Redskins agree to trade for No.2 overall pick in 2012 Draft

[warriorzpath]

It's funny how there's several articles and posts that say the trade for the 2nd pick is risky. Gambles are considered risky by how much that can be potentially lost. What exactly can the redskins say they have right now that they would be losing?

They've been near the bottom of the division nearly every year. In order to turn things around they needed to take that chance and overpay. I consider it bold rather than risky.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

It's funny how there's several articles and posts that say the trade for the 2nd pick is risky. Gambles are considered risky by how much that can be potentially lost. What exactly can the redskins say they have right now that they would be losing?

Wins between 2012-2016?

The gamble is of course that you win more games as a function of having Robert Griffin play quarterback than you would with someone else (Ryan Tannehill) playing quarterback and with three declining free agents instead of three ascending draft picks (assuming 53 man rosters throughout).

You lose the gamble if Tannehill + 3 ascending players would have outperformed Griffin and three free agents who we wouldn't have needed if we had draft picks. You win the gamble if Griffin and whoever we sign to help Griffin wins more games than Tannehill and those picks would have.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Wins between 2012-2016?

The gamble is of course that you win more games as a function of having Robert Griffin play quarterback than you would with someone else (Ryan Tannehill) playing quarterback and with three declining free agents instead of three ascending draft picks (assuming 53 man rosters throughout).

You lose the gamble if Tannehill + 3 ascending players would have outperformed Griffin and three free agents who we wouldn't have needed if we had draft picks. You win the gamble if Griffin and whoever we sign to help Griffin wins more games than Tannehill and those picks would have.

That's ultra-subjective though. Even though it's easier to say that Griffin/Tannehill more directly helped/hurt the Redskins/_____ team. It's so much more difficult to say anyone other than a QB directly made _____ team better.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

That's ultra-subjective though. Even though it's easier to say that Griffin/Tannehill more directly helped/hurt the Redskins/_____ team. It's so much more difficult to say anyone other than a QB directly made _____ team better.

It is really subjective, at least the way I phrased it. I think you could probably put it more objectively, given more thought.