Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Winning at a Trade - the Tide is Turning

robotfire

By robotfire
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

robotfire

robotfire

Posted
Posted

This is a day to rejoice. We got the better end of a trade. This is further evidence of a philosophical change within the organization.

According to Riggo's Rag, speaking on the topic of Chad Johnson ( http://riggosrag.com/ ):

"I'm not opposed to a trade, but we’re stuck with a reputation for paying too much and teams are less likely to give us a fair deal. A year of frugal discipline would have helped us wash away the stain of bad trades in the past. But now that’s all gone. Even if we hold onto our picks and draft well, we still hurt our credibility and cemented our crazy spending-spree reputation for yet another year."

Not only did we win a trade, but we won big. Just to mention a few examples of losing in a trade, we gave up a lot to get Cooley (worked out well), Campbell (looks promising), and McIntosh (looks promising). Even so, we have a history of "losing" at trades. I wish I could have found the quote from a member of the organization who years ago asked in anonimity, "When will we win one of these trades?" Whoever asked it, the answer is "today".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
worstSeat

worstSeat

Posted
Posted

How do you measuring winning? Is this a draft chart points win? A win because the Skins would have overpaid at 21 for the value to the team? A win b/c you'd personally rather have two relatively early picks?

I'd like to think it's a win, but when I saw the numbers I wasn't smart enough to feel confident proclaiming it such. What's your method?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
robotfire

robotfire

Posted
  • Author
Posted
How do you measuring winning? Is this a draft chart points win? A win because the Skins would have overpaid at 21 for the value to the team? A win b/c you'd personally rather have two relatively early picks?

I'd like to think it's a win, but when I saw the numbers I wasn't smart enough to feel confident proclaiming it such. What's your method?

When we traded to get Campbell, we were criticized. Clearly, the Broncos got a lot of value from us. We were in a position where we really wanted a player, and we gave up a lot to get him. We were very liberal with our draft picks, and we gave up a lot. Gibbs pointed to the draft chart for his rebuttle, claiming that we actually did well as far as points were concerned. Obviously, we filled a huge need. It was the right move for our team. Still, the general consensus was that the Broncos won that trade. The consensus has been that we consistently lose in a trade.

This time, we won. Another team had that big need, and we cashed in. We were not the ones reaching, as we were in the past. Jason La Confera (one of our biggest detractors lately) wrote a piece that made it sound like we got the deal of the century. In short, we won this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mass_SkinsFan

Mass_SkinsFan

Posted
Posted
This is a day to rejoice. We got the better end of a trade.

Bull-****!!! Maybe if we'd been able to get some decent players in the second round, but we ended up giving up our first round pick, our third round pick (not the comp) and our fifth round pick for a pair of players that were the wrong selections.

I actually LIKED the trade until Antoine Cason and Lawrence Jackson got selected by San Diego and Seattle respectively near the end of the first round. Then it became blatantly obvious that we were not going to get any serious upgrades anywhere in the second round. We selected the WRONG WR at #34 (should have taken Nelson); then proceeded to throw away the #48 on another WR (he can't block so he's not a TE in my mind) and a THIRD WR at #51. I hope at least one of them can play CB and the TE can play DE, because THOSE were true need positions, not THREE WIDE RECEIVERS in the second round.

Oh, the ridiculous draft pick chart may say we made out in the trade but when it comes to actual on-field talent we got bent over like a $2 whore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
33

33

Posted
Posted

The funny thing is this trade was made to bring out an aggressive offensive system. Something MSF has been lobbying for, for a while.

I'm happy with the trade. We hedged our bets at WR with the top ranked guy and the guy we seemed to covet.

If Gary Horton is correct and we took the TE so we can move Cooley around like Dallas Clark, then I'm cool with that move as well.

Hopefully tomorrow is about the lines, but it's not secret that we've needed more points on the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
D'KanSkinFan

D'KanSkinFan

Posted
Posted
Bull-****!!!

Oh, the ridiculous draft pick chart may say we made out in the trade but when it comes to actual on-field talent we got bent over like a $2 whore.

MSF - :nono: :nono: :nono: - We have gotten some good trades and picks for trades later on in the season; therefore being bent over must be your issue ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Forever21

Forever21

Posted
Posted

Oh the hyperbole and dramatics.

THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING!

I agree that Groves should have been the pick over Kelly. But in the end we got 3 excellent players all for good value.

We have a 3rd and a 4th rounder to address some line needs.

Draft day is fun around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
The funny thing is this trade was made to bring out an aggressive offensive system. Something MSF has been lobbying for, for a while.

I'm happy with the trade. We hedged our bets at WR with the top ranked guy and the guy we seemed to covet.

If Gary Horton is correct and we took the TE so we can move Cooley around like Dallas Clark, then I'm cool with that move as well.

Hopefully tomorrow is about the lines, but it's not secret that we've needed more points on the board.

Were you the one who posted the Gary Horton quote? Either way, good thread to repost it in lol:

"They're obviously trying to load up on offensive weapons and use many formations. It has been the goal of the organization to put multiple receivers on the field, which opens up the running game. Now you have the current group of WRs, you have an athletic TW in Fred Davis. They should in the passing game down field. You now open things up for CP and you have the luxury of moving Cooley all over the field as a Dallas Clark kind of guy. This potentially looks like an offense that's going to be very tough to matchup against. Their depth on the perimeter will take most defenses farther than they can go."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrJL

MrJL

Posted
Posted

I think giving up the third rounder in addition was a mistake. Snyder and Cerrato should throw away the draft value chart because a first rounder is worth at least two second rounders and maybe something else. If they had to throw in the fifth to get the fourth I'd have been fine.

I'm very frustrated that they picked three reveivers. I mean they probably could have take Campbell at 48 and gotten Davis at 51 and then you just give up the guy with questionable knees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Forever21

Forever21

Posted
Posted
The funny thing is this trade was made to bring out an aggressive offensive system. Something MSF has been lobbying for, for a while.

I'm happy with the trade. We hedged our bets at WR with the top ranked guy and the guy we seemed to covet.

If Gary Horton is correct and we took the TE so we can move Cooley around like Dallas Clark, then I'm cool with that move as well.

Hopefully tomorrow is about the lines, but it's not secret that we've needed more points on the board.

Well said.

I think Campbell's growth was going to be stunted badly had we not added some wr talent around him. I don't believe that Moss is a number one and ARE is not a number 2. So now Campbell has some true wr talent to work with.

C. Campbell or Q. Groves could have been taken, maybe should have been, but they weren't. But guess what there are many more DE's and DT's left to be drafted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cskin

Cskin

Posted
Posted

We got both of the 2nds and their 4th this year, we gave them our first and our 5th this year.

I happen to think the value changes from year to year... and this year I believe we did well. Sure, Philly got a 1st next year.... .but who knows what the talent holds next year. Also, Philly has to pay that first rounder this year... and the additional 1st rounder next year. We get three quality players with 2nd Round value. We needed picks this year.... and picked up three of them in the first four rounds for one of ours. If we score with a nice need pick in Rds. 3 & 4... say a D-lineman as well as a quality versatile O-lineman... I'd say that regardless of what we do in Rd. 6 & 7 we'd have a quality draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Forever21

Forever21

Posted
Posted
We got both of the 2nds and their 4th this year, we gave them our first and our 5th this year.

I happen to think the value changes from year to year... and this year I believe we did well. Sure, Philly got a 1st next year.... .but who knows what the talent holds next year. Also, Philly has to pay that first rounder this year... and the additional 1st rounder next year. We get three quality players with 2nd Round value. We needed picks this year.... and picked up three of them in the first four rounds for one of ours. If we score with a nice need pick in Rds. 3 & 4... say a D-lineman as well as a quality versatile O-lineman... I'd say that regardless of what we do in Rd. 6 & 7 we'd have a quality draft.

I think we got 3 guys of first round value. Which is why I'm not terribly upset about the picks at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
I think giving up the third rounder in addition was a mistake. Snyder and Cerrato should throw away the draft value chart because a first rounder is worth at least two second rounders and maybe something else.

You can't address trade scenarios based solely on some subjective "gut" feeling of what you think your 1st rounder should be worth...you have to PROVE to the other team that your proposal is both fair and beneficial to them...and a value chart helps you do that. You can't effectively do that by taking a fan approach to things. Teams will just start talking to the team that picks after you or in front of you instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedskinsFanatic

RedskinsFanatic

Posted
Posted
We got the the top 2 WRs in the draft and the #1 rated TE. While we don't "need" another TE, I think we definitely made out in that trade.

You can't make everyone happy.

You can say that again. I'm very pleased with the draft thus far but there are just way too many whiners on this board. And I mean from people with a longstanding history with this site.....pathetic to see. I'd hate to see what they'd write if they actually weren't a fan. :logo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Forever21

Forever21

Posted
Posted
You can say that again. I'm very pleased with the draft thus far but there are just way too many whiners on this board. And I mean from people with a longstanding history with this site.....pathetic to see. I'd hate to see what they'd write if they actually weren't a fan. :logo:

In truth I think most fans are harder on their own team than other teams. But yeah...the negativity is nothing new. If the team doesn't do exactly what a particular person wants they start tossing ****. I'm used to it by now, and draft day could be the worst day for it every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
Well said.

I think Campbell's growth was going to be stunted badly had we not added some wr talent around him. I don't believe that Moss is a number one and ARE is not a number 2. So now Campbell has some true wr talent to work with.

This is a HUGE aspect of the draft picks as well, I think...Jason Campbell is in his 4th year, and I'm positive Coach Zorn convinced Vinny and Snyder that relying on make-shift receiving corps and effective-but-injury-prone Moss year in and year out is only hurting his development.

I'm hoping that at least one O-lineman is drafted between rounds 3 and 4, though, because the O-line situation will help JC's development as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...