"“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 )
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.
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 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 ??
Eli does not (yet) have Tom Brady numbers. I think he has raised the bar too high for RG3.
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.
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.
Right now an elite QB is a must. A few tweeks of the rules could remove the advantage and make QB's less valuable.
Time will tell if this was a good trade or not, not some Harvard calculation.
NFL Career Approximate Value (Weighted) Leaders - ( New Window )
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.
You have to factor in the drafting ability of the team when weighing the value of picks.
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
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.
20 years ago?
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.
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.
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.
I just randomly chose to look at QB rating for 2011
Top 5 Qb's and their draft position
Rodgers 24th
Brees 32nd
Brady 199th
Romo undrafted
Stafford 1st
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
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.
I think this one's already been pretty well established my friend. LOL!
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.
Still a HUGE price to pay, especially if Washington ends up picking top 10-15 next year and the year after.
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?
Secondly, are we really having this discussion based off a guy who examined the box scores for Space Jam?