-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NFL Offseason Thread 2015 |OT2| Home of Baseball, Anime, Cricket, and Magic Johnson
- Thread starter Fox318
- Start date
Every definition? They won the division in his rookie season and he won Rookie of the Year. That's one definition in which the trade was a success. I just don't understand how the RG3 trade was a bad one, again, conceptually, when we know Shanahan leaving him in a game in which he was clearly injured was the turning point. Up until that point, the trade was a complete success. If Eli Manning had gotten injured and his career went off track and he never won a Super Bowl, would that trade have been a bad one? No. He hasn't missed a game and he's won two Super Bowls. Circumstances do matter.
hipsterpants
Member
Maybe if they had any consistency. This is a team that went on like an 80-0 run over two and a half games, then followed it up with their worst defensive performance in 3 years.
Fisher needs to somehow not be mediocre for a season and win like 10 games with Bradford at qb to have any chance of staying.
Futurevoid
Member
Yes. Absolutely. The goal of every team in the NFL is to win a championship. Not make the playoffs one year and spiral into total shit afterwards. It's not a hard concept to understand. 5-10 years into Eli Manning being the QB of the Giants and the team had still not won a championship? Yes, that's a poor/failed trade considering what was given up to bring Eli to NY.
Congrats on your consolation prize, Redskins. I'm sure that makes it sting a little less.
Conceptually, I'd love 10 gorgeous women to be blowing me right now. In the real world (you know, where we all live) - that isn't happening. Results matter more than any "concept" you want to discuss that went through the Redskins front office's mind or a fluke season of success that still didn't bring a trophy home.
The NFL is a results-based business. In theory, giving up all that for a true franchise QB is a fine trade. In reality, that guy has to actually become that franchise QB, otherwise that trade is a failure.
Yes, part of it, such as injury, is out of anyone's control, but tough shit. Welcome to the league.
Yes, part of it, such as injury, is out of anyone's control, but tough shit. Welcome to the league.
I feel like you're being dense right now, looking at results instead of process. If the Eagles are in position to make the same trade to get Marcus Mariota, you'd advise them against it... why? Because Chip Kelly's ineptitude may lead to Mariota getting injured?
The Colts trade for Trent Richardson was bad because it was bad. The price was too high, the player wasn't good, and the team didn't have the luxury of being without a 1st round pick. If the Colts had won the Super Bowl this season, guess what? The trade still would have been bad.
Im just not big on the idea of mortgaging your teams future for one players potential. Build up your team and be patient. Also don't hinge any success on hiring big name free agents to build your team, they are complimentary pieces only.
Ive already seen posts here wanting the Eagles to do both.
Ive already seen posts here wanting the Eagles to do both.
It's the best way to build. Hard part is actually drafting the right guys.
They also got that once every ten years luck of having a late drafted rookie QB be a generational star which allows you to blow the bank on every other aspect of your team and contend every year until he gets paid thing going for them.
Futurevoid
Member
Feelings mutual.
I know. Sucks to be a realist.
We're not discussing the Eagles. We're discussing the Washington Redskins. At no point have I said I'm for or against anyone trading picks for a franchise QB (an amusing proposition considering I'm a fan of a franchise that made a similar trade and has two Super Bowls to show for it). I've said that the trade the Washington Redskins executed to bring in Robert Griffin III was an unmitigated failure by any measuring stick you throw at. Nothing more, nothing less.
I'll play your game though - the Eagles aren't a dumb fuck organization. If Kelly feels Mariota is his man and has a plan in place to execute then make the trade. Three years from now if Mariota is a complete bust and the Eagles are in a worse place than they are today - guess what? I'll judge the trade the same exact way I'm judging the RGIII trade - as a complete failure.
Hindsight is a beautiful thing. Glad you understand that results matter. Would you so easily pass judgment if Richardson would have had 1 season of rushing for 1500 yards, went to the pro-bowl and then went to complete shit? (laughable scenario I know but still!)
:jnc please
Our passing game has been atrocious, Russell's biggest quality has been clutch play and improvisation. He wouldn't have nearly the same amount of success on a team with a lesser running game and defense.
It's not like we got Andrew Luck in the third round.
Exactly
See above.
You don't "bank" on getting a Russell Wilson in the 3rd round. You do what Godslay has said and use a pick every year on a new QB even if it is just a project and see what happens. With a lot of pieces in place you remain competitive. And as history as shown a team doesn't need to be an all time great or have an all star QB to win a Super Bowl. A hot team gets some luck and makes a run
DeaconKnowledge
Member
Russell Wilson is RGIII on a good team.
Well, actually, we were discussing the Eagles, and my point was that the RG3 trade shouldn't be a deterrent for the Eagles if they want to trade up for Marcus Mariota because circumstances beyond the control of the GM who made the trade caused the trade to be a failure. I don't think you've made any sound point to dispute that. Instead, you're acting like an analyst who can only cite QB wins as proof of a quarterback's ability.
I looked back at my original wording. I did ask if the trade was a bad one, and obviously, it was a bad trade. That wasn't what I intended to talk about.
Ninja Scooter
Member
The RG3 trade was a failure and I'd still do it all over again.
And not made of glass.
I do think Russell is a much better decision-maker than IRG3 though.
Your receivers sucked this year but he had a very nice and very accurate deep ball, has pocket presence unlike a lot of other "athletic" QBs, and seems to have his head on right. He does look gastly from time to time but he's still young. I think he's probably going to end up with a great career and there's no doubt that their continued success these past two years owes a lot to not having to pay a QB a real salary making the contracts largely a non issue so far.
The same thing happened with Brady and the pats and besides the Sophomore slump that team remained viable for the next four years because of how the money worked out.
Himynameischris
Member
I was the first to finish my quiz, in your face bread!
Futurevoid
Member
Nope. Sorry. I made no comment whatsoever on any that until my last response (which you conveniently ignored and I actually agree with you on in so far as the Eagles are concerned). I specifically quoted your question about whether the RG3 trade was "bad". Nothing more nothing less. I've given my opinion on that front and my reasoning behind it. You're more than welcome to disagree with it.
EDIT:
Fair enough. As I said above, I don't disagree with you fundamentally that the Eagles should not shy away because of the RG3 trade. I don't think that has (or should have) any bearing on their decision making. Chip made a power play early in the offseason for a reason and this gives him the opportunity to do what he wants to do to bring in Mariota if he chooses. He and the Eagles organization need to do what feels right for them but they should be judged much the same as any of these blockbuster trades should be judged - the overall results.
I'd rather play the game of hinging on mediocrity every year and cycling through QBs until a hit, than blowing those picks and sinking as a team on a huge risk. If you hit on that risk, then you've won. The likelihood of that is slim though. I would rather spend say a 1st, a 4th or 5th or 6th, and bring in vets and undrafted QBs each year and let the best bubble to the top. I'd keep doing this until you either get better at evaluating talent, get fired, or hit on your guy.
I'd maintain the team in the mean time. If you maintain a level of talent as a whole on the team, it will make that transition from mediocrity to contenders that much easier when you get a competent guy.
If you blow all that on a QB and he doesn't pan out, then you're out a QB and pick from less talented player pool for the years to come. So you lose twice, for several years if it doesn't work out.
I guess it's just a matter of how much risk you are willing to take.
Yeah, I apologize for calling you dense. We were basically talking about two different things, that's why I couldn't understand why you didn't get my point. I was saying that the trade wasn't "bad" in the sense that if I could go back in time and whisper in Bruce Allen's hear before he consummates the trade, I wouldn't tell him not to do it. On the other hand, I would go back and whisper in Ryan Grigson's ear not to make the Trent Richardson trade. Both are bad trades that didn't work out, but I didn't think the Redskins made a "bad" trade per se, it just proved to be a bad one with time.
RG3 trade was conceptually a bad trade simply because you increase your risk.
If you hit on the gamble, you have an elite QB. Odds of this happening are slim. You lose potentially 4 starters in exchange for one. Team is stronger in the long term due to having the guy to build around, but weaker in the short term as a whole. The is the best case, and least likely given history.
If you sort of hit and get a mediocre guy, then you are still at a loss. You probably could have got the same talent with one of the picks you traded off and still had more picks to play with.
Worst case you get a shit QB and you select from a weaker talent pool due to trading all the picks away.
2 out of the 3 scenarios are losers, without considering injury.
If you hit on the gamble, you have an elite QB. Odds of this happening are slim. You lose potentially 4 starters in exchange for one. Team is stronger in the long term due to having the guy to build around, but weaker in the short term as a whole. The is the best case, and least likely given history.
If you sort of hit and get a mediocre guy, then you are still at a loss. You probably could have got the same talent with one of the picks you traded off and still had more picks to play with.
Worst case you get a shit QB and you select from a weaker talent pool due to trading all the picks away.
2 out of the 3 scenarios are losers, without considering injury.
Futurevoid
Member
Understood. Its all good. I apologize for coming off pissier than I meant to. I'm running on three hours of sleep over here.
If the Redskins had made the trade for Andrew Luck instead of RG3, do you still think it would be a bad trade, conceptually? I mean, obviously, it's all subjective, but I don't think it would be. It's all a matter of the different avenues of team building. I'm of the opinion that if you feel like you can acquire a franchise QB, there's no cost too high to do so.
Yep. It's a gamble, and when you gamble with company resources, you're held accountable for the results.
Luck is a bargain at 4 picks.
Cam Newton, even with his injuries, was probably also a bargain if someone had traded 4 picks for him.
Alligatorjandro
Banned
Just need a dink and dunker
DeaconKnowledge
Member
It helps to have one of the top 10 greatest defenses of all time.
Where can I get one
Alligatorjandro
Banned
Conceptually yes.
By the odds you are gambling with any draft pick, but stand to lose more if you gamble on that pick with other picks.
I would rather draft three QBs in consecutive drafts in the first round than just take one and trade the picks. I like those odds better.
Might end up with three mediocre guys, but you've got two more chances to get it right. You are selecting from potentially less talented guys, but in the case of trading you've only got one chance to get it right.
Luck was unique in that he was as sure a bet as you could get. The risk was still there, albeit reduced to some degree. So conceptually you still stand to lose more often then not.
8 X 11 Printer Paper
Member
My labtop is falling apart, only tape and a quarter is holding it together.....
http://blackandbluereview.com/ted-ginn-leaning-toward-cleveland-but-carolina-has-a-case/
lol, go ahead and commit career suicide Teddy
lol, go ahead and commit career suicide Teddy
Whose, Cleveland's? I guess #1 by default?
FrenchMovieTheme
Member
and even when he does its like a good punt so he is never not good
Fuck you
8 X 11 Printer Paper
Member
Something that will clog your arteries...I want some damn fired chicken, stupid diet.
Similar threads
- Locked