Redskins have the 6th pick in the draft

Draft Order:

Colts
Rams
Vikings
Browns
Buccaneers
Redskins

Option 1:  Andrew Luck - not gonna happen.  The Redskins first need above all is QB!  Andrew Luck is obviously going to be the first QB on any teams board and will likely be drafted by the Colts.  The price to move up to the first spot with Luck being there and the Colts being able to stay pat having Peyton Manning already in place will be too costly in my opinion.  That leave Robert Griffin III.

Option 2:  Robert Griffin III.  With the Colts taking Luck, the Rams have Mathew Stafford, the Vikings are indeed a candidate for RG3.  Despit the fact that they drafted Christian Ponder, the Vikings, or any team for that matter, could use a playmaker like RG3.  Ponder didn't exactly instill absolute confidence for the Vikings.  Of course, they have many other holes and could continue to build around Ponder.  With the Browns picking behind the Vikings, I don't see how RG3 makes it past the Browns.  In order for the Redskins to be able to draft RG3, they would HAVE to move up and trade with the Vikings.  They would likely be surrendering their 2nd and possibly 4th round pick.  They do however have an extra 4th round pick from trading Jason Campbell to the Raiders.

Option 3:  Trade down.  Should the Redskins feel the price is too steep or don't feel like RG3 is the QB they envision as their future signal caller, the next option is Landry Jones from Oklahoma.  Someone who I don't feel is worth of the 6th overall pick.  In which case, I would love for them to trade down and accumulate more picks like they did last year.  But as always, this always takes a trade partner.

Option 4:  Mat Kalil.  If that's not a possibility, the Redskins should go best player available by need.  The Redskins need offensive line help and if still available, Mat Kalil, OT, USC.  He could start on the right side and should Trent Williams not continue to progress, Kalil could swing to the left the following year and the Redskins could move Williams to the right.  Whatever he ends up doing, he is going to help the line immediately.  He is actually a better prospect coming out than Williams.  At 6-7, 295lbs, he is enormous but has quick feet and could work well in the Redskins ZBS.  He didn't allow a single sack this past year for the Trojans.

Option 5:  Morris Claiborne.  Kalil could likely be gone with the Vikings and Bucs picking in front of them.  My next option would be Morris Claiborne, CB, LSU.  The Redskins need help in the secondary - badly!!!  This kid is a playmaker and could upgrade the backfield immediately.  He has excellent size combined with speed to match up to any receiver.  I would like to have him find his way into the starting lineup with Joshn Wilson.  Does anyone else think we have seen the last of DeAngelo Hall.  Claiborne is going to be a star in the NFL.

Option 6.  Justin Blackmon.  They next option, Justin Blackmon, WR, OKSU.  This could be considered a luxury pick, but the Redskins need a talent at receiver.  With Jabar Gaffney and Santana Moss as our first and second starters at receiver, the Redskins more youth and TALENT.  And if they are going to get young at QB, they need to help him with some talent.  Blackmon isn't a burner, but is an excellent position receiver with decent size.  He runs every route in the route tree.  The Redskins already have a young, speedy big target in Leonard Hankerson.  Blackmon would compliment him well with his strength and ability to fight through coverage, create speration, and run very good routes.

Option 7:  Dre Kirkpatrick, CB, Alabama.  If you aren't going to get a defensive back from LSU, might aswell be Alabama.  He is a big, physical corner who could also play safety.  I can't emphasize how much an upgrade in the secondary is needed and Kirkpatrick can find himself in the starting rotation if not by year 1, by year 2.  His size would match up with with TE's that are used so much today like Brent Celek, Jason Witten, and Jake Ballard - we can finally find someone to not only match up there size, with more speed and coverage ability.

The Colts are not going to trade Luck unless Manning is 100% healthy and has no chance of getting hurt for the next 5 years. Even than, I don't see it happening. Everything I've heard has said that Luck is Manning 2.0. So they would be smarter to draft him and let him play behind Manning or just trade Manning and go in a different direction. Before they have to give up all of that money to him.

The Rams have Bradford and so they're probably not going to take a QB. The Vikings probably won't, but as you said, Ponder wasn't great. Of course, he only has Harvin at WR, so you really don't know if he is all that good until you get him some quality WR's to throw to. The Bucs don't need a QB because they have Freeman. Who, even though he had a bad year, is still a very good QB.

So that leaves the Browns and or one of the teams behind us trading up to get RGIII. I don't think the Browns are in any way sold on McCoy at QB. I haven't seen anything that has led me to believe he can be a quality NFL starter, but of course, like Ponder, he really  has nothing at WR. So without any decent weapons, you just don't know about him.

As far as I'm concerned, if they really want RGIII, they need to trade up to the Rams spot. Unfortunately, that will probably cost at last our 1st, 2nd and another pick. Might even cost our #1 next year too.

I think that's too much to pay for him because I am still on the fence about him. As I said before, QB's who come out of no where and than get a lot of talk scare me. AKA Gabbert from last year and other QB's from previous years.

So I think they should sign Matt Flynn and use the pick on the best available player OR trade back and get some more picks and continue to build the talent and depth on the team. If we could get a 1st and 2nd for that pick, we could add 2 very good players to the team where if we trade up, we're adding one that may or may not be a stud.

Anyway, I guess we should find out for sure that Shanahan is staying and than we'll see where we go from there. Just as long as Grossman and Beck don't come back, and Kyle Shanahan gets fired. lol

I don't see a scenario where they have to give up next years 1st round pick in addition to this years first and second. 

I love Matt Flynn, but another free agent option would be Kyle Orton.  He isn't the long term solution, but is a step above Rex Grossman. 

There is piece of me that they aren't able to get RG3 and want them to trade down.  Perhaps someone wants Trent Richardson, Quinton Couples, or Landry Jones. 

That way, the Redskins can go ahead and pick up the best tackle available.  Then they can draft Ryan Tannehill and draft a corner.  Again, the Redskins have a lot of holes to fill. 

I'm hoping they can fill some spots in the free agency.

OK first off let me say that I am on the Flynn bandwagon and have been for awhile, and I am not on the RGIII bandwagon at all.  Iwouldn't trade anything to move up for him, however if he somehow fell to us at #6 we would have to take him. I also do not think we need to trade down. I think we have 9 picks this year with extra picks for Campbell and either Mcnabb or Fatsworthless, with the other one coming next year. I think the team is finally past the quantity vs quality stage and you should use your top picks in their high position to get the best all american future probowl player you can, and stop taking chances by trading down and getting your second or third choice. 9 picks are good, but not good enough to give them away to move up for anyone that i not a steal. IE if you are picking in the 2nd and there is a top of the first guy still available a few picks ahead of you, maybe you trade the extra 4th to move up for him. But a 1st,2nd, and 4th to move up 2 spots to get a guy that had one really good year at a school that plays noone? No Thanks.

The Gabbert comparissons are a little unfair because RGIII actually did have a great season and Gabbert was very average. i have no idea what hyped him other than the combines because he only played 2 years and his sophomore season was far below even the MD QB. HE may be a future star but he really didn't convince me and what Sophomore QB has ever made the jump to the nFL and done anything ever, much less right away? No, RGIII is going to probably be better than Gabbert, but just not worth the risk of giving up too much and depending on him.

Of course things happen on draft day and if you are absolutely sure you can get the same guy you have rankled #1 when you pick by moving down a FEW spots then ok, otherwise use the pick. Any of the guys you mention would make fine picks at #6 and make an immediate impact on the team.

Unless Hall gets traded which is not likely he will be here. Period. His huge cost is gone during the restructurings in the non cap year and he is now only making 5M a year. That is barely average and he is better than that whether you like him or not. If I was going to draft someone high for the secondary it would be for Landry's replacement and let him walk. Then I would make sure that Atogwe was healthy before next season even if I had to hire a personal trainer, chef, or whatever. He is the key to making Hall Wilson better. Of course this is only necessary if Gomes can't make the transition to SS. He seems to be big enough and tough enough to do the job, but you need to be a really good tackler and I didn't pay enough attention to him to see his technique. Barnes is a big hitter but doesn't wrap up. How about Cortland Finnegan if we don't spend our FA money on Flynn?

The FA season is well before the draft so things should become much more clear by then as to the direction of everyones draft. Who knows maybe Flynn ends up with one of the teams that we think would have wanted RGII and he does drop to us?

My best guess right now is that we trade up to the #3 spot with the Vikings to get RGIII. At the #6 spot we are within spitting range of getting an Elite QB, so assuming Shanahan grades RGIII as Elite QB material, then I think you have to hold your nose and go get him. Coughing up a 2nd rounder and 4th rounder stinks but that is the cost of doing business. I don't have an educated opinion at the moment as to whether RGIII is Elite, but he sure put out some nice highlights this year. The problem is that there are not any Elite QB options behind RGIII, so there will be a bidding war. It stinks for us that Matt Barkley went back to school.

Matt Kalil will be long gone before the #6 spot. Studly OT's fly off the board almost as fast as QB's.

Getting Matt Flynn in free agency is not a bad option, assuming he is the real deal. Yesterday's 6 touchdown performance will drive up his asking price pretty darn high. But Danny has a fat checkbook, so I could see that happening. After seeing Kevin Kolb have a disappointing season in Arizona it makes me wonder if a 2nd string guy like Flynn will be as good as folks are hoping.

IMO, we need to put up with Grossman, or some other inexpensive option, for one more year. The team has too many holes to think a single player can fix next year. This short term view is bad business. We need to build a foundation that can last. That means depth and youth.

We should draft nothing but OL and DB's imo. Our WR's get open all the time. The problem is our QB, too often, doesn't have the time to make the downfiled throw.  Twice yesterday our WR's got behind the DB, but Grossman needed just a fraction more protection to step into the throw. Give him protection and I think that even Grossman could win 9 games.

Our RB position will only be better, than it was this year, with a better O-line. Every team competeing for playoff glory protects their QB...ours hasn't for many years. We're always trying to add a skill position player instead of solidifying the foundation of good football teams...Offensive and Defensive lines.

The league has become more of a passing league than many had already conceded to. This year  there were a record number of 4000yd passers...you need DB's to deal with this ever growing cultural shift in the NFL. Our LB's and DL's are very competent...our defensive weakness is pass coverage.

I would trade down and pick the best available player, while accumulating more picks. Next year I would make the move to finalize the roster... a move that should have the orginization on solid footing for the next 10 years.

The team needs to be patient. It's an idea that shouldn't be too hard to swallow considering the length of time that it's been a bottom feeder...particularly considering that our team has gotten younger, and our draft pick situation has flipped from always having to go without picks during half the draft rounds.

Go Skins

The further off we put getting a franchise signal caller, the longer the team is away from being a serious contender.  Don't misunderstand me, I believe they shouldn't draft a QB for the sake of drafting one, but they should draft a young player to groom whether it be at the top or the middle of the draft.

How about Red Bryant, from Seattle.  He is a huge NT that could be great as a rotational player on our DL including blocking kicks as he did for Seahawks against us.

i think with this draft after our first 2 picks are done we need to have our franchise QB and London Fletcher's eventual replacement.

so 3 thoughts on this:

1.)  I like RG3 and would be very comfortable with him as the franchise QB.
2.)  I don't like the idea of trading up to get him.  if we truly beleive that someone is going to leap frog us and we need to move up to block that, i say go for the gusto and throw in the extra 1st round pick and get Andrew Luck.  even moving up from 6 to 3 will probably cost us our 1st and 2nd round picks, so if its only going to take next years #1 pick as well then do it.  and maybe you protect it by saying if its in the top 16 you get the 2nd rounder.
3.)  if the Browns do take RG3, what about offerring them a 4th round pick for Colt McCoy?


as for Matt Flynn if I am green bay I put either the transition or franchise tag on him.  and before you attack me the Patriots franchise tagged Matt Cassel.

this would give the Packers some added comepensation and some team will sign him.

so the questions comes, would you be willing to give up a 3rd round pick (to throw out a pick) and pay him like a top 10 QB?

Nobody is giving up 2 first round picks for Flynn, and GB is not going to pay him the average of the top 5 QB's so they can't sign and trade him as the franchise player either. I am not sure if there even is a transitional tag anymore. they could franchise him and then settle for something less than two firsts, and then sign and trade him but that's about it. If they do that and nobody bites then I believe they can only take the franchise tag off if he signs a contract with them, or they give up control of him. I also would not pay him as a top 10 QB even if the transition tag is available. The transition tag is rarely used because really it only guarantees the original team right of first refusal and they do not receive compensation if the player signs with another team and they decline to match. Also each year I believe the new CBA only allows them to use one or the other at a time, Franchise vs Transition and if is rescinded they still cannot use the tag again until the next season.

In other words the only reason for them to transition him is if they are willing to give him the average of the top 10 QB's or if they don't think anyone else will either, AND they don't want to use the Franchise tag on anyone else. Again the only other option is to tag him and then if another team bites, work out a trade and a salary less than the average of the top 10 that Flynn will accept (or top 5 if franchised), Rescind the tag, sign him to the lower contract, and then trade him to us. If they transition tag him though, and you are willing to give him the average of the top 10 QB's, you don't have to do anything but make the offer sheet and he is free to go without compensation of any kind if GB chooses not to match. 

Redskins81,
I don't know all the details of the new CBA, so I could be wrong

but, if its similar to the old CBA here is where you are wrong

the team can take the franchise/transition tag off a player at anytime as long as the player has not acceppted it.   The Eagles did this with corey simon.  they tagged him he didn't sign and august rolled around and they took it off of him and he ended up signing like a vet minimum deal with the Colts.

under the transition tag there was compnesation and I think it was based off of where the guy was drafted.  so if you transitioned someone who was a 1st round pick you got a 1st round pick if someone signed him.  I beleive the Redskins did this with sean gilbert years ago.

if green bay didn't match the offer this is what they got

they could match the offer and then negotiate anything they want.  the Packers could franchise tag Matt Flynn just to stop him from going to the nieners or the Vikings

i don't know the packers salary cap situation or their pending free agents, but i don't think they have anybody but Aaron Rodgers and Charles Woodson who are on big money deals...maybe Chad Clifton too  but he is always hurt and cutable.

Greg Jennings is probably on his rookie deal (or just about to come up)
Clay Matthews and BJ raji are on rookie deals.
I believe Jermichael Finley is a free agent.

so, the packers could say this team is good enough to win a superbowl if aaron rodgers gets hurt with matt flynn, so they might be willing to franchise tag him and keep him (I doubt that) and they might be able to afford that.

the Patriots did do this with Matt Cassel

again i don't know if their is a transition tag anymore

and my understandings of the tags were you could use one of each per offseason unless, a guy you tagged signed a long term deal after a certain point than you lost the tag for the life of the contract

again all speculation as I don't know the new CBA.

I am not wrong about any of it accept not being sure there is a transition tag. There is. You can rescind the franchise or transition tag anytime you want as long as the player has not accepted it, but you lose the right to reuse it on another player in the same season. You also can only use one or the other but not both during one season. If the Packers offered him the franchise tag or the transition tag he would be a fool to not take it, without reading the contract, before they had a chance to pull it. He would make more money in that one year than he has made, or might make the entire rest of his career. With bonuses and compensation the Transition tag was worth 12M for a QB in 2010 and that is only the average of the top 10. The top 5 in 2012 has to be about 18-20M for one season of sitting the bench? and if they try to trade him after that you think someone else will pick up that contract? And Aaron Rodgers would be making 1/3 of what the backup is making? Come on.

In addition the Transition tag does not and did not receive compensation. Here is a link to the rule and an explanation of why it is almost never used. The original transition tag was meant to help teams "transition" from the previous CBA to the new CBA (which is now the old CBA) with its new FA rules, allowing team to keep a few of their stars for a short time to give them time to get another player before theirs all ran for the money. It was originally meant to only be used twice ever, not each year. The franchise tag was always one per year. It was changed in the next CBA to allow one transition tag per year, but only one or the other with the Franchise tag. The Packers would be better off using it on a player that starts and does not stand to make 20M or 1/6th of your entire cap sitting the bench. He isn't getting franchised or transitioned.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transi
tion_tag 

The Redskins franchised Sean Gilbert and got two first round picks as is the rule in one of the biggest steals in history for that fat dope. Many teams have done as you say and franchised a player and later resinded the offer, but those players thought they were worth more money and were holding out for a long term deal. A one year tag contract for sitting the bench might pay Flynn more than a long term contract over the whole thing! He would break the sound barrier getting to the team offices to sign that.

Word around the park is the Redskins are interested in Scott Wells from the Packers and Chris Meyers from the Texans. 

It would be great if we could land Scott Wells however I do not think the Packers will let him go. He had a great year and as one of the best OL the Packers had this season I very much doubt he will be a Redskin.

Chris Myers would also be a good C for us however I just do not see the Texans letting him go either. They made the playoffs and I am sure they want to keep what they have if at all possible.

Both of these guys are 30 however they have not had major injuries so they are still very good players. Most teams draft and keep there good OL as they are always hard to find in FA.

Just my opinion.

HTTR

 A one year tag contract for sitting the bench might pay Flynn more than a long term contract over the whole thing! He would break the sound barrier getting to the team offices to sign that.

if you think Matt Flynn can't get a contract greater than $14.4 million you are dumb

I bet he would get that in a signing bonus

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000
d5d8247df3a/article/franchisetag-va
lues-will-be-down-across-the-board-
in-2012

 

No doubt the new formula will impact several negotiations, and teams could end up using the franchise or transition tag in abundance this offseason.

there are both tags

The Packers would be better off using it on a player that starts

who?

i couldnt find any rules on team compensation for the tagged players, but i swear there was something that effected the value of the comepnsation under the old system. 

http://football.about.com/cs/footba
ll101/a/franchisetransi.htm

maybe I am thinking of exclusive and non-exclusive franchise players, but i must admit i read this 6 times and missed where he explained the difference.

enough about the will they/won't they Matt Flynn discussion

I think the more valid topics for this thread would be:


1.) if we truly don't think RG III will be there at 6 should we jump up to get him and at what cost? (I think this would cost a 1st and 2nd round pick in 2012)
2.) if we are willing to jump up for RG III what amount would you be willing to pony up to land Andrew Luck?
3.) if we think the Browns are the team to take RG III ahead of the Redskins do you see a value in trying to trade for Colt McCoy? 

Shanahan will want a shiney new quarterback, not somebody's cast-away such as Colt McCoy.
If we can't trade up to get RGIII, then we may grab a playmaker at 6 such Justin Blackmon, and then try for a QB again in the 2nd round for someone like Tanehill.

It would be great if we could land Scott Wells however I do not think the Packers will let him go. He had a great year and as one of the best OL the Packers had this season I very much doubt he will be a Redskin.

Chris Myers would also be a good C for us however I just do not see the Texans letting him go either. They made the playoffs and I am sure they want to keep what they have if at all possible.

Both of these guys are 30 however they have not had major injuries so they are still very good players. Most teams draft and keep there good OL as they are always hard to find in FA.

Just my opinion.

HTTR

While I agree that it would be nice to have a younger player, than a 30 year old, they are looking to bring some more talent.  Will Montgomery will be 29 next month.  We have Erik Cook and could draft a young center in the mid rounds. 

No team wants to let their starters go, particularly on the OL, but it doesn't mean they can't be bought - ha!  It also depends on what kind of contract Will Montgomery is willing to accept.