Redskin trade for the number 2 pick Goodbye RGIII

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

Jay Glazer‏@JayGlazerReply
Retweet

Favorite
· Open

Major scoopage: Redskins have agreed to a trade w Rams for #2 pick of draft. Rams and Skins swap (cont) http://tl.gd/gbhvr8



Major scoopage: Redskins have agreed to a trade w Rams for #2 pick of draft. Rams and Skins swap first rounders this yr w Rams also getting 2 future #1s and additional picks. Story coming on fox sports dot com




Adam Schefter‏@AdamSchefterReply
Retweet

Favorite
· Open

Washington Redskins traded three first-round draft picks and a second-round pick to St. Louis for second overall pick … http://say.ly/frx1yvb

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Crippled my ass. The Raiders busted at QB and have been giving away draft picks every year. Are they in worse shape than KC?

Is this a trick question?

[the Talking Can]

let's be clear about what our moron fanbase thinks is risky:

using 2 top-5 picks on 3-4 DEs? not risky

using those picks to acquire a QB? risky


being mediocre is not risky to our fanbase, it's comfortable...they're ok with it

trying to be something better is 'risky' and has to be avoided at all costs, even if that cost is 30 years of pointless mediocrity...

[TheGuardian]

Originally Posted by jd1020

Is this a trick question?

That's what I was thinking.........

The chiefs are a QB away from being a SB team. The Raiders are a whole team and coaching staff from being a SB team.

Yes, Russell crushed that team. They gave away two first round picks for Carson Palmer, and are cleaning house now.

And they didn't even have to give up picks for Russell. How much further along would the Raiders be right now had Russell panned out? They look like a different ball club.

It's like you're high and posting.

[TheGuardian]

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

let's be clear about what our moron fanbase thinks is risky:

using 2 top-5 picks on 3-4 DEs? not risky

using those picks to acquire a QB? risky


being mediocre is not risky to our fanbase, it's comfortable...they're ok with it

trying to be something better is 'risky' and has to be avoided at all costs, even if that cost is 30 years of pointless mediocrity...

I think what the "morons" think is risky is giving away FUTURE draft picks to do it.

I'm all for drafting a QB. I'm not for mortgaging the next 5+ years in order to take a "chance". Not when the Saints, Packers, Steelers, or Pats had to do this in order to find franchise QB's.

Nope. It's dumb.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

That's what I was thinking.........

The chiefs are a QB away from being a SB team. The Raiders are a whole team and coaching staff from being a SB team.

Yes, Russell crushed that team. They gave away two first round picks for Carson Palmer, and are cleaning house now.

And they didn't even have to give up picks for Russell. How much further along would the Raiders be right now had Russell panned out? They look like a different ball club.

It's like you're high and posting.

Yet that horrible, broken, Raider team that has busted at QB, given away draft picks, knocked KC out of the playoffs last year and finished ahead of KC in the division. They aren't any worse than the Chiefs, yet they've at least made a better effort with respect to a franchise QB.

You can sit here all day and claim the Chiefs are a QB away from being a serious SB contender. Manning doesn't seem to think so.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Yet that horrible, broken, Raider team that has busted at QB, given away draft picks, knocked KC out of the playoffs last year and finished ahead of KC in the division. They aren't any worse than the Chiefs, yet they've at least made a better effort with respect to a franchise QB.

You can sit here all day and claim the Chiefs are a QB away from being a serious SB contender. Manning doesn't seem to think so.

You're a ****ing idiot if you think the Raiders are in the same, or better, position than the Chiefs.

[TheGuardian]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Yet that horrible, broken, Raider team that has busted at QB, given away draft picks, knocked KC out of the playoffs last year and finished ahead of KC in the division. They aren't any worse than the Chiefs, yet they've at least made a better effort with respect to a franchise QB.

You can sit here all day and claim the Chiefs are a QB away from being a serious SB contender. Manning doesn't seem to think so.

The Raiders aren't any worse off than the Chiefs?

Are the Chiefs cleaning house or do they have a ton of cap space to go with a very talented young roster? Oh yeah, it's the latter.

See, that wasn't very hard.

No one knows what Manning thinks. JFC.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

The Raiders aren't any worse off than the Chiefs?

Not really. Neither is likely to do much next season. I guess you are one of those people content with going 8-8 and thinking you are so much better than a 6-10 team. Dream big, Guardian.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

I guess you are one of those people content with going 8-8 and thinking you are so much better than a 6-10 team. Dream big, Guardian.

I guess you are one of those idiots that think that Ditka trades have historically worked out for the Ditka's.

[TheGuardian]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Not really. Neither is likely to do much next season. I guess you are one of those people content with going 8-8 and thinking you are so much better than a 6-10 team. Dream big, Guardian.

Can you tell me what big blockbuster draft day raping has worked out for the team that gave up a ton to draft a quarterback? Outside of the Eli move, how many other times has this worked for a team?

[Sofa King]

Originally Posted by TheGuardian

If he's not, the franchise is crippled for years to come.

NOT WORTH IT.

It's not worth it because lots of teams have drafted franchise QB's without giving up a shit ton of picks. You do realize that the Skins are going to be drafting top 10 more than likely for years to come right?

And it is three first rounders. They couldn't just say next year and the next years first rounders and keep this years right? No. They had to give up this years, next years, and next years, and a second. That's three first rounders.

They didn't GIVE UP this years. They ****ing improved it. IMPROVED it.

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by jd1020

From shit that was said at the combine the Chiefs have pretty high expectations for Stanzi.

When did you hear that? I hadn't heard any indication of that till your post.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

It isn't really 3 first rounders. They move up in this years draft and have a first round pick. They lose out on 2 first rounders and a 2nd. If he's a franchise QB, it's worth it.

Why are we even arguing about this?

As I've said before, the Chiefs would have had to give up pretty much the first 3 picks three straight years. 9 picks. For one player. I would have liked to hear the Chiefs were interested too. But in the end, we were smart to not even try to match Washington.

[BigChiefFan]

Originally Posted by Sofa King

They didn't GIVE UP this years. They ****ing improved it. IMPROVED it.

Agreed-I don't understand why it's so hard for some to comprehend that fact.

[TheGuardian]

Originally Posted by Sofa King

They didn't GIVE UP this years. They ****ing improved it. IMPROVED it.

Again, these posts are going to be some good ****ing crow.