get Jon Gruden in 2002. And I think the same price could get the Redskins the first overall pick in this draft. I can explain if you wish.

Yes I would do that, and yes, please explain your thoughts as to why it could happen.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Yes I would do that, and yes, please explain your thoughts as to why it could happen.

I think the key is getting to the no. 2 pick first, then offering the Colts a sweet deal to swap the two picks.

So you offer the 6th overall pick and next year's first to move up from 6th to 2nd. That's the move that gives you the key to the draft. You could select RG3 with that pick, but depending on who the Colts hire, you can pay them for the "right to choose", something I am estimating which would cost a second round pick and a delayed second.

I don't think anyone outside of the team that's picking second is going to be able to get the top pick away from the Colts, but if they are even considering taking Griffin first overall, that means they can be bought. But only by the team picking right below them.

I think the total deal would cost the Redskins two firsts and two seconds. But it's also the only way you get the Colts to trade the first pick, by giving them the second pick.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If I told you that the Redskins could trade up to the first overall pick creatively, and it wouldn't cost us any of our young players, but it would cost you in sum: the 6th overall pick in 2012, our second round pick in 2012, our first round pick in 2013, and our second round pick in 2014, would you do that?

That's the price the Buccaneers paid to get Jon Gruden in 2002. And I think the same price could get the Redskins the first overall pick in this draft. I can explain if you wish.

In a heart beat. Where do I sign up?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

In a heart beat. Where do I sign up?

I think that it could be a worthwhile deal. But my whole thing is it all goes back to what grade you have on Jones/Foles/Tannehill. If any one of them profiles as a high first rounder, I don't go up for either Griffin or Luck. It's a huge cost in terms of future picks.

The whole reason I put the idea out there was not because I was making a prediction on what the Redskins would do, but because I wanted to point out that going to get Robert Griffin would cost the Redskins another first round pick. If you're already going up for a quarterback, I think you might as well give away the extra picks to position oneself for Luck.

It was meant to dispel the notion that trading up for Griffin would be a good idea on grounds of it being cheaper. You can probably get Griffin by trading up to third overall. But the third overall pick and the second overall pick are going to cost about the same. If you're going up to get Griffin, positioning yourself to get Luck isn't a much more significant investment.

Both are going to cost you about a half-draft in terms of trade value.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think that it could be a worthwhile deal. But my whole thing is it all goes back to what grade you have on Jones/Foles/Tannehill. If any one of them profiles as a high first rounder, I don't go up for either Griffin or Luck. It's a huge cost in terms of future picks.

The whole reason I put the idea out there was not because I was making a prediction on what the Redskins would do, but because I wanted to point out that going to get Robert Griffin would cost the Redskins another first round pick. If you're already going up for a quarterback, I think you might as well give away the extra picks to position oneself for Luck.

It was meant to dispel the notion that trading up for Griffin would be a good idea on grounds of it being cheaper. You can probably get Griffin by trading up to third overall. But the third overall pick and the second overall pick are going to cost about the same. If you're going up to get Griffin, positioning yourself to get Luck isn't a much more significant investment.

Both are going to cost you about a half-draft in terms of trade value.

Yeah the value judgment is tough and really requires knowing the whole picture. Based on my viewing this year I like Tannehill...but maybe not for us in our current situation... and not sold on the other two being right for our system and/or how they project career-wise. I like Tannehill simply based on his "look" and the fact that he was pretty impressive for a guy who played WR until half through last season (I believe)...he can't possibly project to a top 15 pick though. I'd be shocked.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Yeah the value judgment is tough and really requires knowing the whole picture. Based on my viewing this year I like Tannehill...but maybe not for us in our current situation... and not sold on the other two being right for our system and/or how they project career-wise. I like Tannehill simply based on his "look" and the fact that he was pretty impressive for a guy who played WR until half through last season (I believe)...he can't possibly project to a top 15 pick though. I'd be shocked.

All three guys look the part of the pro quarterback. Foles and Jones throw better balls down the field than Tannehill. Maybe a lot better.

Tannehill is the only one of the bunch with athleticism that exceeds "functional." Because of that athleticism, he will be taken higher. But typically that ability to run with the football is not what makes quarterbacks great at playing quarterback.

This is just my sense of watching all three of them this year, but Tannehill is incredibly limited as a passer. I know a lot of people watch him and think about what could be when he gets to the pro level and gets to study the offense and opposing offenses on a scout team, and how good he can be. But I just don't see the ability to use the whole field and throw people open in man coverage, which makes him an awful fit here since our system is all about blowing holes open in zones and throwing a moving receiver into a void.

With that said, if we've learned anything from the last five years, it is that players with functional athleticism can move the chains by using their legs if the opponent wants to play man coverage. And Tannehill can do that. I'm not totally sold he will be able to make quick enough decisions to turn designed passing plays with progressions into successful runs: that takes a really refined instinct for pocket mechanics. I have no idea if he can do that or not. For some guys, athleticism is a huge help to their game, for other guys it is a curse. It has long been easier to predict pocket passers than dual threat guys.

Landry Jones and Ryan Tannehill have both undergone very troubling regressions down the stretch this year. In the middle of the season, they seemed to both be no-doubter first rounders. But now what? Landry Jones wasn't even able to stay on the field in high leverage situations for his college team. And Tannehill quarterbacked a team that was consistently awful playing with a lead.

That's why I liked Foles the most out of them. Sure, his team was awful. But he made every kind of throw on film, he creates space to function well, he actually had better mechanics coming from under center than from the shotgun. Foles gets caught on his first read if he's going to break open, but not unjustifiably, IMO. He likes to tight window that first read rather than move on in the progression, but that may be as much a function of playing with a bunch of receivers who can't consistently beat coverage as anything.

Foles' offense also showed the tendency to use a lot of two or three man combination routes, the same ones that Kyle Shanahan uses periodically, and he reads those progressions very well. Does that make him a one-side of the field guy? I guess. But even in the pros, they don't use two sides of the field on anything except deeper routes. And Kyle Shanahan certainly does not require a player to use two sides of the field in his progression.

[mlmpetert]

Unless Luck or RGIII slip to us or can be traded for relatively nothing, Id love to see a repeat of the most recent draft. Trade back and acquire more picks. Id like to see QB, OL, corner, LB or WR be the top priorities.

[44Deezel]

Trade up I mean. Bengals have the 19th and 24th pick. Heard they really want Richardson. Most of the mock drafts I've seen have Richardson going 5th or 6th. Seeing as they are a playoff team even with a rookie QB, they probably believe they're only a player or two away from being a real contender. Skins obviously aren't, so getting 2 for 1 might not be a bad idea, especially if they can fill some needs in free agency.

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by 44Deezel

Trade up I mean. Bengals have the 19th and 24th pick. Heard they really want Richardson. Most of the mock drafts I've seen have Richardson going 5th or 6th. Seeing as they are a playoff team even with a rookie QB, they probably believe they're only a player or two away from being a real contender. Skins obviously aren't, so getting 2 for 1 might not be a bad idea, especially if they can fill some needs in free agency.

Going from 19th to 6th would be expensive. I'd say we'd at least swap firsts, get their second, and maybe even their third or fourth rounder. I'd be thrilled with that. Though, my concern still is whether or not that puts us out of reach of Tannehill. We'd be drafting behind the QB needy Seahawks. That could be risky...

[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by mbedner3420

Going from 19th to 6th would be expensive. I'd say we'd at least swap firsts, get their second, and maybe even their third or fourth rounder. I'd be thrilled with that. Though, my concern still is whether or not that puts us out of reach of Tannehill. We'd be drafting behind the QB needy Seahawks. That could be risky...

The assumption is that they would make this move if they addressed QB in free agency and wanted to use the 19th and 24th for other needs. Also assumes they can't get RGIII at 6.

It would be nice if they can address QB and WR in free agency and use Cincy's first round picks and our second on CB, LB and O-line.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by mbedner3420

Going from 19th to 6th would be expensive. I'd say we'd at least swap firsts, get their second, and maybe even their third or fourth rounder. I'd be thrilled with that. Though, my concern still is whether or not that puts us out of reach of Tannehill. We'd be drafting behind the QB needy Seahawks. That could be risky...

I would want both of their firsts and 2nd.

[TenandSix:Unacceptable]

I just want us to get Vontaze Burfict in round 2. We need that name on our roster and he fits a need. What's not to like?

[Big C]

Originally Posted by TenandSix:Unacceptable

I just want us to get Vontaze Burfict in round 2. We need that name on our roster and he fits a need. What's not to like?

he will be long gone by round 2