| Author |
Message |
Red_One43
Hog
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Posts: 4606
Location: D.C.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| SouthLondonRedskin wrote: | | Red_One43 wrote: | OK, Now that RGIII is drafted. What do we talk about?  |
Been anywhere nice on vacation recently.....??? |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
1niksder
**********
Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Posts: 16578
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chiefhog44 wrote: | | frankcal20 wrote: | Just going to ask this question.
After seeing the amount of compensation other teams gave to move up in the draft this year (i.e. - Dallas), did we give up too much for RG3? |
Not if we wanted him. Cleveland was two first's ready, and reports were their 2nd as well. That's more than we gave up (considering their draft position) |
+1
We could have offered less and got Tannehill at number six. I think they made the right move. The Browns gave up a 4th, 5th, and 7th to move up one spot just so no one else could leapfrog them. On draft day they could have combined those picks with their other number one to go to #2. The Skins would have had to give up even more to get who they wanted |
|
| Back to top |
|
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 10021
Location: Kazmania
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Countertrey wrote: | We whiffed enough to be close...  |
We whiffed on whiffing, that makes you twice as right... |
|
| Back to top |
|
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 10021
Location: Kazmania
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| frankcal20 wrote: | Just going to ask this question.
After seeing the amount of compensation other teams gave to move up in the draft this year (i.e. - Dallas), did we give up too much for RG3? |
Your question is fatally flawed. We didn't trade to move up a number of spots, we moved to trade up to draft a franchise QB. There were two in the draft, 32 teams knew that. There is trading in to the top two and there is trading up. Your question is like comparing salamanders and ice cream.
You really need to analyze each trade Frank. You can't just look at it that way. Cleveland gave up little to move up from 4 to 3. Why? Because Minnesota didn't want Richardson and Cleveland knew that. So why did Cleveland pay anything? To prevent someone ELSE from trading up and grabbing Richardson. So why did Minnesota do it rather then trading the pick for more? Bird in the hand, they weren't having any serious discussions at that point, why pass on free picks for the hope of a last minute deal?
Given actually analyzing trades rather then just making a sweeping fly by statement, what actual trade makes you think we overpaid? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14722
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KazooSkinsFan wrote: | | Cleveland gave up little to move up from 4 to 3. Why? Because Minnesota didn't want Richardson and Cleveland knew that. So why did Cleveland pay anything? To prevent someone ELSE from trading up and grabbing Richardson. |
I don't agree that Cleveland gave up little; a 4th, 5th, a 7th is not little. But the real question is: would any other team trading with the Vikings for that #3 spot, have been targeting Richardson with that pick? I think the answer is no, so that make the Browns look stupid for making that deal, IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
 |
langleyparkjoe
**LPJ**
Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 5993
Location: Langley Park, MD *Tick Tock*
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sooooooo.. is dis guy rg3 any good? i never heard of him before |
|
| Back to top |
|
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14722
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KazooSkinsFan wrote: | | Given actually analyzing trades rather then just making a sweeping fly by statement, what actual trade makes you think we overpaid? |
I agree that we didn't overpay. But I think the Rams could have gotten better value from Dallas for the #6 pick than just a 2nd rounder. The Pies moved up 8 spots for only a #2. Compared to our trade and the Browns trade, it seems like they got a bargain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SouthLondonRedskin
Hog
Joined: 09 Jan 2012
Posts: 1113
Location: South London, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| langleyparkjoe wrote: | | sooooooo.. is dis guy rg3 any good? i never heard of him before |
He makes Joe Montana look like John Beck. Is that good enough for you.....??!?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
1niksder
**********
Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Posts: 16578
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Deadskins wrote: | | KazooSkinsFan wrote: | | Given actually analyzing trades rather then just making a sweeping fly by statement, what actual trade makes you think we overpaid? |
I agree that we didn't overpay. But I think the Rams could have gotten better value from Dallas for the #6 pick than just a 2nd rounder. The Pies moved up 8 spots for only a #2. Compared to our trade and the Browns trade, it seems like they got a bargain. |
They thought it would cost them the 2nd and a 4th and were willing to pay it.
So much for the Browns claim that the Rams favored the Redskins, if they did they would have taken the 4th. I have heard they asked for it at the last minute but then back off, so maybe they do like the Redskins |
|
| Back to top |
|
langleyparkjoe
**LPJ**
Joined: 05 Oct 2007
Posts: 5993
Location: Langley Park, MD *Tick Tock*
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SouthLondonRedskin wrote: | | langleyparkjoe wrote: | | sooooooo.. is dis guy rg3 any good? i never heard of him before |
He makes Joe Montana look like John Beck. Is that good enough for you.....??!?? |
but is he sexier than sexy rexy when he throws the ball is the big question |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
1niksder
**********
Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Posts: 16578
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Also that #6 pick came from the Skins, the Rams traded it and now have 3 of the top 13 picks tonight. They'll trade at least one of them so they're not done.
The Redskins top ten pick was used on a defensive back.... look at the history of that combination.
The pick went to TtiT  they drafted a DB  .... and left Mark Barron on the board  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14722
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 1niksder wrote: | | Also that #6 pick came from the Skins, the Rams traded it and now have 3 of the top 13 picks tonight. They'll trade at least one of them so they're not done. |
It'd be pretty funny if they traded Dallas' #2 to us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Chris Luva Luva
---
Joined: 28 Jul 2003
Posts: 17806
Location: AJT
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'd like to see us move up in the 2nd round somehow without losing future picks. We don't have anyone worth that much tho... |
|
| Back to top |
|
ATX_Skins
ATX
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 3322
Location: NOVA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Deadskins wrote: | | KazooSkinsFan wrote: | | Cleveland gave up little to move up from 4 to 3. Why? Because Minnesota didn't want Richardson and Cleveland knew that. So why did Cleveland pay anything? To prevent someone ELSE from trading up and grabbing Richardson. |
I don't agree that Cleveland gave up little; a 4th, 5th, a 7th is not little. But the real question is: would any other team trading with the Vikings for that #3 spot, have been targeting Richardson with that pick? I think the answer is no, so that make the Browns look stupid for making that deal, IMO. |
Not if the Browns were nervous another team was going to trade with the Vikings. They just made that move to secure Richardson and not allow anyone to grab him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 10021
Location: Kazmania
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Deadskins wrote: | | KazooSkinsFan wrote: | | Cleveland gave up little to move up from 4 to 3. Why? Because Minnesota didn't want Richardson and Cleveland knew that. So why did Cleveland pay anything? To prevent someone ELSE from trading up and grabbing Richardson. |
I don't agree that Cleveland gave up little; a 4th, 5th, a 7th is not little |
Little in context of the situation. Trading a 4/5/7 to move from #4 to #3 is little. Trading a 4/5/7 to move from #34 to #33 would be a ton. They were willing to giving up a 1/1/2 (or more since they said they'd beat our offer) to move from #4 to #2. That is "little."
| Deadskins wrote: | | But the real question is: would any other team trading with the Vikings for that #3 spot, have been targeting Richardson with that pick? I think the answer is no |
You think that, but you don't know, it's conjecture. The Browns didn't want to guess, they wanted to be sure. RB is that type of position. You don't know that. Neither did the Browns.
| Deadskins wrote: | | that make the Browns look stupid for making that deal, IMO. |
That and $5 will buy you a cup of coffee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
| Page 2 of 25 | All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
