A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

In today's NFL? I absolutely would, you're nuts GTripp.

McNabb is a bad example, because Reid's offense had more to to with McNabb's success than McNabb himself. The closest representation of what Griffin could potentially become is Steve Young. Shanahan figures to use him similarly. I would gladly take that over what three first round picks would normally turn into - solid starters.

You're cherry picking historically great first rounders, which is not the correct way to analyze this. The consensus projection on Robert Griffin is a multi-pro bowl franchise caliber QB. So that's not the ceiling, and it's not the floor. It's the expectation. The consensus projection/expectation on first round picks in general is solid starter, with perhaps a pro bowl on occasion. The consensus expectation on first rounders is not the careers of Urlacher, Seymour and Samuels. That's the ceiling on a first round pick.

The appropriate comparison is something like Ronde Barber, Hakeem Nicks, and Jonathan Vilma.

I think you're misinterpreting your own argument (did I just say that? Yeah, I did). I say that because the fallacy that you're accusing me of making is one that you made in the original.

Look, if you're projecting at an league average return on picks, then what we did to get Griffin is WAY less defensible. There is no way to get Steve Young in any draft by trading up. There simply isn't a Hall of Fame quarterback every year, hardly ever is there two in a single class. If there was a Hall of Fame quarterback, assuming perfect information, the Colts would take him first, which is what I pointed out in the first place.

So in part to justify this trade, you have to make the leap of faith that the Colts wouldn't draft the next Steve Young because of football reasons. While a lot of the rhetoric about Griffin and Luck seems to lead in that direction, rhetoric isn't much of an argument. When professionals make their draft boards, it's easier to visualize that while that while the professionals believe there are two or three franchise quarterbacks in this draft, and the Redskins are ensured to get one of the targeted players, it's still INCREDIBLY hard to justify moving up from 6 to 2 to do so.

Obviously, your argument is flawed because we can't just suppose that Griffin is the next Steve Young. But you can argue that if you apply consistent principle, which means that you need to assume that in that paying the opportunity cost to get a guy who could (if everything goes perfect -- including the Colts don't pick him) be the next Steve Young, then you're paying the price of three potential chances for everything to go right and draft potential hall of famers. Otherwise, if you're comparing Steve Young/Robert Griffin to three random Redskins first round selections over the years, it's useful to remember that the Redskins never took Steve Young either.

When was the last team to make the Super Bowl without a franchise caliber QB. Matt Hasselbeck with Seattle? Griffin's potential trumps everything.

You think yourself in circles.

The simplest way to answer would be to respond in a question such as "when was the last time the Redskins played in the super bowl with <add any qualifier here.?" Trends are only kept to be broken.

However, I'll exercise my brain a bit and point out that a team was playing in overtime in a championship game with Alex Smith as it's quarterback about two months ago, so I'm guessing they still would have booked the hotel had they been the first team to kick a FG in OT.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think you're misinterpreting your own argument (did I just say that? Yeah, I did). I say that because the fallacy that you're accusing me of making is one that you made in the original.

Look, if you're projecting at an league average return on picks, then what we did to get Griffin is WAY less defensible. There is no way to get Steve Young in any draft by trading up. There simply isn't a Hall of Fame quarterback every year, hardly ever is there two in a single class. If there was a Hall of Fame quarterback, assuming perfect information, the Colts would take him first, which is what I pointed out in the first place.

So in part to justify this trade, you have to make the leap of faith that the Colts wouldn't draft the next Steve Young because of football reasons. While a lot of the rhetoric about Griffin and Luck seems to lead in that direction, rhetoric isn't much of an argument. When professionals make their draft boards, it's easier to visualize that while that while the professionals believe there are two or three franchise quarterbacks in this draft, and the Redskins are ensured to get one of the targeted players, it's still INCREDIBLY hard to justify moving up from 6 to 2 to do so.

Obviously, your argument is flawed because we can't just suppose that Griffin is the next Steve Young. But you can argue that if you apply consistent principle, which means that you need to assume that in that paying the opportunity cost to get a guy who could (if everything goes perfect -- including the Colts don't pick him) be the next Steve Young, then you're paying the price of three potential chances for everything to go right and draft potential hall of famers. Otherwise, if you're comparing Steve Young/Robert Griffin to three random Redskins first round selections over the years, it's useful to remember that the Redskins never took Steve Young either.

For some reason you're assuming that there can't be two extremely high performing QBs coming out of the same draft. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean the likelihood isn't there this year. Step back from the prob and stat and actually analyze these two QB prospects. One (Luck) is projected to be the best coming out since Peyton. Griffin is thought to be right there, to the point where many are asking whether RG3 deserves to go #1. So the Colts will take whichever one they think is best. So just because Luck is being anointed that guy doesn't mean Griffin isn't also projected to be the same. Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean it can't happen.

Forget Steve Young, I'm sorry I brought him up because it's causing you to miss my point. Here's what I'm trying to say. The expectation of the typical second quarterback taken in a draft is not that of a pro bowler. But this is not your typical second quarterback taken. This is Robert Griffin, who by all accounts, is different. He's deserving of going #1 by a long shot in any year where Andrew Luck is not also available at the same time.

Forget prob and stat GTripp. Analyze the real world situation you find yourself in. This is a unique situation this year, there are two QBs projected for a multi pro bowl level of play. While it would normally be foolhardy to trade 3 first rounders for the typical 2nd QB available, it is absolutely not foolhardy to trade 3 first rounders for a player who projects like Robert Griffin.

With the rules changing the way they have in recent years, the group-think regarding the value of surrounding talent fades into the oblivion of history. Having a highly accurate QB who avoids sacks and bad plays is just about everything in today's NFL.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

For some reason you're assuming that there can't be two extremely high performing QBs coming out of the same draft. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean the likelihood isn't there this year. Step back from the prob and stat and actually analyze these two QB prospects. One (Luck) is projected to be the best coming out since Peyton. Griffin is thought to be right there, to the point where many are asking whether RG3 deserves to go #1. So the Colts will take whichever one they think is best. So just because Luck is being anointed that guy doesn't mean Griffin isn't also projected to be the same. Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean it can't happen.

Forget Steve Young, I'm sorry I brought him up because it's causing you to miss my point. Here's what I'm trying to say. The expectation of the typical second quarterback taken in a draft is not that of a pro bowler. But this is not your typical second quarterback taken. This is Robert Griffin, who by all accounts, is different. He's deserving of going #1 by a long shot in any year where Andrew Luck is not also available at the same time.

Forget prob and stat GTripp. Analyze the real world situation you find yourself in. This is a unique situation this year, there are two QBs projected for a multi pro bowl level of play. While it would normally be foolhardy to trade 3 first rounders for the typical 2nd QB available, it is absolutely not foolhardy to trade 3 first rounders for a player who projects like Robert Griffin.

With the rules changing the way they have in recent years, the group-think regarding the value of surrounding talent fades into the oblivion of history. Having a highly accurate QB who avoids sacks and bad plays is just about everything in today's NFL.

There isn't any evidence that surrounding talent is meaningless because the best quarterbacks of the last decade have happened to play with the best surrounding talent. So when those teams (Pittsburgh, New England, Indianapolis, San Diego and recently Atlanta, Green Bay, and New Orleans) win consistently, it's not proving anything about isolated quarterback play. It's just proving that the haves sustain themselves by consistently beating the have nots.

I'm trying to deal in real world problems, but you're spitting on the idea that three or four game changing players might be more valuable in the long run than the second rated QB in this year's draft.

Keep in mind that no one ever said one of those game changing players couldn't be a quarterback or that the Redskins would have to be weak at QB if we didn't make this trade. No one was telling us we couldn't pick a QB in the first round this year. And this in a year where someone did tell us we couldn't use all that cap room we actually had.

Here's the world we live in: the Redskins have three homegrown first rounders on the roster. They have Orakpo, Trent Williams, and Ryan Kerrigan. They will add Robert Griffin to that group. They will not pick in the first round for two years.

That's your core of talent going forward, for better or worse. We will build around that core, because we have no choice. Meanwhile, even the worst drafting teams in the league will hit at about a 50% rate in first round picks, meaning that by the time the 2014 draft gets here, the worst drafting teams in the NFL (who theoretically, super bowl contenders aren't competiting with, they are destroying them on the field) will have drafted four busts in the first round between 2007-2014. They will have just as much homegrown first round talent as the Redskins. Even under Cerrato, that was never the case.

In the real world, the odds are stacked against Griffin for that reason. 2012 is the only year of their rookie contracts where Griffin is likely to have a better supporting cast than Andrew Luck or Ryan Tannehill. The Redskins have every resource available to build him a supporting cast (as do the other teams), but they can no longer compete later because the future isn't a level playing field.

Or to steal a phrase from the Redskins: the future is now.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

There isn't any evidence that surrounding talent is meaningless because the best quarterbacks of the last decade have happened to play with the best surrounding talent. So when those teams (Pittsburgh, New England, Indianapolis, San Diego and recently Atlanta, Green Bay, and New Orleans) win consistently, it's not proving anything about isolated quarterback play. It's just proving that the haves sustain themselves by consistently beating the have nots.

I'm trying to deal in real world problems, but you're spitting on the idea that three or four game changing players might be more valuable in the long run than the second rated QB in this year's draft.

Keep in mind that no one ever said one of those game changing players couldn't be a quarterback or that the Redskins would have to be weak at QB if we didn't make this trade. No one was telling us we couldn't pick a QB in the first round this year. And this in a year where someone did tell us we couldn't use all that cap room we actually had.

Here's the world we live in: the Redskins have three homegrown first rounders on the roster. They have Orakpo, Trent Williams, and Ryan Kerrigan. They will add Robert Griffin to that group. They will not pick in the first round for two years.

That's your core of talent going forward, for better or worse. We will build around that core, because we have no choice. Meanwhile, even the worst drafting teams in the league will hit at about a 50% rate in first round picks, meaning that by the time the 2014 draft gets here, the worst drafting teams in the NFL (who theoretically, super bowl contenders aren't competiting with, they are destroying them on the field) will have drafted four busts in the first round between 2007-2014. They will have just as much homegrown first round talent as the Redskins. Even under Cerrato, that was never the case.

In the real world, the odds are stacked against Griffin for that reason. 2012 is the only year of their rookie contracts where Griffin is likely to have a better supporting cast than Andrew Luck or Ryan Tannehill. The Redskins have every resource available to build him a supporting cast (as do the other teams), but they can no longer compete later because the future isn't a level playing field.

Or to steal a phrase from the Redskins: the future is now.

Many good points here, and I concede the point on strong cast and QB being tied at the hip, but one thing carries the day. You can win the SB with a great QB and a strong surrounding cast, but you can't win the SB with a strong surrounding cast minus a great QB. The example of Dilfer doing it no longer applies given the new rules the league is employing.

Yes, we're down a few picks that could mean a great deal to our nucleus. This move is a long term move in that when you think you have a chance to draft that rare, game-changing QB, you do it. Even if it hurts your immediate draft classes. And you keep that QB in house for 10-15 years, and you find a way to take care of the rest later when you've got 1st rounders again.

It all starts with the QB. I don't think Tannehill is that guy. Apparently the Redskins don't either. With Griffin's potential, at least there's hope. With Ryan Tannehill or Rex Grossman or Matt Flynn, the only hope is that we'll be in the right position to draft Barkley next season.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Many good points here, and I concede the point on strong cast and QB being tied at the hip, but one thing carries the day. You can win the SB with a great QB and a strong surrounding cast, but you can't win the SB with a strong surrounding cast minus a great QB. The example of Dilfer doing it no longer applies given the new rules the league is employing.

I think winning the SB still validates your belief in the current QB. We saw it happen w/Eli a few years back: if the 49ers win the SB next year, they'll be front and center calling out people who called Alex Smith a bust.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think winning the SB still validates your belief in the current QB. We saw it happen w/Eli a few years back: if the 49ers win the SB next year, they'll be front and center calling out people who called Alex Smith a bust.

True. But the only QBs in whom we believe are SB winners are those taken at the top of the draft. Eli validated the belief.

Hence Griffin. QBs with that much promise give hope by offering the legit shot at it.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

True. But the only QBs in whom we believe are SB winners are those taken at the top of the draft. Eli validated the belief.

Hence Griffin. QBs with that much promise give hope by offering the legit shot at it.

I mean, T.J. Yates was never plan A, but he was taken in the 6th round last year, and ended up quarterbacking the pound-for-pound best team last year as a rookie. Odds were always going to be against him to win the whole thing, but all the Texans needed was a guy who would be pushing in the right direction at the quarterback position. And there are more than 32 guys like that in the league.

The Redskins, however, cannot get to where the Texans were simply by having Griffin push the team in the right direction. He is the team. Already.

I don't think the Redskins deserve to be ridiculed for making what was a very defensible trade. But by calling this trade a "loss" for the Redskins FO, we can separate Griffin from the expectations that 3 first round picks and a second would normally create. If we can accept that the Redskins got worse in this deal, I think we can judge RG3 in comparison to all highly drafted NFL quarterbacks, instead of the player who returned the greatest compensation in the last 12 NFL seasons.