RSS

Diner Morning News: Trade Bait

Michael Lombardi

Bookmark and Share Print This Send This May 15, 2009, 10:24 AM EST
17 Comments

FROM MICHAEL LOMBARDI:

14 MAY 2009

QUOTE:  “To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.” -- Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

We are three weeks removed from the draft, and all teams have had some form of mini-camp – either with just rookies or with the entire team. All teams are now involved in their OTAs, and we are starting to learn from local beat writers which players are looking good in practices. So this is the perfect time to pick up the phone again and make a few calls, thinking that some teams might need to make a few moves. 

If I were any team in need of a part left tackle, part tight end (i.e., a blocking tight end), I would call the Denver Broncos.

On Thursday, I wrote about the Buffalo Bills, explaining how they have a huge void at blocking tight end and suggesting they call the Broncos to explore the possibility of trading for Daniel Graham. Well, the Bills are not the only team that could benefit from adding this kind of player to their roster. The Eagles, for example, would really make an impact if they had Graham. He would allow Brent Celek to be the tight end to make plays in the passing game and would also give them a strong side run game. 

Graham, not Tony Scheffler, would make a huge difference for the Eagles. Scheffler is similar to the other tight ends currently on the Eagles’ roster. Denver drafted Richard Quinn, whose forte is blocking, at the bottom of the second round. Because he’s a second rounder, Quinn is certain to make the team, so trading Graham is plausible for the Broncos. 

There are more teams in need of a blocker than just the Bills and Eagles. The Jets and Bengals also need to improve in this area if they expect their receiving tight ends to be factors in the offense. Adding Graham to the Jets would boost Dustin Keller, just as adding him to the Bengals would be an upgrade over Reggie Kelly and allow Chase Coffman to be a factor right away in the passing game. 

If I were working for the ‘Skins, I would call Jacksonville about the availability of right offensive tackle Tony Pashos. 

The Redskins’ offensive line is a mess. It’s old and injury prone, making the prospect of a successful 2009 season seem unlikely. Worse, there are no signs of finding reinforcements during the preseason. Jacksonville signed former Eagle Tra Thomas this offseason to be the starter at left tackle, then drafted two more tackles in the first two rounds -- Eugene Monroe and Eben Britton. They now have three tackles besides Pashos who are locks to make the team. 

Even though Pashos has been a starter, he does have limitations in his athletic ability and the type of protection schemes the offense must run. Had this been the ‘Skins’ offense of old (Joe Gibbs’ offense) featuring mostly slide protection, Pashos would fit perfectly. Pashos is the kind of player that ‘Skins offensive line guru Joe Bugel would love -- tough, gritty, hard working and willing to do whatever he needs to be successful. The ‘Skins can’t feel that current right tackle Jon Jansen can perform in all 16 games from an injury and performance standpoint. They must find an alternative, and I doubt it will be former Buffalo Bills first rounder Mike Williams of Texas. 

If I were working for the Seahawks, I would call the Jets about the availability of running back Thomas Jones.

I know, I know, the Seahawks have the other Jones, Julius, currently handling the running back chores. But when does having Julius Jones on a roster mean you’ll get a consistent and reliable runner? Besides his durability issues, when does he give you a sense of comfort and confidence that he can play the whole season and be productive? Last year, sharing time with Maurice Morris, Jones had almost 700 yards rushing and played in 15 games. It’s clear he needs someone to help him handle the reps and not place the full burden squarely on his shoulders. That other back is not T.J. Duckett. Duckett is a short-yardage runner but lacks quickness to make plays in the middle of the field. He did help the Seahawks convert third and one at an 85-percent rate, finishing third in the NFL. But he’s not the kind of player to supplement Julius. 

Trading for Thomas Jones would give the Seahawks another runner to share time with his brother and beef up the running game. The current Jets roster desperately needs a wide receiver to replace the departed Laveranues Coles. The Seahawks -- depending on the health of some players and the talent level of the younger wideouts, notably third-round pick Deon Butler -- may have an extra wideout. For example, Deion Branch might be expendable after Seattle’s receivers last year failed to make plays, partly because of health and partly because they finished 30th in the NFL in dropped passes. If healthy, Branch would give the Jets a veteran receiver capable of helping a rookie quarterback.  Both teams might benefit from this trade. 

Have a wonderful weekend. Be sure to check back Sunday for another edition of Sunday at the Post. 

Comments

Add a Comment
Drew T.
May 15, 2009
11:18 AM

Here's an idea. Next Friday, lets just put all the Shannahan era Broncos up for trade.

Doesn't it stand to reason that if Denver used a second round pick on Richard Quinn, they seem to believe they need more Daniel Graham types rather than less? I obviously might be wrong, but its my understanding that the McDaniels offense uses a lot of multiple TE sets, especially to run the ball, ergo a pretty high pick on a blocking TE. Why then trade the one you have...especailly when cap room isn't much of a problem?

Sean T
May 15, 2009
11:35 AM

I agree that Buffalo could use extra help in the run blocking game, but Derek Fine, the 2nd year TE (4th round pick in 2008) for the Bills is an excellent blocker to seal edges in the run game. The depth after him is scarce, but Fine is an excellent blocker and I think that's why Buffalo hasn't addressed bringing in a player like Graham. Also, Mike, The Bills will be moving Brad Butler to RT, his spot he played in college and not Kirk Chambers like you mentioned yesterday. They plan on having an OL of Walker LT, Levitre LG, Hangartner C, Eric Wood RG, and Butler at LT. With Fine aiding in run blocking. Just a heads up as all the reshuffling Buffalo has done with it's OL it is hard to keep up

deljzc
May 15, 2009
11:40 AM

Michael, in this case I'd like you to be more specific with the value of these players.

What does "make a call" mean? Maybe these teams have done just that.

The more important question is from your experience as a GM, what is the correct PRICE for these players. We fans are terrible at putting prices/value on current NFL players. We look to you on this often.

What is Daniel Graham worth? Both to the Broncos and the teams mentioned above? What is his salary cap charge - this year and remaining on his deal? Does that impact his value? Are we talking a 3rd rounder? 5th rounder? What the price to get the deal done and make it a win-win negotiation?

Great article, but this is more sports radio talk and not Ex-GM talk, which is why I come to this site.

Mr.Murder
May 15, 2009
11:53 AM

Pashos can be a value in terms of split reps. If his contract is good for the Jags why let him go? This isn't a cap move on their behalf?

If he was working midrange money and gave you quality starts, why not keep that on your roster?

The Skins aren't the only team who should be interested.

Others note the prevalence of extra tight ends for the McDaniels running game. The link from the fighting Irish fan site that features a Parcells quote about the extra tight end package helps you understand how important the extra depth there is. Weiss' offense sputtered without it at Notre Dame recently. The extra power players give you balance and keep a pass rush from teeing off when they also must respect the run(called "Detroit" in their verbiage).


Parcells says the nickle back is such a good specialist that his work vs. your number three wideout is in the favor of defenders now days. The extra yards in today's game are vs. the base set's worst pass defenders(strong safety and force linebackers) and with two tight ends in formation you can match those up a lot.

SJGMoney
May 15, 2009
12:34 PM

Wouldn't Thomas Jones be your perfect solution to the Saints' needs?

Josh
May 15, 2009
12:35 PM

Contract dispute or not, Thomas Jones is so much more valuable than Branch. Even so, Branch is nothing more than a #2 WR. The Jets have plenty of #2s and 3s with Cotch, Clowney, Stuckey, and Brad Smith. Theres no point in acquiring anything less than a #1. TJ is too valuable, especially since he'll inevitably realize how ridiculous his holdout is (the front loaded contract averages more than his worth of the first three years) and report to the team.

dr3r42
May 15, 2009
12:49 PM

Sorry Mike, I can not find any faults with your column, so I'll have to pick a part your grammar. "If I were" is not correct. There is a subject-verb agreement. "I" is singular, "were" is plural, that is incorrect. The correct usage should be "If I WAS the Redskins"

In an earlier column, you split an infinative. I let that go, but this is "beyond the pale"

dan
May 15, 2009
01:11 PM

I'd also like to hear Lombardi's take on how the pros assess trade value.

Firesalt
May 15, 2009
01:22 PM

dr3r42, I hate to break the news to you, but Mike used the correct grammar. Normally, you would use "was" with "I" but in sunbjunctive phrases, i.e., when the phrase poses an improbable or impossible situation, the plural "were" agrees with the singular pronoun. Mike's sentence was an impossible one: he is not curently a GM, so he used correct grammar.

Kevin
May 15, 2009
01:26 PM

Mr. Lombardi,
Why would you trade Graham because you drafted Quinn. The Broncos stunk in the redzone and tandem of Graham and Quinn, Hillis, and Marshall, and probably Jordan at the goal line would give the Broncos something they have not had in years.

Greg
May 15, 2009
02:00 PM

*sigh* The subjunctive is a lost art in speech and print; thank you Lombardi for using it correctly (and Firesalt for defending it).

dr3r42
May 15, 2009
03:01 PM

My apologies to Mr Lombardi for the heinous crime of attacking his grammar; however, I will look up the rules on subjunctive phrases and try and weasel my way out of the arguement.

Next 1 - 12 of 17 Prev COMMENTS

Add a Comment

* Required - Keep track of your comments Login or Register with NFP
(will not be published)