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

[brickbacon]

@Hamlet

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

I disagree. That would only be true if they would have more difficulty filling their holes via free agency than they would drafting. I don’t think that is the case.

@Hamlet

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.

Of course you can just suck without getting better. That doesn’t negate the point.

@Hamlet

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.

The “franchise” part means that with RG3, you get more of a known quantity with more upside, like a franchise restairant. There is no guarantee it will work out, franchise or no franchise. There is always risk with any enterprise. It’s an apt analogy because you always “overpay” for a franchise because there is less risk. Just as the Skins are “overpaying” for a better shot at an elite QB..

[brickbacon]

@furt

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.

But the chances for each individual are very different. Nobody is saying RG3 or even Luck are locks. It’s just that the likelihood they are great is far higher than most others.

@furt

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.

They could, but giving up on a guy after a season is a bit unfair. With RG3, they are committed. That commitment is good when were are talking about an organization that routinely makes terrible judgment calls.

@furt

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

It is, but what choice do you have? The chances of getting an elite QB via other means is basically zero.

@furt

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.

Maybe, but I doubt he would be as great as he is now if he were in a different situation.

@furt

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

Do you mean picks 6-32? Even so, you are ignoring context completely. Players like Big Ben only went at pick 11 because two other elite QBs were drafted ahead of him. Not to mention that some of the other teams didn’t need a QB. People draft for their needs. Where one is drafted is not always a reflection of their perceived talent.

@furt

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

The gap between the two by most accounts is pretty large.

@furt

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.

Even accepting your numbers, what makes you think 15% percent greater chance of long-term franchise success is trivial? Does it matter if I were to say one’s chances were 2.5 times greater? This is clearly a very small sample size which makes statistical analysis a rough guide at best, but even if we accept the numbers, how much should that be worth?

[Hippy_Hollow]

It’s fun to bag on the Redskins, but as a lifelong fan, they’re nowhere near as bad as many who have posted here make them out to be. Trust me, I’ve seen enough games with McNabb, Campbell, or Grossman throwing a pick six in the 4th quarter when the team in fact was in a position to win.

The Redskins finished at the bottom of the Beast, yes. But they were atop the division for a significant portion of the season. They beat the Giants - yes, the Super Bowl winning Giants - twice. Narrowly lost to the Cowboys both times. The only NFC East team to take the Redskins to the woodshed was the Eagles (damn that DeSean Jackson).

The one position that the Redskins have not had consistent-to-good play in the last 15 years is QB. During this period, they’ve had monster running games, smothering defenses… but no game changer at QB. I don’t think Ryan Tannehill is a complete stiff… but I’m in Big XII country - I got to see Tannehill play quite a bit. My beloved Longhorns mudstomped ol’ Ryan in a legendary game that they had no business winning. He looked terrible. And that wasn’t the only bad game he played in - Tannehill only played QB for 2 years; he was actually a receiver until the QB situation got so bad that he got the job. I think the drop off from Luck/RGIII and the rest of the QBs in this draft is massive.

It’s overwhelmingly obvious that the McNabb/Grossman/Beck experiment in DC has been a massive failure. One has to understand, however, who the Redskins front office is accountable to. They have a rabid fan base who have absolutely given up on this franchise. And this isn’t Detroit, or New Orleans, or Cleveland, who are used to fielding very mediocre, snakebitten teams. (No offense to fans in those cities, who have all had much greater success than Washington in recent years.) Seeing FedEx Field half empty, boo birds out in full glory, is not a normal sight in DC.

The average Redskins fan is cautiously optimistic to ecstatic about the trade. I haven’t seen any noticeable negative reaction. It’s buying patience and goodwill from the fanbase for a few years. RGIII is an electrifying player, in a way that none of the Akili Smiths and David Carrs have been. If anything, he most resembles Vince Young in the respect that he was a dominant college talent that took the sport by storm. The difference, IMO, is that he seems to be a much more serious student of the game, and has been all his college career.

All of the speculation, either predicting this as a masterstroke or the worst trade ever, is OTT. The bottom line is this - if RGIII brings the Redskins to any measure of respectability, the fans will embrace him. Realistically, short of him becoming demonstrably the worst QB ever, or the next coming of Joe Montana, I’m pretty sure the naysayers will find criticism with the trade and how RGIII pans out… and the fanboys will rationalize it. Clearly, I’m closer to the latter than the former, but I don’t think Redskins fans are expecting the guy to walk on water - but the trade, IMO, was the right move to make to upgrade this franchise.

[RTFirefly]

I guess what worries me isn’t so much that the trade will be a titanic bust, as that RG3 will play the role that Sonny Jurgensen played in the Redskins franchise in the pre-Lombardi years: he could keep the team competitive in any game, but overall his main effect was to keep them at or within reach of 7-7 (back in the 14-game season days), rather than 3-11 or 4-10 all the time.

You’re right that during the past 15 years they’ve had all the pieces except QB at one time or another, but I think you’d have to go back to the 2000 team to find one that had all the pieces except QB at the same time. And I bet we could easily go that long without its happening again.

What sin did we commit, to deserve Dan Snyder?

[Sailboat]

When are they going to spend picks on offensive linemen? Why are they assuming this hypothetical franchise quarterback will live long enough to develop his skills behind a porous line?