Poll: Has any past or present player ever been worth TWO first round draft picks?

[JPCreativelab]

i actually would take a shot and give 2 1's for andrew luck.

this is what i was going to say, but not specifically Luck, but next year, if they really want one of the QBs, i think trading down to get him would be an OK move with me.

[SirClintonPortis]

[/color]

Exactly. Trent played one year. Rak has performed well but when we drafted him it wasn't a gaurantee. Such a thing doesn't exist in the NFL.

No, ****tard. I'm quite aware that at the TIME OF THE DRAFT, there is no guarantee. But you seem to misunderstand his point. His point is that because the defense is STILL not good, Rak and Trent are NOT good players still. Yes, let's blame Rak and Trent for the performance of scrubs like Rabach, Haynesworth, and Kemo.

[Area51]

As redskins fans, we have had to endure some pretty friggin' horrible trades involving picks for players for a long time now. I think it has reached a point for many of our fans that the very notion of trading picks for players brings horrible, negative and sickening thoughts.

My personal opinion is that while first round picks are awesome to have, I'd rather have one of the truly elite QBs in the league than the chance to draft a couple of physically talented, yet unproven college players. The draft is an inexact science and there are way too many first round busts (or players who don't play up to their draft position).

A true franchise QB who has already proven he can play in the league is without a doubt worth 2 first rounders. To be honest, a HOF-caliber (Peyton Manning, Tom Brady) QB is, IMO, worth 3 first rounders. Give me Manning in his prime and I'll gladly give you 3 first rounders. While that may sound ridiculous to A LOT of you, look back at the history of the NFL's great dynasties. Outside of Joe Gibbs' Redskins of the 80's-1991, ALL of them had a great QB. From The Steelers and Bradshaw, To the Montana/Young lead 49ers, Cowboys and Aikman, to the Patriots and Brady. If a Jay Cutler type is worth 2 firsts, than those guys are most definitely worth 3.

[Mooka]

Nope

We are not a QB away from the Super Bowl. Even if you thought you were 1 player away, you still don't make a move like that. Go get a guy, give up some nice compensation, but not two potential day 1 starters. And again, how do you know he will succeed in your environment?

.... if you had Peyton Manning and Tom Brady as the backup, you'd still trade the kitchen sink for Aaron Rodgers if you could.

Don't be ridiculous. Any GM, would pay, any price to land the most coveted QB in the league. (Manning, Brady and Brees are getting old)

[Byner21]

That's easy...I'd give up two first-rounders for maybe five active NFL quarterbacks. I'd probably give up three for Brees or Rodgers.

[blindlywewander]

No, ****tard. I'm quite aware that at the TIME OF THE DRAFT, there is no guarantee. But you seem to misunderstand his point. His point is that because the defense is STILL not good, Rak and Trent are NOT good players still. Yes, let's blame Rak and Trent for the performance of scrubs like Rabach, Haynesworth, and Kemo.

No, he wasn't saying that Rak and Trent are not good players. That's not at all what he was saying. He was saying that we drafted two players with two first round picks but still had a bad team. Two first round players don't necessarily equal the impact you'd get from a guy like Aaron Rodgers (a guy worth trading two first round picks).

Don't start name calling. Act like you belong here with the adults.

[dfbovey]

If we can move up to the #1 overall pick in next year's draft by giving away two 1st rounders to acquire Luck, I'd do it without thinking twice.

[SpacePenguin]

With the benefit of hindsight, sure you could justify dealing two 1s for an elite player.

That doesn't make it a good idea in the least. Things are too unpredictable in the NFL to toss away two probable starters. Unless you're one player away, and we aren't.

If by some odd chance the Skins get a chance at one of these "can't miss" QB prospects next year, I hope they trade down if there's demand.

Nobody knows how successful any college QB will end up in the pros.

Its a crapshoot, why minimize your chances?

[SirClintonPortis]

No, he wasn't saying that Rak and Trent are not good players. That's not at all what he was saying. He was saying that we drafted two players with two first round picks but still had a bad team. Two first round players don't necessarily equal the impact you'd get from a guy like Aaron Rodgers (a guy worth trading two first round picks).

Don't start name calling. Act like you belong here with the adults.

Rak and Trent were used as examples of first rounders who do not necessarily contribute enough to success.His reasoning is that the D was still bad and the O-line was still bad, therefore they didn't make a sufficient impact. Their insufficient impact is proof of how a 1st rounder is a gabmle.

If you want to show that a 1st rounder is a gamble, try actual FAILURES like Vernon Gholston instead of two players that GMs would be willing to cough up two 1st rounders or more in the VERY near future.

[Commander PK]

I appreciate everyone's input. One aspect that hasn't really been discussed as much as I would have expected, is the psychological considerations.

For instance, two first round draft picks that you bring into the league. IF things go according to plan you will bring them up in your system, they will assimilate to your coaching style, your team dynamic, etc, and they will become great players for your club. They have nothing to compare you to at the professional level, so you don't have to worry about "Well you aren't using me properly" or "we did this better here (insert old team)"

Bringing in the highly touted free agent, who you value so highly you trade two first round talents for him may backfire. In that for all their talent and star power they do not flourish, because they do not take to the "new" way of doing things. Which could appear in a multitude of ways.

For instance, lets say Vinny had traded two first rounders for...Albert Haynesworth. No doubt many here would have thought at the time that was an acceptable deal. Not all, but some.

---------- Post added May-27th-2011 at 05:35 PM ----------

[quote name=Mooka;8319512

Don't be ridiculous. Any GM' date=' would pay, any price to land the most coveted QB in the league. (Manning, Brady and Brees are getting old)

any price? Wow, that's a tall order. If that is the case, then how is he still a Packer?

[blindlywewander]

Rak and Trent were used as examples of first rounders who do not necessarily contribute enough to success.His reasoning is that the D was still bad and the O-line was still bad, therefore they didn't make a sufficient impact. Their insufficient impact is proof of how a 1st rounder is a gabmle.

If you want to show that a 1st rounder is a gamble, try actual FAILURES like Vernon Gholston instead of two players that GMs would be willing to cough up two 1st rounders or more in the VERY near future.

His response was not about the individual. It was about the position and impact of 1st round selections. DE and LT aren't impact positions without talent at other positions. Just because Rak and Williams have played well early, it does not mean they are going to be hall of famers. Nor does it mean that their play will lead to more wins. That was his point. We got good players - 1st round picks - immediate starters. And still we go 6-10. Some positions just aren't as important. He wasn't arguing that Trent and Rak aren't good, but it's a toss up to the quality of player teams will get in the first round. Just to clarify, he was not saying Trent and Rak were bad picks. He's saying that the draft itself is a toss up, where as trading those picks for a proven commodity like A Rod is less of a risk.

I have no idea what the bolded part means. I read over it like 12 times trying to comprehend it but I still don't get it. Two young players - Rak and Trent - that GMs would give two 1st rounders for in the near future? Are you saying Trent would be worth 2 first rounders? And the same for Rak? That's how I understand it, but if that's what you're saying, I don't understand it haha

[B55Green]

There are a few, but obviously not a lot. Definitely Peyton is one of them, at least IMO.

[TheDane]

Recently:

Jon Ogden

Anthony Munoz

Orlando Pace

Walter Jones

Tony Boselli

Gary Zimmerman

Jackie Slater

...off the top of my head.

I'd also throw in Lawrence Taylor, Reggie White, Peyton Manning, Dan Marino.

---------- Post added May-27th-2011 at 09:44 PM ----------

I'd probably do 2 first rounders for Mike Webster, too. That would be the only interior lineman I'd spend 2 first rounders on. Maybe Bruce Matthews based solely on longevity, though he kind of played every position.

[SirClintonPortis]

His response was not about the individual. It was about the position and impact of 1st round selections. DE and LT aren't impact positions without talent at other positions. Just because Rak and Williams have played well early, it does not mean they are going to be hall of famers. Nor does it mean that their play will lead to more wins. That was his point. We got good players - 1st round picks - immediate starters. And still we go 6-10. Some positions just aren't as important. He wasn't arguing that Trent and Rak aren't good, but it's a toss up to the quality of player teams will get in the first round. Just to clarify, he was not saying Trent and Rak were bad picks. He's saying that the draft itself is a toss up, where as trading those picks for a proven commodity like A Rod is less of a risk.

I have no idea what the bolded part means. I read over it like 12 times trying to comprehend it but I still don't get it. Two young players - Rak and Trent - that GMs would give two 1st rounders for in the near future? Are you saying Trent would be worth 2 first rounders? And the same for Rak? That's how I understand it, but if that's what you're saying, I don't understand it haha

I understand the truism of the draft being risky while sure things like a Rodgers is worth the premium. My quip is how he tried to prove the truism. Then there are those players that look like sure things, but actually are lemons, but that's a different matter and I won't bother with it here.

He tries to prove the statement with "A first round draft pick isn't some magical device that automatically equates to success" with how Rak and Trent's additions did so little to increase the win total in a season. you actually prove the statement is that there is a risk of snatching up a Leaf or average performer, NOT an inability to increase the win total A team stat like changes in win total has too many variables to make any definitive conclusion about the success or failure of a first rounder. In short, it's not a about "we only got two more wins", but rather about "that player either panned out or didn't pan out with regards to first round picks being risky.

It cuts both ways. Jay Cutler--a "sure" thing that cost a pretty penny--had the Bears go 11-5. last season. Their final season before Cutler came along? 9-7. Even so, you cannot conclusively say that Cutler's impact was minimal or he wasn't that good. There are too many other facts like Urlacher's injury to mess up such an inference from the change in win/loss record.

They have the talent to be All-Pros. We'll whether they reach such a status. But I'm drinking the Kool-Aid now. haha

[Byner21]

I'd also throw in Lawrence Taylor, Reggie White, Peyton Manning, Dan Marino.

Good call. In his prime LT was worth like four first-round picks.

One note on Rodgers...although I'd give up at least two first-round picks for him, I am concerned about his concussion history. Not enough is made of that. He runs a lot too and is more susceptible to injury relative to Brady/Manning/Brees.

[Conn]

I have no idea what the bolded part means. I read over it like 12 times trying to comprehend it but I still don't get it. Two young players - Rak and Trent - that GMs would give two 1st rounders for in the near future? Are you saying Trent would be worth 2 first rounders? And the same for Rak? That's how I understand it, but if that's what you're saying, I don't understand it haha

He's saying that Rak and Trent are being used in this thread as examples of 1st rounders that haven't drastically altered the Skins' fortunes to this point (in the argument that even 1sts that turn out well aren't always franchise-changing picks, and therefore are okay to be traded for one of these elite players), when in his opinion, both Trent and Rak will BE those players teams would offer two 1sts for, in the near future.

Not sure that I necessarily agree with him, but that's my understanding of SirClintonPortis' post.

[elkabong82]

We could have had Brees for free... but never made an attempt for him...

because Brees was a free agent in 2006. We had Brunell and had just drafted Campbell the season before.

[Arsenic]

I'd give our 1st rounder, for the next 2 years, for Andrew Luck..

and he's not even a proven NFL Superstar..

sometimes ya gotta take chances. it seems as if this organization is completely capable of finding awesome players in the draft, outside the first round.

^ man.. it sure is weird saying that

Hail!

[Ashburn Dave]

This one is a no brainer. Hell yes if it gets us a Tom Brady, Payton Manning, Aaron Rogers or even a Ray Lewis in their prime.

I don't get the point that you need to be one player away before pulling the trigger on a move like this. Give me a franchise player like one of these and they instantly upgrade players around them. Your WR, RB and OF just got better with a Payton Manning because of his ability to read the defense quicker, get rid of the ball faster, and hit the open target in stride. Your DL just improved with Ray Lewis behind them.

Plus your only giving up two 1st rounders. You still have all the rest of your picks and FA to work with.

[skinfan2k]

Sam Bradford, Suh, to name recently. Megatron, Larry Fitz, Andre Johnson, the big 3 Qbs, Rivers, Big Ben there are a ton i would give us

[Bang]

Most certainly there is, and their names have been mentioned by many people.

Using Aaron Rodgers, you absolutely do not have to be only "one QB away" to make this move.

Having a great Qb, so long as you protect him, makes all the other 52 guys better.

The QB is arguably the biggest piece of the entire puzzle, and getting a great one in his prime makes all the other ones easier to fit.

Rogers, Rivers and Megatron are about the only ones I'd even consider in this trade range right now.. maybe Matt Ryan... . (Calvin Johnson is the best weapon in the NFL. He's a man among boys. He will make ANY offense better.)

Ceratto admitting he offered two firsts for Ochocinco is mind boggling in that he was stupid enough to do it, (and then admit it)... and Cincy was too stupid to take it.

In a single phone conversation, two franchises clearly showed why they've been a joke for 2 decades.

~Bang

[HailGreen28]

Aaron Rodgers is worth more than two 1st rd picks...... to the Packers.

I thought we learned from the McNabb example, that past performance with another team is not indicative of future performance.

[Bang]

Aaron Rodgers is worth more than two 1st rd picks...... to the Packers.

I thought we learned from the McNabb example, that past performance with another team is not indicative of future performance.

For players in their 12th season you probably are right.

~Bang

[Going Commando]

Packers offer you Aaron Rodgers for two first rounders, do you accept?

Yes and your offer is considered binding. Make it happen PokerPacker.

[HailGreen28]

For players in their 12th season you probably are right.

~Bang

And McNabb just had one of his best seasons statistically with the Eagles, when we got him. Being run down wasn't McNabb's problem last season.