PDA

View Full Version : 'Skins could move up as high as No. 2 in order to get QB Gabbert



Denver Native (Carol)
04-26-2011, 07:16 PM
From article:


Coach Mike Shanahan has ties to two prominent figures in the Denver Broncos organization -- executive vice president of football operations John Elway and general manager Brian Xanders -- having coached one and worked with the other directly. The Broncos own the second overall pick in the draft.

The Broncos, according to team sources, are very open to trading down and have interest in Auburn defensive tackle Nick Fairley, who could still be available around the 10th pick. Denver, in rebuilding mode, covets additional draft picks amd would benefit greatly from the financial benefit of moving down in this economic climate.

full article - http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81f7f7de/article/skins-could-move-up-as-high-as-no-2-in-order-to-get-qb-gabbert

UnderArmour
04-26-2011, 07:24 PM
I don't see this happening unless players can be traded. With uncertainty regarding next year's draft, picks from that draft are too unstable to trade for because there might not even be a draft next year. But, I guess we'd pull the trigger for their first this year and next year and their second this year and next year anyway.

TXBRONC
04-26-2011, 08:25 PM
I agree with Under I doubt it happens.

IIRC this idea was floated no to long ago. The reason being is that Denver would probably not want to do that because of the likelihood that all of their top choices would be long gone before the 10th pick.

jhildebrand
04-26-2011, 08:29 PM
I also don't believe Elway and Shanahan to be on the terms most people think they are.

atwater27
04-26-2011, 08:30 PM
I also don't believe Elway and Shanahan to be on the terms most people think they are.

How's that? :confused:

TXBRONC
04-26-2011, 08:31 PM
Another thing the article reminded of is that the Redskins don't have the ammo to make a big leap upward. So they may desire to move up but with only two picks in the first four rounds its doubtful they could ascend all the way to the 2nd overall pick.

Agent of Orange
04-26-2011, 08:37 PM
I doubt Fairley falls past Tennessee. Fairleys DLine coach at Auburn is there now.

UnderArmour
04-26-2011, 08:40 PM
Another thing the article reminded of is that the Redskins don't have the ammo to make a big leap upward. So they may desire to move up but with only two picks in the first four rounds its doubtful they could ascend all the way to the 2nd overall pick.

Actually value wise( http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/news/story?id=2410670 ):

Pick 2: 2600

Their picks:
1300(Pick 10)+490(Pick 41)

1790 THIS year.

Next year's picks
1st round(Valued at 2nd round pick)
2nd round(Valued at 3rd round pick)
580(equals pick 33)+265(equals pick 65)
845 NEXT year.

2635 points worth of picks would be sent our way for 2600, our #2 pick. It works out, the problem is that there might not be a draft next year pending the court case outcome. If we choose to take the risk however and there is a draft, the Redskins would have met the value of the pick and then some.

jhildebrand
04-26-2011, 08:41 PM
How's that? :confused:

The word is they weren't/aren't on the best of terms. Elway wasn't seen around Dove Valley until the end of the McD era. Also, there was an article sometime after Elway retired that hinted at Shanahan pushed for Elway to retire (to put it mildly).

TXBRONC
04-26-2011, 08:51 PM
Actually value wise( http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/news/story?id=2410670 ):

Pick 2: 2600

Their picks:
1300(Pick 10)+490(Pick 41)

1790 THIS year.

Next year's picks
1st round(Valued at 2nd round pick)
2nd round(Valued at 3rd round pick)
580(equals pick 33)+265(equals pick 65)
845 NEXT year.

2635 points worth of picks would be sent our way for 2600, our #2 pick. It works out, the problem is that there might not be a draft next year pending the court case outcome. If we choose to take the risk however and there is a draft, the Redskins would have met the value of the pick and then some.

Only if you include future picks because they don't have ammo from this draft alone.

robert ethan
04-27-2011, 01:08 AM
This seems like a rumor Denver might plant to get one of the quarterback needy teams between themselves and the Redskins to try to move up. Washington at #10 is about the furthest down the board that it would be feasible to trade, so it puts all the teams between 3 and 10 on notice. It would be much more practical for one of those teams to move up. I think Denver would like #3, #4, #5, #7, or #8 along with whatever extra picks they could accumulate in those deals.

rcsodak
04-27-2011, 10:01 AM
Another thing the article reminded of is that the Redskins don't have the ammo to make a big leap upward. So they may desire to move up but with only two picks in the first four rounds its doubtful they could ascend all the way to the 2nd overall pick.

Actually value wise( http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/news/story?id=2410670 ):

Pick 2: 2600

Their picks:
1300(Pick 10)+490(Pick 41)

1790 THIS year.

Next year's picks
1st round(Valued at 2nd round pick)
2nd round(Valued at 3rd round pick)
580(equals pick 33)+265(equals pick 65)
845 NEXT year.

2635 points worth of picks would be sent our way for 2600, our #2 pick. It works out, the problem is that there might not be a draft next year pending the court case outcome. If we choose to take the risk however and there is a draft, the Redskins would have met the value of the pick and then some.i thought when trading future pix, you assumed middle of the round. 16th, in this case. using the following round might make sense in the '1 in the hand/2 in the bush' analogy, but not actual point wise. or is reality not a part of the equation in this instance?:(

slim
04-27-2011, 10:08 AM
Since the lockout is technically over, can't they trade players now?

I have been under a rock for a few months, so sorry if that is a stupid question. But I don't see why players couldn't be traded.

TXBRONC
04-27-2011, 10:11 AM
Since the lockout is technically over, can't they trade players now?

I have been under a rock for a few months, so sorry if that is a stupid question. But I don't see why players couldn't be traded.

I'm not sure they can.

LordTrychon
04-27-2011, 10:20 AM
The word is they weren't/aren't on the best of terms. Elway wasn't seen around Dove Valley until the end of the McD era. Also, there was an article sometime after Elway retired that hinted at Shanahan pushed for Elway to retire (to put it mildly).

I think those rumors are exaggerated to say the least.

Yes, they have a solid base, as Elway himself said there was a rift between him and Shanahan.

However, they've been exaggerated to the point where people think that Elway stayed away because of Mike.

But if you google 'Cutler dinner Elway' you will see that Cutler, Shanahan, and Elway all went out to dinner, while the first two were still here. Obviously, the idea was that Shanahan was hoping Elway could give a bit of mentoring to the young QB, and Elway agreed... even if the other rumors about that night are that Cutler was unreceptive.

CoachChaz
04-27-2011, 10:25 AM
Personally, I dont care if Elway and Shanny meet up once a week on a mountain somewhere to do some "bonding". Whatever personal relationship they have should have NOTHING to do with football operations. If Elway decides to deal with someone solely based on a personal friendship...I want a new VP

rcsodak
04-27-2011, 11:24 AM
Since the lockout is technically over, can't they trade players now?

I have been under a rock for a few months, so sorry if that is a stupid question. But I don't see why players couldn't be traded.

No lockout. No CBA either.

Now go back to bed.

;)

rcsodak
04-27-2011, 11:27 AM
I find it hard to believe shanny thought elways successor at the time was going to give them a better chance to win games, let alone get back to the SB. :confused:

BORDERLINE
04-27-2011, 11:49 AM
unless the redskins send Orakpo and picks our way.
We should not even listen to there sh**

LordTrychon
04-27-2011, 03:11 PM
Personally, I dont care if Elway and Shanny meet up once a week on a mountain somewhere to do some "bonding". Whatever personal relationship they have should have NOTHING to do with football operations. If Elway decides to deal with someone solely based on a personal friendship...I want a new VP

I don't think anyone is insinuating that Elway will make this deal because he likes Shanahan, Chaz. Calm down.

I was merely doing my best to dispel the rumor that it WOULDN'T happen because they were on bad terms.

Certain teams always seem to have certain partners they are more willing/able to get deals done with. The Redskins were always one of our oft partners in the past.

SpringsBroncoFan
04-27-2011, 03:25 PM
This seems like a rumor Denver might plant to get one of the quarterback needy teams between themselves and the Redskins to try to move up. Washington at #10 is about the furthest down the board that it would be feasible to trade, so it puts all the teams between 3 and 10 on notice. It would be much more practical for one of those teams to move up. I think Denver would like #3, #4, #5, #7, or #8 along with whatever extra picks they could accumulate in those deals.

I can buy that... closer to the draft, the bigger the smokescreen...

If it works, then you still can get one of the 3 blue chippers, or Fairley...

CoachChaz
04-27-2011, 03:41 PM
I don't think anyone is insinuating that Elway will make this deal because he likes Shanahan, Chaz. Calm down.

I was merely doing my best to dispel the rumor that it WOULDN'T happen because they were on bad terms.

Certain teams always seem to have certain partners they are more willing/able to get deals done with. The Redskins were always one of our oft partners in the past.

I didnt realize I was ranting or raving or making any comment to delude from my state of calmness, but thank you anyway for your unnecessary concern for my stress level.

rcsodak
04-27-2011, 03:55 PM
I didnt realize I was ranting or raving or making any comment to delude from my state of calmness, but thank you anyway for your unnecessary concern for my stress level.
Deeeeep breaths, chaz...........In thru the nose...out thru the mouth....

Not knowing when you're ranting is the first sign......
:lol:

SpringsBroncoFan
04-28-2011, 04:01 AM
Actually value wise( http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/news/story?id=2410670 ):

Pick 2: 2600

Their picks:
1300(Pick 10)+490(Pick 41)

1790 THIS year.

Next year's picks
1st round(Valued at 2nd round pick)
2nd round(Valued at 3rd round pick)
580(equals pick 33)+265(equals pick 65)
845 NEXT year.

2635 points worth of picks would be sent our way for 2600, our #2 pick. It works out, the problem is that there might not be a draft next year pending the court case outcome. If we choose to take the risk however and there is a draft, the Redskins would have met the value of the pick and then some.

I read somewhere that to protect yourself, it should be worded "next draft" not "next year"...

Anyway, If that happened I'd want one or both of their 5th round picks...

TXBRONC
04-28-2011, 07:56 AM
I read somewhere that to protect yourself, it should be worded "next draft" not "next year"...

Anyway, If that happened I'd want one or both of their 5th round picks...

If you ever come across where you read that about the wording I love to see it. That is if it's something you read on line. I would think that saying "next year" assumes logically that they are taking about the next draft especially since picks are being mentioned. But I'm sure clarity is very important so it wouldn't surprise in the least if what you're saying is dead on.

SpringsBroncoFan
04-28-2011, 02:43 PM
If you ever come across where you read that about the wording I love to see it. That is if it's something you read on line. I would think that saying "next year" assumes logically that they are taking about the next draft especially since picks are being mentioned. But I'm sure clarity is very important so it wouldn't surprise in the least if what you're saying is dead on.

Sorry, I looked in history and couldn't find it. Same with google...

Did find the following...

http://www.ninersnation.com/2011/3/21/2063477/2011-nfl-draft-nfl-lockout-and-trading-future-picks

The idea probably came about to change terminology to overcome the league statement that future trades are at your own risk... but even with that the league could still say trades are voided if there is no 2012 draft...

Dog barked at me for being lazy with my posts... :laugh:

Yesterday was a rough day for me... :mad:

T.K.O.
04-28-2011, 03:03 PM
Since the lockout is technically over, can't they trade players now?

I have been under a rock for a few months, so sorry if that is a stupid question. But I don't see why players couldn't be traded.

as of right now the league has announced that there can be no player trades in tonights draft....tomorrow maybe
but the judge left it up to the league to decide how they want to proceed and apparently that decision is they dont want chaos in the first round and have told teams to wait until tomorrow and they should have a better idea.
basically the "league year cannot start today so they dont want players traded/signed or released for multiple reasons.including legal ramifications

slim
04-28-2011, 03:04 PM
as of right now the league has announced that there can be no player trades in tonights draft....tomorrow maybe
but the judge left it up to the league to decide how they want to proceed and apparently that decision is they dont want chaos in the first round and have told teams to wait until tomorrow and they should have a better idea.
basically the "league year cannot start today so they dont want players traded/signed or released for multiple reasons.including legal ramifications

I know, it sucks.

We could use the extra picks.

T.K.O.
04-28-2011, 03:09 PM
I know, it sucks.

We could use the extra picks.

the worst part is ...if they had figured this out a few days ago and allowed the trades in the 1st we could have cleaned up in a QB hungry league this year.
and with the projected 4 qb's going in the 1st combined with the major talent drop off & having 2 2nd rnd picks already. it would be foolish to deal for 2nd or 3rd rnd picks this year.
we may as well wait and see which teams are still hungry after free agency starts....maybe we can load for bear next year:beer:

SOCALORADO.
04-28-2011, 03:16 PM
the worst part is ...if they had figured this out a few days ago and allowed the trades in the 1st we could have cleaned up in a QB hungry league this year.
and with the projected 4 qb's going in the 1st combined with the major talent drop off & having 2 2nd rnd picks already. it would be foolish to deal for 2nd or 3rd rnd picks this year.
we may as well wait and see which teams are still hungry after free agency starts....maybe we can load for bear next year:beer:

I am hoping they will allow trades for players after tonights 1st round is over. That way if a team that wanted Dalton or Kaepernick in the 2nd, could weigh in against Orton and maybe make a deal.

Nick
04-28-2011, 04:18 PM
Skins are known to trade future picks... Wouldn't mind a 1st and second or a three way deal.

SpringsBroncoFan
04-28-2011, 05:02 PM
Skins are known to trade future picks... Wouldn't mind a 1st and second or a three way deal.

At least put a clause in the trade that if the picks get voided by the league with no 2012 draft then we get Orakpo!

Oh and we get BOTH their 5th round picks this year too! :D

rcsodak
04-28-2011, 05:25 PM
Phil simms, on sirius nfl, says 'if ryan mallet isn't a top 10 college talent, then I give up'. In saying that, it was speculated that shanny, having drafted the stron armed cutler, might choose to take him. Which means, they might be able to do trade BACK...and getting him while adding picks.

T.K.O.
04-29-2011, 12:07 PM
McD might talk the rams brass into giving up some picks for Orton.....he could make a servicable backup to bradford:confused:

rcsodak
04-29-2011, 12:16 PM
McD might talk the rams brass into giving up some picks for Orton.....he could make a servicable backup to bradford:confused:
KO is not a backup, and could help Az/sea/sf/mia win some games. Personally, the whiz is on the hotseat, as is miami's hc, imo.