No whining about the fact we won please!

[CapsSkins]

During the season I wanted the Skins to lose a few more games so that we could finally get our franchise QB. Now that we've got him, LOOKING BACK I prefer the wins because they helped institute a winning culture and belief, which to me are more important than a few draft picks that hopefully we won't miss anyway with RG3.

Jumbo, I do not agree with you that fans who root for losses are necessarily sad or lame. I think finishing 7-9 or 8-8 and not being able to land RG3 would have set the team back a ways, and not wanting that to happen and conceding a relatively insignificant game is neither sad nor lame to me.

It's all about context, and relativity. I'd rather have a franchise quarterback over a few wins and a better culture. I'd rather have a better culture over a few draft picks, IF we also have the franchise QB.

Point is, while this is divisive issue in which I hold a strong opinion, hopefully we will not have to have this discussion again for a loooong long time (except maybe for playoff posturing, which would be a much happier affair ).

[techboy]

Okay... One more time, why is there the perception among some that those wins in the middle and end of the year made the trade significantly more expensive? Am I missing something here?

The Rams won two games last year. Two.

The Redskins had won three before most anybody (except perhaps a couple fanatics obsessed with Luck who took the position from the beginning) even thought about hopping on the "lose out" train. The Redskins were 3-1 and there was talk of winning the division.

The wheels came off after that, of course, but it was already too late. At best, the Redskins could have drafted third.

Reports indicate that there were multiple teams, including the Browns at four offering 3 number one picks to move up to two, so being at three wouldn't have helped. They would have had to trade up anyway.

So what did those wins really cost? Certainly not multiple #1s, as some are talking about.

Oh, and for the record, after the season was over and I was able to reflect calmly, I realized that we really need to be happy they didn't win more. At a minimum, off the top of my head, the Jets game and both Cowboys games could easily have been won (and probably should have been), and any or all of those would have probably knocked the price up, if not moved the Redskins out of range completely. So be happy.

[DiscoBob]

Okay... One more time, why is there the perception among some that those wins in the middle and end of the year made the trade significantly more expensive? Am I missing something here?

The Rams won two games last year. Two.

The Redskins had won three before most anybody (except perhaps a couple fanatics obsessed with Luck who took the position from the beginning) even thought about hopping on the "lose out" train. The Redskins were 3-1 and there was talk of winning the division.

The wheels came off after that, of course, but it was already too late. At best, the Redskins could have drafted third.

Reports indicate that there were multiple teams, including the Browns at four offering 3 number one picks to move up to two, so being at three wouldn't have helped. They would have had to trade up anyway.

So what did those wins really cost? Certainly not multiple #1s, as some are talking about.

Oh, and for the record, after the season was over and I was able to reflect calmly, I realized that we really need to be happy they didn't win more. At a minimum, off the top of my head, the Jets game and both Cowboys games could easily have been won (and probably should have been), and any or all of those would have probably knocked the price up, if not moved the Redskins out of range completely. So be happy.

You make a valid point

Interesting to see what the haul of picks would have been to trade from #3 to #2?

[Brotherz]

Actually, he did cost us FOUR picks, allow me to explain.

If RG3 was a Free agent, he would cost us Zero picks

If RG3 is drafted he costs us ONE pick. So in terms of this trade, he cost us 2012 #1, 2012 #2, 2013 #1, 2014 #1 that is a total of four picks.

No I get it. I understand it takes a pick to get him but that was a oick we were using to get a player anyway is all I am saying. Again, I think I kinda went off on a tangent a but the mediots saying we gave up 3 firsts and how historic this is are just trying to paint us negatively because for the last twenty years we have been a joke and the punching bag of the league. well that crap is about to end. RG3 didn't "cost" us the 2012 draft pick. He was the SELECTION we make with that pick because that is what a "pick" is. Most people trying to pain this as "3 #1's" or saying he "cost" us FOUR picks are just trying to make it sound worse than it is because they have an agenda. I don't see anything wrong with someone who has the opinion that we are in a rebuild and we need every pick we have and it was too much to trade away two future #1's or to say we needed that second this year etc but the people who have to bend the facts to make this sound worse than it really is aI think are being unfair.

[Burgold]

But it's simple truth. We are using four picks to get Griffin. There's no manipulation.

We're using this years 1st and second and two more number ones. That's four. It's not a value statement. Just a statement of facts. As I've said elsewhere, if we're right about Griffin those four picks will be a cheap price. If we're wrong it will be very dear.

From everything I've read it's a good gamble, but it is an expensive gamble.

[Brotherz]

Nah, I don't think it's dishonest at all. It's completely accurate.

Whoever we pick with number two we are using four picks to get him. The first from this year, the second from this year, the first from next year, and the first from the year after that. Unless I misread the trade. That's four picks.

Will it be worth it? I hope so.

I also think that both the Herschel and Eli Manning trades are apt. The Herschel one was even less of a risk because the Vikings knew that Walker could be a great pro already. Manning is apt because the Giants traded the farm for a qb and it looks like it was a great deal.

Which way will this one go? Fingers crossed.

"Dishonest" may have been too harsh as it implies some kind of intent. My apologies. I respectfully disagree with the concept that Herschel Walker is apt comparison. I do agree that Eli Manning is an apt comparison. A QB is just a different animal altogether and nobody demonstrates that more than Shanny and our franchise. Shanny makes 1500 yard rushers out of anybody. Roy Helu? Did you even know who he was 2 years ago? Arian Foster? Mendenhall? Running backs come and go. They are a dime a dozen. Sure, there are the AP's of the world and throughout history the emmett's and the walter peyton's but running backs can be found almost anywhere. Trading an entire draft for a running back is just crazy ESPECIALLY in this league as it is constructed now. Back when the Herschel trade went down, corners could mug receivers without penalty. The running game and defense was the formula. We are closer to the arena football league then ever before. The gameis intentionally being constructed to look like a madden video game. Points are going up, passing yards records are falling every week, and the secondary might as well be playing flag football at this point with all the penalties that are being thrown around. This is the age of the mobile superstar QB coupled with the 6'4 leaping wide out. It just is. Of course if Robert Griffin is a bust, this deal is bad. But if he isn't, its not. It really is that simple. That's the real difference in my mind behind herschel trade. Even if he was all world running back that deal was bad.

---------- Post added March-11th-2012 at 10:05 AM ----------

But it's simple truth. We are using four picks to get Griffin. There's no manipulation.

We're using this years 1st and second and two more number ones. That's four. It's not a value statement. Just a statement of facts. As I've said elsewhere, if we're right about Griffin those four picks will be a cheap price. If we're wrong it will be very dear.

From everything I've read it's a good gamble, but it is an expensive gamble.

I understand it but the first pick was going to be used on the player regardless. So its 3 additional picks, 1 of which is a year away and the other is 2 years away. I understand it is technically accurate that we are using 4 picks to draft one person but that's not really the idea behind the trade. We are using 3 picks to move our pick up 4 spots to get a guy who is what we need. Yes, it is costly. But by all indications 2, if not three other teams were trying to do the same thing. The reality is the three picks we are LOSING is in exchange for the position of #2 instead of #6 on a selection we would have to make anyway, that's all I am saying. I understand 4 picks are being "used" to get Griffin. One of them is being used by us regardless. 3 of them are being "used" by us to move up for a significantly more important player. I don't think we are actually disagreeing at this point. HAHAHAHAHA.