Peyton Manning or RGIII your choice

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by biffle

Oh, in that case...package A, thank you.

Apart from the fact that you are guessing very high at the trade up cost, being overly optimistic in where Denard and Te'o will be drafted (won't we be picking later in the 1st with Peyton?) and ignoring where that 3rd would go if we didn't need Cousins (unless you are also suggesting that goes in this colossal trade up). You are also conveniently leaving out the salary cap costs of Manning that could be spent elsewhere without him.

All that said, you are talking about a very narrow window in this pie-in-the-sky vision people have of Manning being healthy and unaffected by surgery, layoff or change of venue and somehow re-becoming the QB he was a few years ago (not to mention him apparently being able to make a mediocrity like Cousins into someone to build a future around thru some kind of osmosis). Even at that, someone has to draw the line at any level of optimism that has us putting a Super Bowl team around him in one offseason. So now we're looking at a window of opportunity that begins at a 37 year old and goes forward from there, for ...what? 2 years?

No thanks. I'll take my chances at a decade and a half of greatness leading our team. A all the way.

I'm not guess at the costs to move up, that's about what it's going to take. I refer you to other trades and the NFL draft chart for evidence.

We are 40 million (and soon to be more after cuts) under the cap, and you worried about Manning's salary? Really? Do you realize how we got so far under? By cutting bloated contracts we spent to free agents, and have cheaper, younger, and better talented guys on the squad from the draft.

Yet, you sit up here and are willing to piss the team's future....just for the mere "CHANCE" of a franchise QB. If he busts, you have set the team back a minimum of five years. That's another five years of dreadful football, with other people getting our picks because we pissed them away for the "savior".

Choosing Package A:
Best Case: RGIII blooms, but the team is set back from contending due to the missed talent that would have came from draft picks used on him.

Wost case: RGIII is a bust, and the team is drafting in the top 5 for the next 4 years due to lack of talent.


Choosing Package B:

Best Case: Manning is healthy and returns to form. We use those draft picks to solidify the team's holes and contend almost immediately.

Wost Case: Manning isn't healthy, and we rely on Cousins or Orton at QB. We use those draft picks to further solidify the team make it a playoff caliber team.



At least with option B, the team could still be a playoff caliber team without a "franchise" QB. With option A, the team may still not be a playoff caliber team even with the "franchise" QB. You guys are willing to gamble too much for too little. I'm sooooo glad you aren't running this team. I would have stopped watching football by now if you were.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I'm not guess at the costs to move up, that's about what it's going to take. I refer you to other trades and the NFL draft chart for evidence.

We are 40 million (and soon to be more after cuts) under the cap, and you worried about Manning's salary? Really? Do you realize how we got so far under? By cutting bloated contracts we spent to free agents, and have cheaper, younger, and better talented guys on the squad from the draft.

Yet, you sit up here and are willing to piss the team's future....just for the mere "CHANCE" of a franchise QB. If he busts, you have set the team back a minimum of five years. That's another five years of dreadful football, with other people getting our picks because we pissed them away for the "savior".

Choosing Package A:
Best Case: RGIII blooms, but the team is set back from contending due to the missed talent that would have came from draft picks used on him.

Wost case: RGIII is a bust, and the team is drafting in the top 5 for the next 4 years due to lack of talent.


Choosing Package B:

Best Case: Manning is healthy and returns to form. We use those draft picks to solidify the team's holes and contend almost immediately.

Wost Case: Manning isn't healthy, and we rely on Cousins or Orton at QB. We use those draft picks to further solidify the team make it a playoff caliber team.



At least with option B, the team could still be a playoff caliber team without a "franchise" QB. With option A, the team may still not be a playoff caliber team even with the "franchise" QB. You guys are willing to gamble too much for too little. I'm sooooo glad you aren't running this team. I would have stopped watching football by now if you were.

1. There is no recent trade nor example from the value chart that makes your trade likely.

2. Cap room is cap room. If you give 15 mil to Peyton Manning, that is 15 mil that can't be spent esewhere. Just brushing that aside to try to make your argument stronger is pretty weak.

3. I don't believe every drafted QB is the same and that it amounts to a coin flip whether they bust or not. Griffin is one of the best QB prospects in recent years, and that's why I want to draft him. It's not because I just want some kind of randomized chance at a good QB.

4. If a chance at greatness is staring you in the face and all you can do is worry about what the worst case scenario is, then you'll never have the guts necessary to succeed. Big accomplishments never come by avoiding any risk.

5. I couldn't care less if the Redskins become "playoff contenders". I want them to become "Super Bowl contenders". There's a difference. And teams that don't set their sights on titles never win them.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by biffle

5. I couldn't care less if the Redskins become "playoff contenders". I want them to become "Super Bowl contenders". There's a difference. And teams that don't set their sights on titles never win them.

You (and the others) remind me of this scene.




You'll swing away blowing your chance to be a consistent winner, just so you can hit the big shot.

What happens if RGIII busts? You trade the farm again in 3 years for the next big thing? And that guy busts? You trade the farm again in 3 more years? The cycle continues until you finally hit the big one eh?...lol

There are times to take chances, and times you don't. We are in no situation to be taking many chances, much like Roy wasn't.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You (and the others) remind me of this scene.




You'll swing away blowing your chance to be a consistent winner, just so you can hit the big shot.

What happens if RGIII busts? You trade the farm again in 3 years for the next big thing? And that guy busts? You trade the farm again in 3 more years? The cycle continues until you finally hit the big one eh?...lol

There are times to take chances, and times you don't. We are in no situation to be taking many chances, much like Roy wasn't.

-Ignore every point that doesn't help your argument
-Couch your nonsense and hyperbole in condescension
-Rinse
-Repeat

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by biffle

-Ignore every point that doesn't help your argument
-Couch your nonsense and hyperbole in condescension
-Rinse
-Repeat

You're quite clear about your stance. You are willing to blow the future of a good football team for a mere chance of having a QB, even if the odds are 40% of hitting the mark. I on the other hand am not. Not at this time. Get back to me when we shore up a few holes and add some more depth.

Also, I wasn't trying to be condescending either.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You're quite clear about your stance. You are willing to blow the future of a good football team for a mere chance of having a QB, even if the odds are 40% of hitting the mark. I on the other hand am not. Not at this time. Get back to me when we shore up a few holes and add some more depth.

I refer to my previous statement.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by biffle

1. There is no recent trade nor example from the value chart that makes your trade likely.

Eli Manning's cost to the Giants - 2004 1st, 2004 3rd, 2005 1st, 2005 5th...to move up from #4 to #1 with a difference of 1200 points. (forced trade)

Michael Vick's cost to the Falcons - 2001 1st round, 2001 3rd rounder, 2002 3rd rounder and Tim Dwight. (Chargers failed to reach contract with Vick so traded)....to move from #5 to #1 with a difference of 1,000 points.


Ryan Leaf's cost to the Chargers- 1998 1st rounder, 1998 2nd rounder, 1999 1st rounder, Eric Metcalf, Patrick Sapp....to move up from #3 to #2 with a difference of 400 points.

Jon Gruden traded to the Tampa Bay Bucs for 2 first rounders.


Two of those trades came from unusual circumstances and both by the same team. In fact, the only team that seems to trade top 5 picks is the Chargers. One was a forced trade, the other came about because they couldn't reach a deal with Vick prior to the draft. Both of those circumstances lowered the value of the pick. That and the fact that huge contracts came with rookies back then. Now that rookie contracts are affordable, those high picks mean even more now.


So with a 1,000 point difference between the #2 and #6, you have to come up with the points to make up for that.

1st- 1600 points
2nd - 520 points
3rd - 240 points
4th- 93 points
5th- 39 points
6th- 25 points
7th- 12.2 points



Even if you added all these picks you would only come up with 929.2 points. Now granted, you wouldn't want to go all Ditka and give up your total draft so you would have to bargain to keep some of this years draft while sacrificing some of next years picks.

1st, 2nd, 4th = 2,213 points You would have to include next years #1 to make up that extra 400 points and possible a later rounder. Remember now, next years picks doesn't have the value that they do in the present.

1st, 3rd,4th= 1,933 points. Would cost you next years #1 and another mid round pick to make up.


I didn't just pull that scenario from fantasy land.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I didn't just pull that scenario from fantasy land.

Yeah, you kind of did. None of those trades you mention have the trading up teams giving up as much as you have us doing, save for the Leaf fiasco.

If next year's first was considered to have the value of this year's second, then we would be giving up more than the full price of the value chart without giving up the two 4ths you include. And every organiztion worth anything realizes a future 1st is worth more than that.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by biffle

Yeah, you kind of did. None of those trades you mention have the trading up teams giving up as much as you have us doing, save for the Leaf fiasco.

If next year's first was considered to have the value of this year's second, then we would be giving up more than the full price of the value chart without giving up the two 4ths you include. And every organiztion worth anything realizes a future 1st is worth more than that.

The other two were trades where they had 0 leverage so the pick was devalued. Now you have a situation where there are multiple teams wanting the pick, and without the huge contracts that rookies used to get. That pick has now become more valuable than it was prior.


2012 -1st
2012-3rd
2012- 4th

2013-1st
2013- 5th
----------------------------
2012-1st
2012-2nd

2013- 1st
2013- 4th
---------------

My scenario was a estimation, and it wasn't overblown that much even though you think it is. I can see several packages like the one above given for that pick.

The Panther's traded their 2010 1st rounder for a 2009 2nd round pick (43rd) worth 470 points.

You want to know why it cost the Chargers so much to move from #3 to #2? It was because of the person at stake. At the time, Leaf was perceived to have a higher ceiling than Peyton.

Fast forward to now. RGIII is also being touted as a top prospect along with Luck and is said to have a higher ceiling. He's obviously good enough for Irsay to mention both him and Luck.

Put that #2 up for bid, and the price could sky rocket if teams start a bidding war. If you want to argue about me adding an additional 4th or 5th to the chart, than by all means haggle away. It was a rough estimate, but it was enough to show that we dont' want to give up that much for one guy.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The other two were trades where they had 0 leverage so the pick was devalued. Now you have a situation where there are multiple teams wanting the pick, and without the huge contracts that rookies used to get. That pick has now become more valuable than it was prior.


2012 -1st
2012-3rd
2012- 4th

2013-1st
2013- 5th
----------------------------
2012-1st
2012-2nd

2013- 1st
2013- 4th
---------------

My scenario was a estimation, and it wasn't overblown that much even though you think it is. I can see several packages like the one above given for that pick.

The Panther's traded their 2010 1st rounder for a 2009 2nd round pick (43rd) worth 470 points.

You want to know why it cost the Chargers so much to move from #3 to #2? It was because of the person at stake. At the time, Leaf was perceived to have a higher ceiling than Peyton.

Fast forward to now. RGIII is also being touted as a top prospect along with Luck and is said to have a higher ceiling. He's obviously good enough for Irsay to mention both him and Luck.

Put that #2 up for bid, and the price could sky rocket if teams start a bidding war. If you want to argue about me adding an additional 4th or 5th to the chart, than by all means haggle away. It was a rough estimate, but it was enough to show that we dont' want to give up that much for one guy.

To be clear on what this was- I said I thought you were guessing high on the trade price, you said it wasn't a guess, it was the cost based on previous trades and the value chart. And now, several posts later, we get that you are guessing that it will be more than recent trades and the value chart. Fine, it is your guess, nothing wrong with that. Just wish it didn't take so long to get back there.

John Clayton was just on the radio and his guess was that it might cost the Redskins two firsts and another pick for Griffin (after he talked about how much smarter a move he thought that was than signing Manning, and how he felt Griffin was a perfect fit for Shanahan's offense).

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by biffle

John Clayton was just on the radio and his guess was that it might cost the Redskins two firsts and another pick for Griffin (after he talked about how much smarter a move he thought that was than signing Manning, and how he felt Griffin was a perfect fit for Shanahan's offense).

I guess that settles it. John Clayton knows what's best for the Redskins even though he hasn't a clue about our offense or any of the characteristics that Mike looks for in a QB.


As far as the other stuff, I'm not going any further with you. You want to argue just for the sake of arguing and you are saying things I said that aren't there (much like you did with 30gut) so I'll step out of this horse race right here and now.