Peyton Manning or RGIII your choice

[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.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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.

LOL. Nice try. I am not trying to argue, in fact I just made an attempt to end the discussion fairly.

You said you weren't guessing at the cost, you referred me to the value chart and recent trades, which in the post right above this one you explain why you're guessing it will cost more than that. Go ahead and run away from your own words, but all you had to do was to admit that you were guessing like everyone else and leave the superiority complex out of your posts.

As for the 30gut thing earlier, I made an attempt to explain to him how he was completely misusing a statistic, which he failed to understand. Given the nature of this discussion, I don't know whether you personally lack the intelligence to understand it, or are willfully misrepresenting it. Neither would surprise me.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by biffle

LOL. Nice try. I am not trying to argue, in fact I just made an attempt to end the discussion fairly.

You said you weren't guessing at the cost, you referred me to the value chart and recent trades, which in the post right above this one you explain why you're guessing it will cost more than that. Go ahead and run away from your own words, but all you had to do was to admit that you were guessing like everyone else and leave the superiority complex out of your posts.

As for the 30gut thing earlier, I made an attempt to explain to him how he was completely misusing a statistic, which he failed to understand. Given the nature of this discussion, I don't know whether you personally lack the intelligence to understand it, or are willfully misrepresenting it. Neither would surprise me.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by biffle

As for the 30gut thing earlier, I made an attempt to explain to him how he was completely misusing a statistic,

You made a horrible failed attempt to make a strawman argument.

Its not misuse to quote a well known stat.

However its kinda bad form to make false assumptions and claims then turn around and claim that your false assumptions represent my point.

I don't understand how you can get this:

Originally Posted by biffle

The real world doesn't work that way. Griffin has virtually nothing in common with Ryan Leaf or Jamarcus Russell, whether you're looking at backgrounds, education, skillset, production, character or temperments. Not to mention, Griffin will be stepping into a situation that will likely bear little resemblence to what the other 2 walked into.

So, to suggest the former's chances of success decline by some percentage because of the failures of the latter two is really wrongheaded, at absolute best.

From this:

Originally Posted by 30gut

With Griffin the gamble is the same as with any rookie QB where historically the success rate is right around 50/50 its even lower when using the 'franchise' QB or 'elite' QB label as the measure of success.

Without thinking that people will view your posts as somewhat disingenuous.