Buchannon or Nate Clemments

riggensghost · Joined: 28 Jan 2005 Posts: 403

More trade talk again from the Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64229-2005Apr18.html

e16bball · Joined: 17 Dec 2004 Posts: 14980

As many of you know, I am on the Mike Williams bandwagon, but let's assume he is gone before we go at 9 and we aren't willing move up to get him. Also, let's pray that Cerrato isn't the dumbest man alive, and we are actually very seriously considering moving the 9.

Now let's think over either of these CB trades. I would prefer Clements by far, but in my head we will make the same trade for both of them. Imagine this scenario: Derrick Johnson is still available at number 9. I feel like Carolina, KC, and New Orleans will all be interested in moving up to get him. The first of those three teams to come through with a 2nd rounder to move up will get the pick. For the sake of this argument, let's assume its New Orleans. Carolina would be hesitant to send a 2nd rounder for a move of only 5 spots, and KC will probably involve their 2nd rounder in a trade for Surtain. So we get our 2nd rounder back, and are picking at 16. Then we get in touch with the Raiders/Bills and offer THAT pick for Buchanon/Clements and their 2nd. The Bills trade would be especially good if they consummate that Travis Henry trade and switch 2nd rounders with Arizona.

Let's say the dream scenario with Buffalo comes through. We then have Nate Clements and pick #40 and pick #44. With those two picks, we are looking at a good WR and a pretty solid DE. As a matter of fact, it could be Matt Jones and Justin Tuck, which I know would make most people here happy. Or if we traded with the Raiders, we would have Buchanon, #38, and #40.

I think I could deal with the idea of leaving the first day of the draft with Clements, Tuck, Jones, and a 3rd round pick, plus probably a pick for Gardner.

riggensghost · Joined: 28 Jan 2005 Posts: 403

e- that would be great turn of events if that is what happened. We really dont have the cap to sign to high a propsect and trading down into the late thirties/early forties is ideal for what we can pick up there.

I love the idea of grabbing Matt Jones. Add to that Adrian McPhereson with one of our third rounders (assuming he's there and that is what we get for Gardner) spend the other 3rd rounder on d-line depth.

WashingtonRedskins · Joined: 28 Feb 2005 Posts: 128 Location: D.C.

that idea would be crap, why trade our first round pick if we can just get rolle, pac-man, or williamson with alot more upside, also matt jones will not be available after the first round let alone 41.
_________________
Retweet of the day (after reggie bush's muffed punt) Dear Reggie Bush; The ball is smaller than Kim Kardashians a@@. Please adjust hands accordingly

S. Taylor · Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:08 pm Post subject:

We could trade the number nine for a proven cornerback (Clements or Buchanon). That's the whole point. There's no telling that Rolle or Pac-Man will be star cornerbacks. This is more of a non-risk move. I'd prefer Clements, but ya know the Redskins and their infatuation with ex-Hurricanes. If they could get a second rounder, as well... as E stated, that'd be great. They could get a wide receiver (Larry Brackins? Vincent Jackson?) and a decent DE. If the Redskins get McPherson in the third round, it could possibly be one of the best moves they've made in a long time.

TrueRedskin05 · Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 1018

i would acutally want that 2 happen and i would love to get adrian i think he will be a stud and it was just a mistake he made before and everyone has made 1