SI.com: Worst draft busts of the modern era (RG3 included) M.E.T.

[NickyJ]

Wait a second, am I missing something, no one acknowledged it the last time.  

 

Isn't this article literally just in reverse chronological order?  There's no ranking here, unless I am missing it, but I've opened that link 20 times and it keeps showing up with RG3 first and Boz last. With literally every single player slotted in by year, there's not a single player out of order year wise. 

 

If so, I don't see why it's even a discussion then of him being first, because clearly he's not "the biggest bust of the modern era" and that's not what the intention of the article is or ever was.  

 

Alright carry on lol 

Woah, woah, woah. I was having a good time until you had to point that out. You spoiled my rage.

[Renegade7]

Wait a second, am I missing something, no one acknowledged it the last time.  

 

Isn't this article literally just in reverse chronological order?  There's no ranking here, unless I am missing it, but I've opened that link 20 times and it keeps showing up with RG3 first and Boz last. With literally every single player slotted in by year, there's not a single player out of order year wise. 

 

If so, I don't see why it's even a discussion then of him being first, because clearly he's not "the biggest bust of the modern era" and that's not what the intention of the article is or ever was.  

 

Alright carry on lol 

Meh, that's what the discussion became anyway. 

[goskins10]

Wait a second, am I missing something, no one acknowledged it the last time.  

 

Isn't this article literally just in reverse chronological order?  There's no ranking here, unless I am missing it, but I've opened that link 20 times and it keeps showing up with RG3 first and Boz last. With literally every single player slotted in by year, there's not a single player out of order year wise. 

 

If so, I don't see why it's even a discussion then of him being first, because clearly he's not "the biggest bust of the modern era" and that's not what the intention of the article is or ever was.  

 

Alright carry on lol 

 

 

I have to confess that I did not even open the article. I was responding to the comments. Based on that it's probably fair that from the 2012 draft Robert was the most disappointing.

 

Here is an actual ranking from 2 weeks ago. While there is a Redskin on the list, it's not Robert. http://fansided.com/2016/04/20/15-biggest-nfl-quarterback-busts-time/

 

And here is a list of the top 33 NFL busts of all time done about 10 days ago. There are 2 Redskins on here, but neither is Robert.  http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/heat-index/2016/04/27/ranking-biggest-nfl-draft-busts-all-time/83613068/

 

While the order is different, the top two are the same. The argument for Robert being the biggest bust of all time just has no weight to it at all. With all due respect I don't care if he ran a HS Offense, it was ran well enough to win an NFL East Division title and be named NFL ROY while setting several all time NFL and Redskins rookie QB records. There is no credible argument to him being the "greatest bust of all time". Again, he is still playing football so the final chapter on him has yet to be written.

 

Was he a disappointment? Absolutely no doubt! But the biggest bust of all time? Not even close, even if he does nothing else in his career.

 

For those thinking he is, I ask that you look at the players listed on both lists and ask yourself honestly, was Robert really that much worse?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

So much defending of a crappy Browns player.

[Gamebreaker]

So much defending of a crappy Browns player.

 

So much hate too. 

[Bang]

When I want quality reading material, I prefer to read articles like "You have a little dick and everyone knows it", or "Your wife gave you an STD", or even something light, like "Every screw up you ever made and why everyone hates you for them".

 

The semi-monthly" biggest bust" articles are typically lazy, useless good for nothing crap re-hashing the past from a subjective viewpoint. They often ignore facts to make points they know the typical headline-only reader will nod along with. (Redskins signed Deion sanders 15 years ago, so we will perpetuate that they are free agent bonanza shoppers until the end of time..  and people still believe it.)
They are meant for folks like us to get mad about, or feel bad about.. and for others to say "ha! my team isn't on the list, so we're awesome!"

No need.

 

~Bang

[TSO]

Title is misleading and isn't the actual title of the list anyway. So I changed it.

 

Now you guys can get back to arguing over something you should've moved on from a long, long time ago. 

[Wyvern]

Maybe a large portion of this debate is because there's no consensus agreement amongst those posting here, about what constitutes a "bust". Some may want to say its defined as the outcome of the NFL career of the individual named -- if so, then Williams really wasn't a bust, and the book isn't closed on Griffin (who certainly started his career with great promise.).

Meanwhile, others look at the word "bust" from the perspective of what a franchise got for their efforts in expending a very high draft pack (or multiple high draft picks) for a certain player. If you use that definition (and some sports writers do) then it follows, that the more the franchise invested on a player for which they got nothing in return ....the "bigger" the "bust".

Me, I try to merge the two definitions in rounding out my judgement. So, I see Leaf being the biggest bust, and simply regard Williams as essentially over-paying in a trade, just like the Herschel Walker deal. And while I do see Griffin and Manziel as "busts" for their original franchises -- like apples and oranges, I find it difficult to compare the magnitude of those busts. Griffin cost the Skins franchise a lot more, but Manziel contributed way less during his tenure with the Browns, and is already out of the NFL.

Like Bang noted earlier, these types of articles (top 10 biggest flops, etc) are way over-simplified, and simply material for drive-by thinking and water-cooler discussion.

[Dirt]

You can't be a bust if the book is not written on your career yet. For us even, he was a disappointment, not a bust. He put together one of the greatest rookie seasons in NFL history, and won us a division title. That alone takes him out of consideration.

The amount of picks given up should not matter when discussing the player.

Dumb.

disagree. and it's hard so say something like that so matter of fact-ish when there's such a small sample size. it's not every year that teams trade away years worth of first rounders.

when you do that, you're saying those first rounders won't matter because qb is the most important position and we traded for one that will carry us for years. our guy carried us for one year. that is a failure no matter how you slice it, and in my definition: a bust. no doubt.

Doesn't mean I hate the guy. Doesn't mean he won't succeed somewhere else. but for us? it's a huge bust, come on guys.

[DCSaints_fan]

My comment was assuming that they were only counting his time with the team who drafted him (since I don't know how they can call a guy a bust if he is still playing and had ANY possibility of correcting his career, like Griffin). Williams, IMO, was a much bigger bust for New Orleans than Griffin was the the Skins.

 

Griffin had one great year and then nothing. Williams had no great years until he got out of New Orleans (and don't forget he retired from football to smoke pot, at least Robert is still trying). Williams' best football were in Miami and it's not close. He had one decent season for New Orleans (1,200 yards) and he missed 10 games during the other two seasons, so I think the comparison is pretty good. He also never won rookie of the year or carried his team to a playoff game. So, I'd still say Williams was the bigger bust for the team that drafted him.

 

The Saints made the playoffs in 2000, beating the Rams for the first time in franchise history.    This was Williams second year in the league, and he ran for over 1000 yards and 8 TDs.  In addition, he added 400 yards and 1 TD as a receiver.  And that was only playing in 10 games.  If he didn't get hurt he probably makes the pro bowl, with maybe a chance at RoY The next year he put up 1200 yards/6 TDs on the ground, and 500 yards/1 TD in the air.  

 

Also, the Saints traded Williams to Miami for two first round draft picks.   Originally the trade was for a first and a conditional third, but Williams played so well the next year, it was upgraded to a first. 

[MartinC]

I wouldn't really even classify RG3 as a bust. More so disappointing. A bust is someone who did absolutely nothing in the NFL. RG3 at least had one sensational year where he transformed the entire league.

As a player I think you can make a case that RG3 is not a bust, he had a great rookie year and his career as a Redskin was derailed by injury and then the fall out from that injury in terms of how that impacted how he was used or wanted to be used. He's got an opportunity to change the narrative around him being a 'bust' at Cleveland or confirm it. The book is still open.

But from the Redskins point of view there can be no doubt he was a bust. When you use 3 number 1 picks on a player your looking for a guy to be the face of your franchise for a decade and win you a Super Bowl. One historic rookie season and then a downward trend and released after 4 years = bust.

Now biggest bust, no I would not say that. He had that rookie year which is worlds more than a Leaf or Manziel. But I can see how when you factor in the cost of acquiring RG3 you can make a case for it. The same standard will/should be applied to Goff and even more so to Wentz from this years draft.

[Taco Bell]

http://theundefeated.com/features/the-puzzling-plummet-of-rgiii/

 

I was waiting for this article to come out after seeing Jason Reid really lay into him on NFL Live 3 days ago about some of the events from his first 2 seasons that laid the groundwork for a fast crumble here in DC.  He must have been on also for advertising the website since that also went live only 2 days ago itself. 

 

More or less he backs up with sources a bunch of the major occurrences of his history here into one place.  It's a good read but it's a bit one-sided in the blame game spectrum so surely it will have conflicting opinions if read by people here.  It seems to be a big enough article though I figured it's worth being in the thread, maybe not (probably not).

[BornaSkinsFan83]

If Mike Shanahan told me the sky was blue, I'd go outside and check.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

EDIT: Wrong thread

[Boss_Hogg]

My apologies for the misleading thread title. 

 

After re-reading the piece it looks like SI listed these players in chronological order starting with RGIII then Trent Richardson and Justin Blackmon, etc. 

 

I opened it, saw Robert with a #1 on his pic and assumed...my fault. 

[adamyesme1111]

This is Anti-Redskins bias at it's worst.

 

JaMarcus Russell was a much bigger bust.  RG3 was special and the talk of the entire league for 12+ months.  There was talk that he could become and was on his way to being the best player in the league.

 

This is hogwash.

JaMarcus Russell was the first name that came to my mind as well. Never surprised by the media though.

 

Edit: I think it is just going back in time from 2012 now that I look at it.