Did the Rams get anyone noteworthy from the picks? I haven’t tracked that.
They used the picks to trade around quite a bit. But remember, it’s the Rams, so they’re not very good at drafting.
According to this story on PFT, the Rams ended up with Greg Robinson, Alec Ogletree, Stedman Bailey, Zac Stacy, Michael Brockers, Janoris Jenkins, Isaiah Pead and Rokevious Watkins.
Gruden has been pretty clear that Griffin was an appealing part of the job, and that he still wants the chance to work with him. I’d be stunned if he wasn’t the opening-day starter next year.
Living in Washington and watching lots of their games, I still think he has the talent and agree that’s waaaay too soon to give up. But I think the concern is that he’s going to be too injury-prone and that will retard his progression. The whiff of diva doesn’t bode well, either.
Wow. Harsh words from the coach.
Interesting. Another team drafted a so-so QB about Montana-depth that same year and started him right out the gate. That 3rd-round QB’s team beat RG III’s team in the first round of that year’s play-offs, in a game where RG III stayed in way past his knee. That 3rd-round QB is still starting every week, winning more than losing.
I guess college performance is not always a good NFL indicator. Too many variables.
cough … Newton … cough
106.7 The Fan in DC is almost unlistenable today after losing to the Bucs, RG3 getting nuts in his presser and Gruden directly crushing him in his own presser. I’ll just avoid that station for the next week or two I think. No way to hear about any other sports topic when mega bombs like those hits local sports talk.
You are aware that Russell Wilson was a terrific college QB? And that most analysts think Cam Newton is a decent QB trapped in a crappy organization, with no recievers and a bad line?
Your point is correct, but your examples suck.
He said “not always”. And he’s right. Plenty of first pick QBs have been busts, plenty of late picks and UDFAs have gone to strong careers. And the other way around. It’s hard to predict for the actual professionals who do this for a living, so what makes us think we’d be any better than random chance?
Because certain teams seem to be able to repeat success by building through the draft. Were it just random, one would expect that every team would have an equal chance of building and winning through the draft, but over and over, some teams are very good at building through the draft (Packers, Seahawks, Colts, Patriots) and some aren’t (Jaguars, Browns, Redskins).
Hence: “Your point is correct, but your examples suck.”
Mega-trades almost never work out for either team in the NFL. It’s a fact.
That article doesn’t really go into why, but I’m pretty sure it’s because the only teams that get involved in those sorts of trades are terribly managed teams to begin with. Way back in 1999 the Redskins were the “benefactor” of a ludicrous, humongous trade for all of the Saints’ draft picks that year, plus two more the next year. Should have set up the 'Skins for a decade to come, right? No, the comically mismanaged team squandered pretty much all eight picks (trading away 4 picks to the Bears to take Champ Bailey who only stayed in DC a few years and blowing the rest on busts), and on the flip side, Ricky Williams was a serviceable player, but of course nowhere near good enough to warrant that sort of commitment (though they did flip him for four draft picks, including 2 first-rounders, to the Dolphins just 3 years later).
Yeah, but when they do work, they look brilliant.
The Herschel Walker trade between Dallas and Minnesota was a dream scenario for the Cowboys. I can’t believe the Vikings let themselves get fleeced like that.
The few successes that do occur makes bad teams think they have a chance.
Without winning seasons no trade looks good in the end. This subject brings to mind Sonny Jurgensen, a skilled QB for the Redskins for over a decade, but until his last season under Vince Lombardi the Skins couldn’t produce a winning season. And even the arguably greatest coach in the history of football could only get them 1 game over .500. Great players that never reach the big one are often forgotten. In this case the team needs far more than just a good QB, and installing one based on that deal simply makes a him a scapegoat when they fail. Of course if the Redskins get somewhere he’ll then be the hero and it will be considered one of the greatest deals in history. Seems to be an unlikely outcome, but ‘game of inches’ and ‘any given day’ you know, could happen.
You could go back to the late '70s, when the Seattle Seahawks were not sufficiently impressed with a young Ahmad Rashad, so they let the Vikings take him. Imagine a team with a decent Jim Zorn throwing to Largent and Rashad.
Though, not really the same kind of thing.
Rashad never played for the Seahawks. He started out with the Cardinals, then the Bills, before joining the Vikes in ‘76 (the Seahawks’ first year in the NFL).
You might be thinking of the Cardinals, where Rashad (who was, IIRC, known as Bobby Moore in those days) could have been teaming up with the “Cardiac Cards” of the mid-70s (Jim Hart, Terry Metcalf, Mel Gray,
Rashad was in the Seahawks first training camp before going to Minnesota.
I stand corrected!
The Herschel Walker trade worked out pretty well for the Cowboys. And the Jon Gruden trade worked pretty well for the Bucs, at least short term.
Nitpicks: (1) 1969 was his, and the Redskins’, only season under Lombardi (who died just before the 1970 season), and (2) they were 2 games over .500 under Lombardi.
But to get more substantive:
Despite the absence of winning seasons, Sonny Jurgensen is warmly remembered in the DC area. I was only a kid at the time, but I think 'Skins fans in the mid to late 1960s were aware that Jurgensen and his corps of receivers (Charley Taylor, Bobby Mitchell, Jerry Smith) weren’t the problem, but rather the only thing that was keeping the team competitive in the absence of a running game or a defense.
Maybe he’s forgotten outside the DC area, but not here, baby. Not here.
The Green Bay Packers were 7-5 in 1959, their first season under Lombardi. The Redskins were 7-5-2 in 1969, their only season under Lombardi. Even a genuine football deity like Vince Lombardi didn’t build a championship overnight.
But there’s no reason to believe the Redskins wouldn’t have quickly improved to playoff caliber if Lombardi had stayed healthy and continued to coach the Redskins. That Lombardi built a good foundation for future improvement is, IMHO, the reason George Allen could go 9-4-1 in his first season in Washington (1971), and then take them to a Super Bowl the following year.
And if Jurgensen hadn’t ruptured his Achilles tendon in the sixth game of the 1972 season, he would have been the guy leading them to the Super Bowl.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/11/19/chris-cooley-rgiii-was-so-bad-i-cant-assess-the-rest-of-the-redskins-offense/Here is a brutal review of RGIII’s last game from former Redskins tight end and fan favorite, Chris Cooley.