| Welcome to the home of some of the Washington Redskins' most ravenous fans. If this is your first visit, please read our rules and regulations. You must register before you can access all of the forums, and to use all the board's features and options; members also enjoy fewer advertisements. |
| Author |
Message |
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14756
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Prowl33 wrote: | | It'll either work out great, or fail horribly. |
Or somewhere in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
The Hogster
#######
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 7013
Location: Washington D.C.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
It doesn't matter what it took to land Eli, or Vick. All that matters is this deal is what it took to land RG3.
It's not like Bruce Allen is an idiot. They were negotiating for this, and the FO thought the only sure way to get him now was to pull the trigger. Seal Team 6 style. I support it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
die cowboys die
Hog
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 2130
Location: Boston, MA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| i'm totally with you, spenser, and have been making this point all day, and about previous trades in years past by us and other teams--- they ALWAYS kind of say it in this way that i guess isn't technically incorrect but is definitely misleading. it does drive me nuts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ferryrich
Hog
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 285
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can't quite understand why this trade is being compared to the Eli trade straight up.
The situations are completely different.
With Eli pretty much refusing to play in San Diego after they selected him, if they wanted to have their QB of the future actually with the team for the coming season they had to get a deal done. The Rams were willing to drop and could have swapped with any number of teams, while the Chargers had to swap with a team who had a QB they'd be happy with.
The leverage of the Chargers in 2004 was nothing compared to the leverage of the Rams now.
Obviously yes, we've given up quite a lot but to know now means we have a definite plan in the draft and clear objectives through free agency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
The Hogster
#######
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 7013
Location: Washington D.C.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ferryrich wrote: | I can't quite understand why this trade is being compared to the Eli trade straight up.
The situations are completely different.
With Eli pretty much refusing to play in San Diego after they selected him, if they wanted to have their QB of the future actually with the team for the coming season they had to get a deal done. The Rams were willing to drop and could have swapped with any number of teams, while the Chargers had to swap with a team who had a QB they'd be happy with.
The leverage of the Chargers in 2004 was nothing compared to the leverage of the Rams now.
Obviously yes, we've given up quite a lot but to know now means we have a definite plan in the draft and clear objectives through free agency. |
+1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
 |
skinsfan#33
#33
Joined: 24 Jul 2004
Posts: 3876
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lets look at the trade from a math stand point.
Rams' 1 = our 1 + 2 + 1(13) + 1(14)
We gve up three 1s and a 2 to get a one. So if they say we gave up the 1s they are correct! If they say we gave up an extra three 1s then they aren't. Prowl3 is correct out is all about the wording.
Wait till Steve Czabin starts talking about this to join out will be 4 fist rounders and a high two, which is close enough to the 1st round you might as erl call it that. So he will call it five first! He always said that Campbell cost us two 1st, a 3rd , and a 4th, because he counted the first that we traded for and used.
Back in 2000 we gave up the #12 and #24 picks to move up to #3 to get Chris Samuals. RG3 is costing an an extra 1st and 2nd over that trade.
Everyone keeps comparing this to the Eli / Rivers trade. It isn't a good comparison because of two major things. The Giants aren't as hard up for aQB as we are. They had Kurt Warner and had just drafted Rivers. Sbs Diego had less leverage, because Eli was threatening not to play fit them and if the Giants didn't make the trade they still were left with Warner and Rivers. And of course the #1 pick got a huge contact back then.
We probably could have done this deal in april for less, but then we might have sunk money into a QB we didn't want. Heck lets say they did a Giants / Chargers you're trade this would have cost even less IF the player the Rams really want was there at #6.
But this way we pay a little more in picks but we can plan our FA strategy knowing we got our guy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
skinsfan#33
#33
Joined: 24 Jul 2004
Posts: 3876
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lets look at the trade from a math stand point.
Rams' 1 = our 1 + 2 + 1(13) + 1(14)
We gve up three 1s and a 2 to get a one. So if they say we gave up the 1s they are correct! If they say we gave up an extra three 1s then they aren't. Prowl3 is correct out is all about the wording.
Wait till Steve Czabin starts talking about this to join out will be 4 fist rounders and a high two, which is close enough to the 1st round you might as erl call it that. So he will call it five first! He always said that Campbell cost us two 1st, a 3rd , and a 4th, because he counted the first that we traded for and used.
Back in 2000 we gave up the #12 and #24 picks to move up to #3 to get Chris Samuals. RG3 is costing an an extra 1st and 2nd over that trade.
Everyone keeps comparing this to the Eli / Rivers trade. It isn't a good comparison because of two major things. The Giants aren't as hard up for aQB as we are. They had Kurt Warner and had just drafted Rivers. Sbs Diego had less leverage, because Eli was threatening not to play fit them and if the Giants didn't make the trade they still were left with Warner and Rivers. And of course the #1 pick got a huge contact back then.
We probably could have done this deal in april for less, but then we might have sunk money into a QB we didn't want. Heck lets say they did a Giants / Chargers you're trade this would have cost even less IF the player the Rams really want was there at #6.
But this way we pay a little more in picks but we can plan our FA strategy knowing we got our guy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14756
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| skinsfan#33 wrote: | We probably could have done this deal in april for less, but then we might have sunk money into a QB we didn't want. Heck lets say they did a Giants / Chargers you're trade this would have cost even less IF the player the Rams really want was there at #6.
But this way we pay a little more in picks but we can plan our FA strategy knowing we got our guy. |
If we had waited, the Browns would have had the pick. The Rams wanted to deal now for two reasons:
1. The value of the pick would be diminished after free agency.
2. This allows them to develop their own FA and draft strategies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
the poster
Hog
Joined: 02 Mar 2012
Posts: 389
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
you've got to be kidding me. you people went to this great length to discuss the semantical nature of how many draft picks were actually given up? this is a fake thread right....u can't be serious....
look, the people with any brains don't even need to start posts a out this and they know the following is true and which is the bottom line:
the redskins spent 4 draft picks, which are three first rounders and a high second rounder to draft one player, the largest compensation in terms of draft pick value in the history of the NFL.
the end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14756
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the imposter wrote: | | look, the people with any brains don't even need to start posts a out this... |
Oh, the irony! I'm embarrassed for you.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
skinsfan#33
#33
Joined: 24 Jul 2004
Posts: 3876
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the poster wrote: | you've got to be kidding me. you people went to this great length to discuss the semantical nature of how many draft picks were actually given up? this is a fake thread right....u can't be serious....
look, the people with any brains don't even need to start posts a out this and they know the following is true and which is the bottom line:
the redskins spent 4 draft picks, which are three first rounders and a high second rounder to draft one player, the largest compensation in terms of draft pick value in the history of the NFL.
the end. |
You can stick "the end" up yours!
I don't care what the draft chart says, the Saint gave up way more for Ricky Williams, but even if you don't, you HAVE agree the Vikes gave up a more for Walker.
The way I look at it we gave up three 1st, two 2nds, two 3rds, a 4th, and a 5th for Shuler, JC, Brad Johnson, and McNabb. If we get 8-10 seasons out of RG3 at the level BJ played for us in 99 then our trade was a STEEL! |
|
| Back to top |
|
skinsfan#33
#33
Joined: 24 Jul 2004
Posts: 3876
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the poster wrote: | you've got to be kidding me. you people went to this great length to discuss the semantical nature of how many draft picks were actually given up? this is a fake thread right....u can't be serious....
look, the people with any brains don't even need to start posts a out this and they know the following is true and which is the bottom line:
the redskins spent 4 draft picks, which are three first rounders and a high second rounder to draft one player, the largest compensation in terms of draft pick value in the history of the NFL.
the end. |
You can stick "the end" up yours!
I don't care what the draft chart says, the Saint gave up way more for Ricky Williams, but even if you don't, you HAVE agree the Vikes gave up a more for Walker.
The way I look at it we gave up three 1st, two 2nds, two 3rds, a 4th, and a 5th for Shuler, JC, Brad Johnson, and McNabb. If we get 8-10 seasons out of RG3 at the level BJ played for us in 99 then our trade was a STEEL! |
|
| Back to top |
|
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 10021
Location: Kazmania
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ferryrich wrote: | | The leverage of the Chargers in 2004 was nothing compared to the leverage of the Rams now |
Yep. Picks are worth what someone will pay for them, not what a chart says. The chart doesn't consider circumstances. It's a legit starting point. But had circumstances been different maybe we swap for only our second rounder. Without a franchise QB guaranteed to be there neither us nor the Browns would have offered two first rounders much less three. If we weren't getting a QB I wouldn't have wanted to give up our second rounder to swap picks. A good player will be there at #6. |
|
| Back to top |
|
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 10021
Location: Kazmania
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| skinsfan#33 wrote: | | The way I look at it we gave up three 1st, two 2nds, two 3rds, a 4th, and a 5th for Shuler, JC, Brad Johnson, and McNabb. If we get 8-10 seasons out of RG3 at the level BJ played for us in 99 then our trade was a STEEL! |
That's a great way to put it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 10021
Location: Kazmania
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the poster wrote: | | the redskins spent 4 draft picks, which are three first rounders and a high second rounder to draft one player, the largest compensation in terms of draft pick value in the history of the NFL |
Obviously you're a kid, the Walker trade was for more. But riddle me this batman. Discuss trades for franchise QB's because the rest don't compare. Who got a better deal? How often are franchise QB's traded? Only under unique circumstances, like the Rams having a QB they picked with the #1 overall last year. The Colts had Peyton Manning and wouldn't give up drafting a franchise QB.
Last edited by KazooSkinsFan on Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:33 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
 |
| Page 2 of 12 | All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
