"“For the Redskins to get the equivalent value from RGIII as they spent acquiring him, he must produce at least as much as Tom Brady. If RGIII merely lives up to his eCAVOA, he’ll finish his career having slightly outperformed David Garrard (61 CAV). Because all-time-great quarterbacks are rare commodities, the Redskins likely lost value both on paper and in reality.”
Be prepared for a lot of math if you plan on reading the article Link
- ( New Window
If he brings them 1 championship and lots of excitement it's worth it. Redskins haven't had a good QB as far back as I can remember.
This is a team went from four SB appearances w/ 3 different QBs in a decade to one that has sucked for two decades. In terms of winning/playoff appearances over that span they are one of the worst teams in the league. All he needs to do is make them a winning franchise, a perennial contender over his career. I could even go as far as to say he needs to win a SB, but even then just one.
If they win at least 1 championship and are a perennial playoff contenders with Griffin then the trade was worth it.
for one elite qb.
I would give you a second round pick for Shady or Arian Foster.
Elite qbs win in this league. Getting one is the only way to succeed.
as long as he brings that team back to prominence or they win at least 1 Chip. That will validate the trade.
But anyway, he doesn't need to be Tom Brady, because few have been, are, or will be, but he has to be very, very good. They gave up a TREMENDOUS amount for him.
So, he has to be one of the top 10 QBs of all time? That seems a bit much.
Wow, that's fucking stupid.
I'd love to mock the Redskins for making a bad trade, and they paid a heavy price for RGIII, but franchise QB's are hard to find. He doesn't have to be Tom Brady reincarnated for the trade to be a good one.
If it's just the 2nd pick of the draft, it can't be considered a bad pick if you get a long-term pretty good starting QB-- someone like a McNabb or a Hasselbeck (the good one). Putting up the 4th overall, plus 2 future to-be-determined 1st round picks, though, is trading a lot of red chips to maybe get one blue one.
The question isn't "will he make the Skins competitive?"-- it's "will he make the Skins more competitive than the guys they could've gotten with all those other picks would have?"
What if he's just Ben Roethlisberger ?? What if he stumbles into his first Super Bowl and the team wins it without a good performance by him, and then he gets to another Bowl and wins it with better stats ?? Is that good enough to justify what they gave up ??
What if he turns out to be Eli Manning ?? What if he gets to 2 Super Bowls and leads his team to victory in the 4th Quarter, not once but twice ?? What if he's named SB MVP in each of those big games ?? Is that worth it ??
I think just about every Giants fan is now convinced that acquiring Eli via trade was worth the picks the Giants gave up.
Eli does not (yet) have Tom Brady numbers. I think he has raised the bar too high for RG3.
The article is right. The Skins gave up way too much and probably just made one of the worst trades in NFL history.
than a real world NFL one. I haven't looked into it much, but it sounds like CAV (and all the related numbers based on it) is determined almost entirely by points scored by the offensive player's offenses over the seasons compared to league averages.
It doesn't take into account wins, playoff appearances, Super Bowls, etc. You know, all the stuff that really matters in the NFL but doesn't matter at all in fantasy football. And all the things that are brought to mind when you think of a guy like Tom Brady.
if they win 1 SB...it's not too much.
I'd trade a complete draft (or 2) for 1 SB, and so would any NFL franchise.
Trades can't be measured at the time of the trade...need to wait a decade then we can judge it.
I walk away from the article with the thought that it was a very risky move. If RG3 does not pan out for any reason...the Skins are screwed. But if he becomes a top 10 QB for the Skins it was worth it.
Right now an elite QB is a must. A few tweeks of the rules could remove the advantage and make QB's less valuable.
IF RGIII doesn't pan out. That's the risk. If he develops into a top-10 caliber QB, then it was worth it. It is the most important position on the field, one that makes winning much more difficult if you don't have the right guy.
Time will tell if this was a good trade or not, not some Harvard calculation.
Everyone thought the Giants got robbed.....until Eli started winning titles. It'll be the same for Griffin. If he wins, it's a great deal.
I think the main point of the article is that the Redskins can only win a Super Bowl if RGIII becomes a Tom Brady type player. Giving up all those picks/value means the rest of your team will suffer. The Examples of Big Ben are bad examples, because RGIII isn't walking into a Super Bowl contending team that can win despite him. The Skins need to hit homeruns with several other draft picks in order to win a title anytime soon. By trading away so many high draft picks, you are reducing the chances of being able to do that. So this kid HAS to become a stud QB for the Skins to win a Super Bowl, or they will have to get incredibly lucky on most of their other draft picks.
hit the nail on the head.
is that in time RGIII will develop into a very good to excellent QB. To be a consistent winner the Skins will have to add the pieces that go into a contender or a SB winner. They were a poor team last year. Aside from RGIII they've only upgraded themselves in a few spots. They won't have the picks this year to significantly add good pieces and will be. Next year they will also be limited in the draft. Overall I think RGIII will improve the team and he'll certainly create more media attention. The worth of his being drafted can only be assessed down the road. I think he is a real good kid but I hate to see him being coached by Shanahan with Danny Boy as the owner.
I'm hoping he spends the five years of his rookie contract with Redskins and then leaves for another team just as he's in his prime.
Most likely Tannehill will be on the board when the Rams pick at 6 so the Redskins could have kept their picks and got Tannehill too. With the Eli Draft the Giants had the option to trade down and pick up a 2nd round pick and still draft Big Ben. If Tannnehill wins 2 Super Bowls. How many does RG3 have to win to justify the trade? Some people would say none, I would disagree. As for the Eli trade on character alone Eli is superior to Big Ben.
if they said he has to produce somewhere between Randall Cunningham (107) and Ken Anderson (121)?
NFL Career Approximate Value (Weighted) Leaders
- ( New Window
and they finish with a winning record and make the playoffs that is all that is necessary. They have a shot like everybody else.
What is funny about Brady is that I tend to believe that if you move him out of Bill's system, he might just look ordinary.
and still sucked.
You have to factor in the drafting ability of the team when weighing the value of picks.
within the next 3 years, then that is a HUGE success. If they come within 2nd place with 2 years, it is also a huge success.
any draft pick can be a bust, so if they didnt get him and took someone else and they bust, then they look like dog shit anyway.
the trade up is hte right thing to do
And win one Super Bowl. He doesn't need to be Tom Brady, that's absurd.
He needs to be a legit franchise QB and the trade will be worth it. Because those guys are really hard to find. Near impossible. If he's a pro-bowl caliber QB it's worth it but that's the gamble everyone trading for that pick makes, just like the Giants did years ago with Eli.
If they win 1 Superbowl and he makes the team competitive on offense from year to year, the trade will be a smashing success.
The Superbowl win is critical. McNabb was a very good QB but he never brought home the Lombardy so the Eagles success over his reign is tainted by not having a championship.
the redskins won NFL East?
20 years ago?
THAT far away. They need some speed outside, but they've got a young and developing OL, a good looking young RB in Roy Helu, a terrific weapon in Fred Davis, and a good defense. They've suffered mostly from lousy QB play, and a lack of playmaking outside.
Redskins gave up a ton to get Griffin. What this researcher did was calculate the expected value of players that were drafted at all of the positions that the Redskins traded for the right to draft Griffin, and try and show what expected value Griffin needs to offset everything that was given up.
But keep in mind that the idea that Griffin needs Brady-like production to make the trade worthwhile should not be interpreted to mean that he needs to win three Super Bowls.
It means that he needs to be as valuable/productive a quarterback in the regular season to recoup the average value that was lost by the total collection of draft picks that were given up.
Championships and playoff performance is fluky and can be a crap-shoot. Even in the regular season, great quarterbacks can only do so much. There are still plenty of other factors that determine a team's overall performance. As important as the quarterback is to a team, it is still a team game.
that if he delivers one Super Bowl win then the trade was worth it. I know that's how I felt after Eli won his first one.
I agree, but I think people are still misinterpreting the article.
If the Skins win the Super Bowl with Griffin, then yes, the trade will be worth it because the goal of the team is the win the Super Bowl. Could the Skins have won more Super Bowls if they didn't trade and used those picks? Perhaps, but it's hypothetical and a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
The point was that in order for the Skins to ahieve that, Griffin is going to have to be great because they gave up a lot of potential stars to get him, and therefore will have less help for Griffin for the Skins to be spectacular.
for the trade to worth it. All he has to do is make the team competitive year after year. If he accomplish what McNabb did from 1999 - 2009 10 then the pick was a success.
Honestly, I hadn't read the article yet. I guess what I should've said was that if RG3 becomes a very good (let's say Top 10 at worst) QB throughout his Redskins career AND delivers a (as in one) championship then I think the trade was worth it. I disagree with compton that he simply has to be just a very good (I'd assume he meant no worse than top 5 QB) in order for the trade to have been worth it because that leaves whether or not the Skins got equal value up for debate...and if it's up for debate, that means there's doubt...and if there's doubt, then (IMO) it can be argued that the trade wasn't worth it.
To leave no doubt that the trade was worth it it's my opinion that a RG3 MUST finish with at least one championship in his Redskins career. If he has a career like McNabb, I don't think that's going to cut it. I mean, there are many Eagles and non-Eagles fans who don't think McNabb delivered and are/were very underwhelmed with him and the Eagles didn't give up ANY draft picks for him.
Seems those arguing this trade was a good risk are saying that because a "franchise QB is so hard to find". Isn't that a bit contradictory? They are so hard to find so you are trading multiple chips for one, expecting that to increase the odds of success? What is the correlation of being a top pick and being a franchise QB?
I just randomly chose to look at QB rating for 2011
Top 5 Qb's and their draft position
Bottom 5 QB's (ranked 26-30)and their draft position.
Josh Freeman 17th
Colt McCoy 85th
Tim Tebow 25th
Rex Grossman 22nd
Sam Bradford 1st
that hasn't been discussed.
For the RG3 trade to be worth it not only does he need to play well and deliver success (define it however you want), but all other QB's currently on the roster must play poorly, or if they play well they must be traded to recoup some value.
Part of the expense is the lost opportunity of the other QB's they have invested value in.
When measuring whether he was "worth it" in the general fan's mind, one must also consider if the Skins could have won without him.
For example, would a trade like this for Trent Dilfer have been worth it for the 2000 Ravens? They won a SB, but they likely could have done so with far less expense at the QB position.
Just another angle I felt was worth mentioning.
|...but all other QB's currently on the roster must play poorly,
I think this one's already been pretty well established my friend. LOL!
The writer says that if the Skins had merely given up their 2012 first round pick (6th overall) and their 2012 2nd round pick in exchange for the Rams' first round (second overall) pick, it may have been justifiable.
But that's just not how it works in reality. Moving up even a single spot (let alone 4 spots) at the top of the draft is always very expensive.
The Chargers gave up the farm to the Cardinals to move up just ONE SPOT in the '98 draft to take Ryan Leaf. Obviously that was a diaster for the Chargers, but the point is that's the cost of moving up at the top of the first round, whether this guy's numbers support it or not.
Also, this may be obvious to some but one thing that a lot of folks (not necessarily this writer) miss is the fact that the Skins really didn't give up three first rounders for RGIII. The net loss is two firsts and a second, because the Skins get the Rams' first rounder in '12. I can't tell you how many media outlets have have gasped at the Skins 'giving up three first round picks.'
If I give you three apples, and you give me one apple, have I given up three apples? Or is it a net loss of two apples for me? This simple math is lost on a lot of folks.
it's TWO #1's and one #2.
Still a HUGE price to pay, especially if Washington ends up picking top 10-15 next year and the year after.
moronic. That and the fact that they don't measure benefits accurately.
If you want to do a cost/benefit analysis, you have to factor in the benefits much better. They don't. Thus, it's essentially useless.
That, and using a constant discount rate?
first off, the article reads like the guy from 'The Princess Bride' who always said 'Inconceivable!' when he was trying to outsmart the hero in the movie when two cups, one containing poison in it, are placed before him and he had to choose.
Secondly, are we really having this discussion based off a guy who examined the box scores for Space Jam?
If the Rams build a great ballclub using those picks do the Redskins need even more out of RG3 to justify the trade? Also if the Rams suck for the next 8 years does the bar go down? I believe to the fans it will!
The Giants were able to acquire Plaxico and Mac with the money they saved. Ernie explained it this way - "we got three #1s; Eli, I always though he was good, but now, talk about Brady-like, he's there.