Skins reportedly give up 3 1st rd & 1 2nd rd picks for #2 this year. Thoughts?

[furt]

@Blaster_Master

You can’t compare QBs drafted in the second round or whatever to early first round prospects. Yeah, some of them pan out, and yeah a lot of work out, but it’s also out of a larger pool. They exceeded the expectations laid on them because, if they showed so much, they would have ended up as early first round prospects.

I’m not sure what your point is here. Just looking at top-5 draft picks, the fact is that the vast majority of them do not develop into megastars. Here is the complete list of top-5 QBs in the years since Peyton Manning came into the league:

Peyton Manning
Ryan Leaf
Tim Couch
Donovan McNabb
Akili Smith
Michael Vick
David Carr
Joey Harrington
Carson Palmer
Eli Manning
Philip Rivers
Alex Smith
Vince Young
JaMarcus Russell
Matt Ryan
Matthew Stafford
Mark Sanchez
Sam Bradford
Cam Newton

By my count, that’s 10 of 19 who were good, solid QBs for the team that drafted them, and worthwhile picks. But how many megastars, worthy of not one but three first round picks? IMO, maybe three. Four at most. So you’re looking at something like a 20% chance of this trade working.

And while it may be true now, there’s plenty of greats who were awesome prospects and did pan out: Peyton Manning, John Elway, Troy Aikman. Yeah, there’s not a whole lot of them, but there’s also only one or two QBs like that a year at most, some years don’t even have one that’s lauded like that.

And this is where you’re just wrong: pretty much every guy on that list got the same kind of praise that Griffin’s getting and that Manning and Aikman got.

Elway was a bit different; the hype for him was a lot more like Luck.

You can’t just draft a whole bunch of 4th rounders and hope one of them turns into a Drew Brees. It’s like looking at a poker hand, you can have pocket Aces, but that’s no guarantee you’ll win. Similarly, you might limp in with a weak hand like and hit the nuts. But before a hand, you can’t know what’s going to come on the flop or the turn or the river, so would you rather have the pocket Aces or the weak hand? You look like a genius if the weak hand pans out, but you can’t blame a guy for betting big on a good hand. Of course, as far as RG3 goes, he’s not a pocket Aces kind of prospect, but he is still a good prospect.

I have no idea what this means. Sorry, don’t play poker much.

What I meant by playing it safe is seeing a player or coach that succeeds elsewhere and signing them as a free agent. Pretty much since Snyder took over, the Redskins have all but refused to take any substantial risk in the draft and been trading those picks for already established players, some of them worked out, more of them didn’t. I think chasing big-name free agents and coaches is about as close to playing it safe as it gets in the pros

That is NOT playing it safe. That is chasing the wind, seeking the headlines, and being a fool.

Playing it safe is: keep your draft picks, all of them, every year. Develop your own players; resign them, unless they want tons of money, in which case you let them walk. Use Free agency sparingly, only signing midlevel or low-risk types types to fill spots of need, not to bring in a major pieces. Keep your head coach, even when you have a down year. Maintain a consistent, stable organization. See: Pittsburgh Steelers, New York Giants, New England Patriots.

There is no team in the NFL that looks less like that than the Redskins.

, particularly when the belief is they’ll have the same amount of production despite being in a completely different environment.

That is an idiotic thing to believe. No serious football fan, let alone a coach or GM, would think that.

The alternative is patient and intelligent drafting and having a consistent coaching system in place that coaches. But that means dealing with a whole lot of calculated risks and running through a lot of prospects, some of which will pan out, many of which will fail.

Yes. That’s why you want a lot of picks, because not all of them will be stars. Some of them will be complete busts, but most will at least be useful players; which is important because football is not a star-centered sport like the NBA; having one or two or five big names isn’t enough; even with a franchise QB, you still need to have good players around them. Or to borrow a poker analogy: “Every time they trade four potentially great players for one potentially excellent one, Redskins fans should cringe, because the team is never in position to give up red chips for a blue one. They never have enough red chips.”

[brickbacon]

@furt

I’m not sure what your point is here. Just looking at top-5 draft picks, the fact is that the vast majority of them do not develop into megastars. Here is the complete list of top-5 QBs in the years since Peyton Manning came into the league:

Peyton Manning
Ryan Leaf
Tim Couch
Donovan McNabb
Akili Smith
Michael Vick
David Carr
Joey Harrington
Carson Palmer
Eli Manning
Philip Rivers
Alex Smith
Vince Young
JaMarcus Russell
Matt Ryan
Matthew Stafford
Mark Sanchez
Sam Bradford
Cam Newton

By my count, that’s 10 of 19 who were good, solid QBs for the team that drafted them, and worthwhile picks. But how many megastars, worthy of not one but three first round picks? IMO, maybe three. Four at most. So you’re looking at something like a 20% chance of this trade working.

I would say 12 of 19 are good (Manning, McNabb, Vick, Palmer, Manning, Rivers, Young, Ryan, Stafford, Sanchez, Bradford, Newton). I can see Palmer, Young, Bradford, and Sanchez being debatable, but all have started a significant number of games in the league, and would have likely (in the case of Young, Bradford, and Palmer) have better careers if they were in better systems. Megastars? I think both Mannings, McNabb, Rivers, and Vick are in that discussion. And Newton may there if he keeps playing well.

@furt

Develop your own players; resign them, unless they want tons of money, in which case you let them walk. Use Free agency sparingly, only signing midlevel or low-risk types types to fill spots of need, not to bring in a major pieces. Keep your head coach, even when you have a down year. Maintain a consistent, stable organization. See: Pittsburgh Steelers, New York Giants, New England Patriots.

The Giants traded 3 draft picks for Eli. I generally agree with you, especially because the Redskins are one of the worst run sports teams in all of professional sports, but I think we will only know how bad this trade was a few years down the line. Sometimes, a gamble like this works out.

[Hamlet]

@brickbacon

Megastars? I think both Mannings, McNabb, Rivers, and Vick are in that discussion. And Newton may there if he keeps playing well.

There’s a difference between Megastar and elite QB. Of the ones listed, Peyton was elite, Eli, for this last year, was very close. McNabb might have been … for one year (2004). And Rivers certainly has the production, but I’m not sure I’d call him elite. All those other guys are good to very good. But RGIII being good to very good won’t be worth the price.

@brickbacon

The Giants traded 3 draft picks for Eli. I generally agree with you, especially because the Redskins are one of the worst run sports teams in all of professional sports, but I think we will only know how bad this trade was a few years down the line. Sometimes, a gamble like this works out.

Eli. That’s one. One of the top 10 QB’s in the game this past year where it worked out. When you total the number of top 5 QB drafted who haven’t against that one, I think the balance clearly tips in the favor of high risk. High risks sometimes do pay off. But more often than not, they don’t.

[furt]

@brickbacon

I would say 12 of 19 are good (Manning, McNabb, Vick, Palmer, Manning, Rivers, Young, Ryan, Stafford, Sanchez, Bradford, Newton). I can see Palmer, Young, Bradford, and Sanchez being debatable, but all have started a significant number of games in the league, and would have likely (in the case of Young, Bradford, and Palmer) have better careers if they were in better systems. Megastars? I think both Mannings, McNabb, Rivers, and Vick are in that discussion. And Newton may there if he keeps playing well.

I think it’s very likely that at least one of those last four will end up being a disappointment, perhaps more (many Jets fans will say Sanchez already is, and Stafford has played only one injury-free year). I don’t think you can call Young a success for the team that drafted him, nor Vick more than a moderate success for the team that drafted him. That’s part of the problem with investing so much for one guy: it leaves you more vulnerable to injuries or personality conflicts or other random crap that wind up making the pick not pan out (the player panning out at some future time for some other team doesn’t help the team drafting him). Moreover, few teams are going to show the patience to stick with a guy who doesn’t star in the first few years; certainly Snyder wouldn’t be patient the way the Giants had to be with Eli or the Niners with Alex Smith.

So it’s not just a matter of Griffin really being as talented as everyone thinks he is; its also that he has to show it fairly early, while avoiding injury and all other thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to.

[brickbacon]

@Hamlet

There’s a difference between Megastar and elite QB. Of the ones listed, Peyton was elite, Eli, for this last year, was very close. McNabb might have been … for one year (2004). And Rivers certainly has the production, but I’m not sure I’d call him elite. All those other guys are good to very good. But RGIII being good to very good won’t be worth the price.

Eli was very close? How do you define elite? How do you define megastar?

@Hamlet

Eli. That’s one. One of the top 10 QB’s in the game this past year where it worked out. When you total the number of top 5 QB drafted who haven’t against that one, I think the balance clearly tips in the favor of high risk. High risks sometimes do pay off. But more often than not, they don’t.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Many of the top 10 were not highly drafted (top 5). That said, if you are saying that a higher percentage of 6th round draft picks (Brady) , or undrafted players (Romo), work out than top 5 picks, I would lie to see some evidence of that. I think, generally speaking, high draft picks succeed at a higher rate than low draft picks.

[furt]

@brickbacon

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Many of the top 10 were not highly drafted (top 5). That said, if you are saying that a higher percentage of 6th round draft picks (Brady) , or undrafted players (Romo), work out than top 5 picks, I would lie to see some evidence of that. I think, generally speaking, high draft picks succeed at a higher rate than low draft picks.

That isn’t the point: nobody is saying that as a matter of strategy, you should rely only on late-round picks. It’s that ALL draft picks are inherently chancy, and so you don’t put all your eggs in one basket, no matter how attractive that basket appears to be. When in position to take a good QB prospect, you do it. But you do not give up the farm to take that one prospect, which is what Washington has done.

Despite what ESPN would have you believe, you can in fact have a winning team without an elite QB. You’ll find it hard to win without at least a decent one, but decent ones can be found in lots of places: later in the first round, in later rounds, in free agency, etc. Smart teams can and do win with lesser talents at the position, while keeping an eye out to improve.

[brickbacon]

@furt

I think it’s very likely that at least one of those last four will end up being a disappointment, perhaps more (many Jets fans will say Sanchez already is, and Stafford has played only one injury-free year). I don’t think you can call Young a success for the team that drafted him, nor Vick more than a moderate success for the team that drafted him.

Young had a very good record for the Titans. His play was often suspect, but his results were pretty impressive given the team was slightly above average during much of that time. With Young, the Titans were 30-17, without him, they were 15-18. That seems like a good amount of value added any way you slice it. To say he was not “good” is pretty unfair. How long does some one have to be an effective starter in the league before you consider him good?

@furt

That’s part of the problem with investing so much for one guy: it leaves you more vulnerable to injuries or personality conflicts or other random crap that wind up making the pick not pan out (the player panning out at some future time for some other team doesn’t help the team drafting him). Moreover, few teams are going to show the patience to stick with a guy who doesn’t star in the first few years; certainly Snyder wouldn’t be patient the way the Giants had to be with Eli or the Niners with Alex Smith.

Good points. As I said, I have ZERO confidence in the Redskins. I just think that that it’s probably a gamble worth taking given their history of bad decisions. If you consider a good QB a necessity, I don’t know where else they can find one at a cost they can actually pay.

Second, even if they kept those picks, and drafted a competent, overlooked QB in a later round, there is no guarantee that guy would ever see the field. People always forget that guys like Tom Brady would have likely never sniffed greatness had Bledsoe not gone down. Who’s not to say Matt Cassel wouldn’t be great if he were still a starter in NE? The point is that a lot of this is happenstance. Often, injuries give us an unexpected glimpse of a backup who happens to preform well. Very rarely will someone take a chance on one of those guys over a lesser, known quantity. So even if the Skins found another Brady, the chances he would ever play are still pretty slim. It’s not just a question of relative likelihood of talent, it’s a matter of having the means of recognizing such talent.

@furt

So it’s not just a matter of Griffin really being as talented as everyone thinks he is; its also that he has to show it fairly early, while avoiding injury and all other thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to.

But he will get a chance to show it early. That is some ways is the genius of such a decision. It kinda forces their hand to get some protection around RG3 and some people to throw to. They have to focus their resources towards things like those as opposed to overpaying washed up former superstars.

[brickbacon]

@furt

That isn’t the point: nobody is saying that as a matter of strategy, you should rely only on late-round picks. It’s that ALL draft picks are inherently chancy, and so you don’t put all your eggs in one basket, no matter how attractive that basket appears to be. When in position to take a good QB prospect, you do it. But you do not give up the farm to take that one prospect, which is what Washington has done.

Of course, but the other thing you need to consider is how valuable “the farm” is. When you have little to lose, these asymmetric bets make much more sense. The downside would be the Redskins continue to suck ass. RG3 blows up, and they stay relatively bad. The upside is that you get much better with a franchise QB.

When was the last time some traded a franchise QB? It was probably when Brees got traded, and that only happened because they had Rivers, and because Brees was thought to be a cripple. So they aren’t going to be able to trade for a known quantity at QB. They can however get (elite) players at nearly every other position given time and money. So as far as QBs are concerned, that only leaves drafting as a means of obtaining one. The question then becomes, is the likelihood of RG3 working out higher than the combined likelihood that the other 4 picks yielding a great QB would have. I would guess that the chances are closer than most would imagine.

@furt

Despite what ESPN would have you believe, you can in fact have a winning team without an elite QB. You’ll find it hard to win without at least a decent one, but decent ones can be found in lots of places: later in the first round, in later rounds, in free agency, etc. Smart teams can and do win with lesser talents at the position, while keeping an eye out to improve.

Yeah, it happens, but it’s very hard to do without a relatively weak division, an otherwise capable team, and a lot of luck. The typical example here would be the Jets. Sanchez is a decent to good QB who has been enough to not lose them many game. The same could probably be said for Tebow over a stretch last year. That said, the problem with having a decent QB who is a game manager is that the mild success that comes with such a strategy is more of a straight jacket against becoming a very good team than being terrible is. You won’t get good picks, nor will you want to take a chance of getting worse. The Jets couldn’t even take a risk on Peyton because going backwards is a legitimate worry. The Skins do not have to worry about getting worse.

[furt]

@brickbacon

Young had a very good record for the Titans. His play was often suspect, but his results were pretty impressive given the team was slightly above average during much of that time. With Young, the Titans were 30-17, without him, they were 15-18. That seems like a good amount of value added any way you slice it. To say he was not “good” is pretty unfair. How long does some one have to be an effective starter in the league before you consider him good?

Meh. We’re splitting hairs here, but in five years he never won more than nine games as a starter, they made the playoffs once. I’m not saying he was godawful; he had his moments and certainly you could say that if he had never got hurt and if Jeff Fisher handled him differently things would have gone differently. But they didn’t, and the bottom line is that he never produced what they were expecting, which is why they released him when he was still under contract. ISTM that says it all.

Good points. As I said, I have ZERO confidence in the Redskins. I just think that that it’s probably a gamble worth taking given their history of bad decisions. If you consider a good QB a necessity, I don’t know where else they can find one at a cost they can actually pay.

Ryan Tannehill will likely be on the board at #7. Matt Flynn is available as a free agent. Both have a real chance to be viable starters, and both would have cost much, much less. If they didn’t like either one of them, David Garrard or some other functional veteran could be obtained, and Matt Barkley, Aaron Murray and Landry Jones are all coming out next year. For the price they paid for Griffin, they could have drafted Tannehill AND signed Flynn, and had them compete, AND taken Barkley next year (and yes, it can be done; c.f. Aikman and Walsh).

Second, even if they kept those picks, and drafted a competent, overlooked QB in a later round, there is no guarantee that guy would ever see the field. People always forget that guys like Tom Brady would have likely never sniffed greatness had Bledsoe not gone down. Who’s not to say Matt Cassel wouldn’t be great if he were still a starter in NE? The point is that a lot of this is happenstance. Often, injuries give us an unexpected glimpse of a backup who happens to preform well. Very rarely will someone take a chance on one of those guys over a lesser, known quantity. So even if the Skins found another Brady, the chances he would ever play are still pretty slim. It’s not just a question of relative likelihood of talent, it’s a matter of having the means of recognizing such talent.

So … what? We should only play high-pedigree players? Or we should play lots of unheralded young guys, because there’s absolutely no way of knowing which will be good until they do, just like Bill Belichick was shocked and stunned to see Tom Brady play well? What exactly are you proposing as a course of action here?

Call me crazy, but I suspect Brady had risen from 6th round pick to #2 in a year behind Bledsoe precisely because of what Belichick saw in practice. The injury moved his timetable up and the situation he wound up in were enormously advantageous to him, obviously. But I do not conclude therefore that all talent evaluation is a crapshoot … and if I did, it seems all the more reason not to bet so much on one single roll of the dice.

But he will get a chance to show it early. That is some ways is the genius of such a decision. It kinda forces their hand to get some protection around RG3 and some people to throw to. They have to focus their resources towards things like those as opposed to overpaying washed up former superstars.

This is akin to saying I should go out and buy a million-dollar house that I can’t really afford … because then my hand will be forced and I’ll have to get a better job!

A quality supporting cast does not appear just because you need one. Dan Marino spent most of his career on teams that needed a running game and a defense, but he never got either. John Elway never did get top-flight receiver, nor a RB until the very end. Archie Manning never got much of anything. As the man says, “Nor does the being hungry prove that we have bread.”

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@RTFirefly

I’d much rather that the Redskins go after RGIII than take a chance that Peyton Manning still has it.

That said, there’s something to Hippy Hollow’s thinking. The Danny has made the Redskins into such a crap team that it’s really hard to make them much crappier. What’s the potential downside of this trade, really? That RGIII bombs, and the Redskins are still crappy, and down a few big draft picks. The potential downside of not making it is that the Redskins don’t make much use of those draft picks, are still without a decent QB in 2015 or whenever, and are still going nowhere.

The Redskins are so close to the South Pole of talent and team cohesion that practically every direction is north. And the directions that take them south, don’t take them very far south, because there just isn’t that much further south to go.

As a fan of the Detroit Lions, who recently went 0-16 not too long ago, that’s total bullshit and handwaving, although I do totally identify with the ennui.

I’ve seen a crappier team. The real reason the team was crappy was Matt Millen. Aside from a few years of prosperity and some mediocrity, the Redskins are pretty bad. Dan Snyder needs to clean house and stay the fuck out of the front office, though.

[brickbacon]

@furt

Ryan Tannehill will likely be on the board at #7. Matt Flynn is available as a free agent. Both have a real chance to be viable starters, and both would have cost much, much less.

True, but they are trying to hit a homerun, not a double. As I said before, mediocrity, is more a burden to improving in certain circumstances than sucking is. There is freedom in not being able to get much worse.

@Voyager

If they didn’t like either one of them, David Garrard or some other functional veteran could be obtained, and Matt Barkley, Aaron Murray and Landry Jones are all coming out next year. For the price they paid for Griffin, they could have drafted Tannehill AND signed Flynn, and had them compete, AND taken Barkley next year (and yes, it can be done; c.f. Aikman and Walsh).

And then people would be botching for them signing 3 QBs instead of getting other positions. Not to mention all those other guys still in college may not even pan out for one reason or another.

@Voyager

So … what? We should only play high-pedigree players? Or we should play lots of unheralded young guys, because there’s absolutely no way of knowing which will be good until they do, just like Bill Belichick was shocked and stunned to see Tom Brady play well? What exactly are you proposing as a course of action here?

If you are trying to tell me Belichick expected Brady to be Brady, I think you are full of shit. My point was that in the alternate universe where Bledsoe doesn’t go down, you likely think of Brady as an average QB on some shitty team that overpaid him (eg. Matt Cassel).

My point was that there are only 16 games, you can start one person, and if your #1 is decent, the backup will never see the field. Because, they never see the field, they often don’t develop. I am of the belief that their are a few people as talented as Brady that never got any time, or were in a bad situation. I don’t say that as a knock on Brady, as I think he is a spectacular player. I just think opportunities for guy’s who had his draft spot are few and far between regardless of talent.

@Voyager

This is akin to saying I should go out and buy a million-dollar house that I can’t really afford … because then my hand will be forced and I’ll have to get a better job!

No, it’s recognizing that if you are going to spend a million dollars, do it in a way that has greater upside. Your argument is like saying its better to buy 6 food trucks than to buy one franchise restaurant. Yeah, your food truck might be very successful, but the upside is not like owning a McDonald’s or BK.

Or alternatively, a regular guy is more likely to take a double or nothing bet if he is 30MM in the hole as opposed to 10K in the hole. Why? Because the functional difference between 30MM and 60MM is small. The Skins can’t get much worse, and being GOOD in their division doesn’t even guarantee them a playoff spot.

@Voyager

A quality supporting cast does not appear just because you need one. Dan Marino spent most of his career on teams that needed a running game and a defense, but he never got either. John Elway never did get top-flight receiver, nor a RB until the very end. Archie Manning never got much of anything. As the man says, “Nor does the being hungry prove that we have bread.”

Right, but you can get better at most positions via free agency or draft development. The rarity of an elite QB means you need to either get really lucky or smart, or draft them. As we know, the Skins are neither lucky nor smart.

[Tom_Tildrum]

Further to what brickbacon is saying, note that even Joe Gibbs, a coach with a proven record of winning Super Bowls with good-but-not-great quarterbacks, wasn’t able to get anywhere with today’s Redskins. If the opportunity is there for a quarterback who may turn out to be one of the elite, I can’t fault them for taking that gamble.

[Hamlet]

@brickbacon

True, but they are trying to hit a homerun, not a double.

And giving what they did, they made certain that they can only win if they hit a homerun and, in the process, made it harder to hit a homerun.

@brickbacon

As I said before, mediocrity, is more a burden to improving in certain circumstances than sucking is. There is freedom in not being able to get much worse.

Yeah, look at how free the Rams, Bucs, Lions, and the Browns have had it. At least now, after a couple of first round draft picks that they DIDN’T overpay pay for, the Lions actually appear on the upswing.

@brickbacon

No, it’s recognizing that if you are going to spend a million dollars, do it in a way that has greater upside. Your argument is like saying its better to buy 6 food trucks than to buy one franchise restaurant. Yeah, your food truck might be very successful, but the upside is not like owning a McDonald’s or BK.

What a crappy analogy. You’re not buying one franchise restaurant, you’re buying a chance that your buying a franchise restaurant, and you’re paying the price of two and a half franchise restaurants to do it. And you’re not buying 6 food trucks, you’re buying two and a half more chances that you get a franchise restaurant (albeit less of a chance). Again, I love RGIII, but declaring him a “franchise” anything at this point, and declaring all other QB’s to be “food trucks” is a huge assumption. And you know what they say about assumptions. You make an ass out of you and umption.

[treis]

@brickbacon

True, but they are trying to hit a homerun, not a double.

Sure, but they are trying to hit a home run while down 3. That team has too many holes. Even if RG3 is a stud, they aren’t going to be a very good team.

[garygnu]

It’s a stupid idea to try to plug all your other holes before getting a franchise QB. Take the franchise QB whenever and wherever you can get him, then fix the rest.

[Hamlet]

@garygnu

It’s a stupid idea to try to plug all your other holes before getting a franchise QB. Take the franchise QB whenever and wherever you can get him, then fix the rest.

Of course you take an elite QB when you can. And if this trade was for an established elite QB, I’d be all for it. But it’s not. It’s for a chance at an prospect who might develop into an elite QB, while not being able to surround him with first round talent (and a second round talent) for two years and while there is another free agent who has a chance of being an elite QB and next year there will more than likely be two if not more guys who have an equal if not better chance of possibly developing into an elite QB.

I would think a guy whose team spent a #1 pick on a guy who didn’t develop into an elite QB and passed on a guy who did would understand.

[garygnu]

I wanted Rodgers in 2005 and I hate Mike Nolan.

But you’re right, this is for a prospect. I was looking at it as the Redskins are convinced RGIII is the one.

[furt]

@brickbacon

True, but they are trying to hit a homerun, not a double. As I said before, mediocrity, is more a burden to improving in certain circumstances than sucking is.

ALL of the QBs we’re looking at have the possibility of being “home runs.” ALL of them have the chance of being “doubles.” ALL of them have the chance of sucking on ice. NONE of them are known quantities. Pretending otherwise is fantasy.

And then people would be botching for them signing 3 QBs instead of getting other positions.

So? Screw “people.”

If they really think the QB position is so essential, they could draft Tannehill this year, and if he plays terribly, they take another one next year and let them compete. The Panthers drafted Newton right after taking Clausen in round 2. Jimmy Johnson took 2 QBs in the first round in the same offseason.

Not to mention all those other guys still in college may not even pan out for one reason or another.

Hmmmm… sounds like a good idea to not bet too much on one guy right out of college, eh?

If you are trying to tell me Belichick expected Brady to be Brady, I think you are full of shit. My point was that in the alternate universe where Bledsoe doesn’t go down, you likely think of Brady as an average QB on some shitty team that overpaid him (eg. Matt Cassel). My point was that there are only 16 games, you can start one person, and if your #1 is decent, the backup will never see the field. Because, they never see the field, they often don’t develop. I am of the belief that their are a few people as talented as Brady that never got any time, or were in a bad situation. I don’t say that as a knock on Brady, as I think he is a spectacular player. I just think opportunities for guy’s who had his draft spot are few and far between regardless of talent.

If they are good enough to earn a roster spot, they get watched in practice; if they’re good enough, they’ll usually get an opportunity sooner or later; either on their own team or elsewhere. Matt Schaub never saw the field much for the Falcons, but because he was good, he got a chance elsewhere. Ditto another half-dozen or so other mid-round picks (or lower) who have started recently: Ryan Fitzpatrick, Matt Hasselbeck, etc. So w/r/t to Brady, had Bledsoe never got hurt, he’d have become a well-regarded young backup, as Flynn is now, and yes, someone would likely have given him a shot sooner or later.

No, it’s recognizing that if you are going to spend a million dollars, do it in a way that has greater upside. Your argument is like saying its better to buy 6 food trucks than to buy one franchise restaurant. Yeah, your food truck might be very successful, but the upside is not like owning a McDonald’s or BK.

Griffin is NOT a franchise QB. He MAY be. So might all the others.

Look, quantify it: You said you considered only 12 of the last 19 top-5 QBs “good,” and 4 of the 19 “megastars” for the team that drafted them. By that reckoning, and rounding up to be generous, we can estimate that Griffin has something like a 25% chance of being great, an additional 40% of being at least “good,” (counting Young) and a 35% of winding up like Tim Couch, David Carr, and the rest of the “can’t-miss” prospects who did.

Over the same period, QBs taken in rounds 6-32 were

Daunte Culpepper
Cade McNown
Chad Pennington
Patrick Ramsey
Byron Leftwich
Kyle Boller
Rex Grossman
Ben Roethlisberger
J.P. Losman
Aaron Rodgers
Jason Campbell
Matt Leinart
Jay Cutler
Brady Quinn
Joe Flacco
Josh Freeman
Tim Tebow
Christian Ponder
Blaine Gabbert
Jake Locker

Of those 20, I count two that are unquestionably elite, and another 9 that we at least “good” (defined as “likely to do as much for their team as Vince Young”). Of course, it’s very early with the young ones, but IMO Locker looks decent and the other two from last year don’t.

So, Top 5: 25% great, 40% good, 35% bad.
Later round 1: 10% great, 45% good, 45% bad.

For top 5, insert “RG3”
For the rest, insert “Ryan Tannehill”

By moving up five spots, the Redskins did not get a franchise QB. They did not get a guy with more “upside” than they could have gotten anywhere else. They got something in the neighborhood of a 15% better chance of getting a franchise QB. That’s it. And they gave up three other picks, which, if history holds, would have netted them two useful players at other positions of need, of which they have plenty.

Now, if you want to assert that history is no guide to the future, or that you know more than the NFL scouting apparatus that led to guys like Akili Smith and Cade McNown … well, you’re entitled to your opinion.

If you have a data-driven argument, I’d like to hear it.

[furt]

I apologize for the snarky tone of that last post; I’m pissed off at someone IRL right now, and it came out in the wrong place.

[SenorBeef]

I think Griffin has a lower bust potential than average - he’s smart, hard working, has already faced adversity, etc. He’s a much better prospect than guys like Couch or Carr.

Of course you can say people say that about every QB that comes along - I can only say that I do not, and Griffin is the prospect I’d be most excited about in at least the last 5 years.