Monday, April 5, 2010

Campbell Trade Next?

ESPN asks does Campbell has trade value? I am more interested in this than any Republican threats of filibustering at the time.

Matt Mosley at ESPN:

As we continue to unpeel the stunning Donovan McNabb trade, it's time to ask whether Washington Redskins incumbent starter Jason Campbell has any trade value. He just turned 28 and he's in good health -- especially for a guy who played behind the Redskins' regrettable offensive line in '09.

ESPN 980 in Washington D.C. is reporting that Buffalo, Carolina, Oakland and Jacksonville have all showed interest in Campbell following Sunday's trade. And my colleague Matt Williamson of Scouts Inc. thinks the Bills or Raiders would be wise to send a second-round pick in this month's draft to the Redskins for Campbell. I certainly think Campbell's a viable option for one of those teams, but not even Al Davis would trade away a second-rounder for the Skins quarterback.

Let's remember that the Redskins have spent the past couple of offseasons desperately searching for Campbell's replacement. That's not exactly how you drive up a player's trade value. I think the Redskins would eventually settle for a fourth- or fifth-round pick for Campbell. But I hope that doesn't happen.

Campbell's probably hoping for his outright release, so he can have a say in his next destination. It would be almost cruel to ask him to stick around with McNabb and Rex Grossman in 2010. And I don't think Mike Shanahan wants that scenario.

Shanahan and Campbell will meet this afternoon, according to The Washington Post.


I really don't see the value in Rex Grossman, yes he is familiar with Shanahan's offensive scheme, but he has always been a dud. Campbell looks to be getting the raw deal again. I am sure he will be better if he goes to a team with an offensive line. It never fails. Still psyched out McNabb though, where do I get a jersey?! (just kidding of course, over the years I have learned not to jump on every free agent jersey)

I am Frank Chow and I approved this message

No comments: