Redskins get 2nd pick. Flynn not a Redskin.

[SkinBasket]

For their 6th and 2nd round pick and a couple more next year according to some fucker on the moving picture box. I was positive that's where Flynn ass face would end up. So I was wrong. Sue me or bang my mom. See if i care.

[ND72]

Washington seds 2012,2013,2014 #1 pick, 2012 2nd round, and up to 2 other future picks.

[SkinBasket]

Washington seds 2012,2013,2014 #1 pick, 2012 2nd round, and up to 2 other future picks.

I know that's what they're reporting, but if that's true, that's stupid. Moving up 4 spots is going to cost them 2 1sts, a 2nd, and more? It's Ricky Williams all over again.

Hahahaha! My day is done!
http://www.stogieguys.com/sg-content/uploads/2007/01/ditkacigarclassy.jpg

[HarveyWallbangers]

Ouch!

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/54903/vikings-get-final-price-tag-on-week-16-win


It's been clear for some time that the Minnesota Vikings wouldn't be in position to trade their No. 3 overall pick to a team that wanted to draft Baylor quarterback Robert Griffin III. Griffin's performance in last month's NFL scouting combine sealed his spot as the second-best player in the draft, and on Friday night the St. Louis Rams traded the No. 2 pick to the Washington Redskins for a bounty that will make Vikings fans rue the day their team dropped from contention for the No. 2 pick themselves.

As you assuredly know, the Vikings were on track to have the NFL's second-worst record before they defeated the Redskins 33-26 in Week 16. (Tailback Adrian Peterson also suffered a major knee injury in that game, an unrelated but no less serious event.) After Friday night's trade, we now know the difference between winning and losing that game was two future first-round picks and a second-rounder.

[red]

wow thats a lot to give up

[gbgary]

incredible!

[King Friday]

RGIII...I feel sorry for you. You'll never amount to what you could've been in Washington.

[King Friday]

May mean Flynn goes to Cleveland?

[woodbuck27]

May mean Flynn goes to Cleveland?

Miami hasn't signed PM yet. It seems they covet PM but he might want an easier route to another Super bowl ring. Miami seems like home but that's offset by the fact he has to play the NE Patriots at least twice a season. The NY Jets are out. I cannot see him going to the NFC as again he has to compete possibly with Eli. So he stays in the AFC.

Who's got the cash? Miami, KC or Tennessee?

[Pugger]

I have my doubts about Manning going to Miami too. I'd think Peyton would want to go to a team that is closer to going to the Super Bowl seeing he is at the twilight of his career.

[woodbuck27]

Washington seds 2012,2013,2014 #1 pick, 2012 2nd round, and up to 2 other future picks.


Good grief ! Two more first round picks ... plus plus ! Source ?

[Upnorth]

Wow, just wow. Thank god we have TT. The best part of this is the vikings story, looks like week 16 was the worst loss of the season for the vikings.

[woodbuck27]

Wow, just wow. Thank god we have TT. The best part of this is the vikings story, looks like week 16 was the worst loss of the season for the vikings.

No kidding. That weekend if I was the Vikings HC I would have advised 'no curfue'. Hey boys party hardy...get out to those strip clubs. RIP Errrr up ! Forget breckfast Sunday morning. TANK Errrr !!

[KYPack]

Washington seds 2012,2013,2014 #1 pick, 2012 2nd round, and up to 2 other future picks.

Goofy coach sells team's future down the river to get QB?

Shanny the Rat = Dan Devine?

[Fosco33]

This is shocking. I can't believe they think the early career of RGIII is worth 3 day 1 picks...

Imagine this - RG blows first year (as many rooks do). High draft pick to Rams.
Or 2nd/3rd year - RG gets hurt and/or Redskins just continue to suck - more high draft picks...

Rams now have Bradford and can build a better team around him with all these high picks coming along.

Time will tell - but I guess Skins think RG is their franchise QB. No pressure ;-)

[MJZiggy]

So what happens if in the whole bounty debacle, the Redskins lose draft picks?

[sheepshead]

Holy Crap, we'll be talking about this for years.

[Patler]

Goofy coach sells team's future down the river to get QB?

Shanny the Rat = Dan Devine?

Seems pretty loony, doesn't it?

[Brandon494]

Very dumb move by the Skins, they have way too many holes on their team to be giving up that many high picks to move up 4 spots in the draft. I'm not mad though, living in Richmond VA I'm forced to watch every Skins game. At least RGIII will now make them bearable to watch.

[pbmax]

Some of the actual football people at Football Outsiders think RGIII is a perfect fit for a Shanahan offense, zone running, play action and moving pocket. So in a lot of ways, this move is logical, far more logical than Manning or keeping the Rex Cannon or John Beck.

I wonder how much Danny was bidding against himself in this, because the only other confirmed offers I have seen were a mention of a late bid by Cleveland on PFT? I expected prices for draft trades to increase because with the new CBA, those top picks are far less costly (in dollars) and risky, making them overall more attractive. But this is Herschel Walker level dumb.

[ND72]

I still see Flynn going to Miami or Seattle and Manning going to Kansas City.

[mraynrand]

If the Packers had to make this trade in '92 for Brett Favre, they would have lost Buckley, Simmons, George Teague, and Mark D'Onofrio - but would have gotten their second first round pick at #19 back.

Who here wouldn't have traded Buckley, Simmons, George Teague, and Mark D'Onofrio for Brett Favre any day of the week. If RGIII is an all time great, it's potentially a total bargain. But I still think it's crazy, cuz he'll probably blow out a knee in week III.

[Bretsky]

With three QB's about ready to get drafted in round one and Manning to be had for free it was terrible timing to lose Flynn this year. With that being said, TT wasn't going to franchise Flynn anyways unless anybody came with an offer...Sincerely...Captain Obvious

Manning will look good as a AZ Cardinal

[pbmax]

If the Packers had to make this trade in '92 for Brett Favre, they would have lost Buckley, Simmons, George Teague, and Mark D'Onofrio - but would have gotten their second first round pick at #19 back.

Who here wouldn't have traded Buckley, Simmons, George Teague, and Mark D'Onofrio for Brett Favre any day of the week. If RGIII is an all time great, it's potentially a total bargain. But I still think it's crazy, cuz he'll probably blow out a knee in week III.

The '96 defense looks a lot different than the league's number 1 unit without good 'ol crazy Wayne. Deal makes sense, but it's going to cost you somebody.

The detailed question is why, in the face of few competing offers and a franchise very eager to trade before FA started (and fewer teams available to bid) did the price go up so much?

[Fosco33]

Value Chart...

# 2 Pick - 2600

#6 - 1600
# 39 - 510
Next 2 years of 1st Round Picks (say average 16) - 1000 + 1000

So - 2600 for ~4100 (more/less)...

[Patler]

If the Packers had to make this trade in '92 for Brett Favre, they would have lost Buckley, Simmons, George Teague, and Mark D'Onofrio - but would have gotten their second first round pick at #19 back.

Who here wouldn't have traded Buckley, Simmons, George Teague, and Mark D'Onofrio for Brett Favre any day of the week. If RGIII is an all time great, it's potentially a total bargain. But I still think it's crazy, cuz he'll probably blow out a knee in week III.

I'm not sure you have the right players. The Redskins traded 2012 1st & 2nd, 2013 1st, 2014 1st, and reportedly up to 2 additional conditional picks. If the packers made that trade in '92, it would have included:

'92 1st - Buckley
'92 2nd - D'Onofrio
'93 1st - Simmons
'94 1st - Aaron Taylor (They traded their 1st and 3rd in '94 to move up for Taylor, without their 1st, no Taylor, but they would have still had #89 )

Teague was a pick obtained in '93 from the Cowboys, gotten for a bunch of the Packers picks that year, including two 2nds. That wouldn't have been affected by your theoretical trade


Simmons was a big factor in their Super Bowl run, and was later traded for the pick that brought Cory Bradford.

Taylor started in the Super Bowl, was lost to FA after five years, but figured into the large number of compensatory picks the Packers got in '99, which brought Hunt, Aaron Brooks,and Bidwell.

D'Onofrio looked like a very good player, with a starting job already as a rookie. Injuries ended his career, so sure, trading his rights would have been fine, but having him healthy would have been better.


With Favre taking over the starting job, would the conditional picks have been sacrificed too?
Who else might not have been a Packer? Probably a few lower round picks, but Wolf found a lot of contributors in the second halves of the drafts from '93-'95. (Brunnell, Doug Evans, Kuberski, Levens, Jervey, Timmerman, etc.) Some were from trades, but without the underlying picks that were used, the trades wouldn't have happened.

I think if the Packers had made a similar trade in '92, Their history for the next 10 years might have been very different.

[woodbuck27]

Value Chart...

# 2 Pick - 2600

#6 - 1600
# 39 - 510
Next 2 years of 1st Round Picks (say average 16) - 1000 + 1000

So - 2600 for ~4100 (more/less)...

Without considering all the intangibles then this was 'a BAD Deal' ... again ... by the Redskins.

[hoosier]

Value Chart...

# 2 Pick - 2600

#6 - 1600
# 39 - 510
Next 2 years of 1st Round Picks (say average 16) - 1000 + 1000

So - 2600 for ~4100 (more/less)...

2013 and 2014 1's should not be valued the same as this year's. Typically you see teams giving up next year's 1 for a 2 this year. So figure next year's is worth 500, 2014 is worth 250, and the Skins are giving up about 2850 in exchange for 2600. Not so bad if you look at it that way. Of course, you could also argue that the value chart cannot provide an accurate measure of worth when you're trading this year's picks for future picks.

[woodbuck27]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=ApS8_Xr2e3nMnvmd9JgibtiYvMJ_?slug=dw-wetzel_robert_griffin_trade_redskins_colts_rams030 9

Rams win big in Robert Griffin III sweepstakes; Colts left to wonder what if they dealt No. 1 pick

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/sp/ed/experts/wetzel.png?a=1 By Dan Wetzel (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/expertsarchive?author=Dan+Wetzel), Yahoo! Sports 14 hours, 30 minutes ago

CLICK on LINK for the story.

[LP]

Sue me or bang my mom. See if i care.

Could you post the figures for your total net worth, and some pictures of your mom please? There are decisions to be made.

[woodbuck27]

Very dumb move by the Skins, they have way too many holes on their team to be giving up that many high picks to move up 4 spots in the draft. I'm not mad though, living in Richmond VA I'm forced to watch every Skins game. At least RGIII will now make them bearable to watch.

The Skins sure hope they will be bearable to watch. Who's on the 'HOT SEAT'? The Skins Brass or RGIII?

[gbgary]

Could you post the figures for your total net worth, and some pictures of your mom please? There are decisions to be made.

lol

[mraynrand]

I'm not sure you have the right players. The Redskins traded 2012 1st & 2nd, 2013 1st, 2014 1st, and reportedly up to 2 additional conditional picks. If the packers made that trade in '92, it would have included:

'92 1st - Buckley
'92 2nd - D'Onofrio
'93 1st - Simmons
'94 1st - Aaron Taylor (They traded their 1st and 3rd in '94 to move up for Taylor, without their 1st, no Taylor, but they would have still had #89 )

Teague was a pick obtained in '93 from the Cowboys, gotten for a bunch of the Packers picks that year, including two 2nds. That wouldn't have been affected by your theoretical trade


Simmons was a big factor in their Super Bowl run, and was later traded for the pick that brought Cory Bradford.

Taylor started in the Super Bowl, was lost to FA after five years, but figured into the large number of compensatory picks the Packers got in '99, which brought Hunt, Aaron Brooks,and Bidwell.

D'Onofrio looked like a very good player, with a starting job already as a rookie. Injuries ended his career, so sure, trading his rights would have been fine, but having him healthy would have been better.


With Favre taking over the starting job, would the conditional picks have been sacrificed too?
Who else might not have been a Packer? Probably a few lower round picks, but Wolf found a lot of contributors in the second halves of the drafts from '93-'95. (Brunnell, Doug Evans, Kuberski, Levens, Jervey, Timmerman, etc.) Some were from trades, but without the underlying picks that were used, the trades wouldn't have happened.

I think if the Packers had made a similar trade in '92, Their history for the next 10 years might have been very different.


Without quibbling about exactly which players were affected, I think I got the nature of the trade correct. Packers would have sacrificed plenty of players, but certainly no one who was nearly as replaceable as Favre. Plus, the whole point is the value of the player being traded for - RGIII and Favre. Obviously at the time, Favre was only worth a #19 pick, but he turned out to be much, much more. That's why it was a total steal. had the Packers given up what the 'skins are giving up for RGIII, it would not have been a steal, but OBOALOO45, it would have been a good deal - I think the Packers could make up for the missing draft picks in trades and FA - requiring a little more juggling from Wolf. If RGIII turns out to be a pedestrian QB, and not a Brett Favre quality guy, it will set the 'skins back several years. But they're used to that.

[Patler]

Without quibbling about exactly which players were affected, I think I got the nature of the trade correct. Packers would have sacrificed plenty of players, but certainly no one who was nearly as replaceable as Favre. Plus, the whole point is the value of the player being traded for - RGIII and Favre. Obviously at the time, Favre was only worth a #19 pick, but he turned out to be much, much more. That's why it was a total steal. had the Packers given up what the 'skins are giving up for RGIII, it would not have been a steal, but OBOALOO45, it would have been a good deal - I think the Packers could make up for the missing draft picks in trades and FA - requiring a little more juggling from Wolf. If RGIII turns out to be a pedestrian QB, and not a Brett Favre quality guy, it will set the 'skins back several years. But they're used to that.

I disagree. Simmons and Taylor were big parts of the Super Bowl team. Replacing them would not have been easy. We don't even know what the conditional picks are, but chances are, based on Favre's quick development, the Packers would have lost those, too. The initial players netted still others through trades and FA compensations. Losing all those roster assets would have made the Packers very different during the '90s.

Sherman gutted the depth of the roster by continually trading 2-for1 with draft picks. Investing 4 to 6 draft picks in one player does the same thing.

[King Friday]

I'm with Patler. Favre alone isn't enough to win anything...look at the early 2000s. Giving up multiple first round draft picks and 5+ picks overall on one player...even if he becomes a franchise caliber QB...just doesn't make sense. Most great QBs have something in common...a lot of solid talent around them. You take away some of the defensive guys to get Favre and suddenly Wolf is drafting more for need than BPA. That is a recipe for disaster (see Sherman, as Patler points out) because when a few picks don't pan out you have too many holes in the dam to field a championship contender.

A top 10 QB is clearly one of the best ways to build a title contender in today's NFL. However, you need a roster of 50 solid contributors in today's NFL. Giving up 5 or 6 draft picks greatly reduces your chances of reaching that goal...meaning you need almost a perfect scenario of health and luck to be a title contender even if you are a savvy GM like Thompson. With Snyder's constant meddling in personnel when he really doesn't have a clue, I give the Redskins no chance of doing anything.

[Joemailman]

This trade makes more sense than what the Falcons did to get Julio Jones. Great WR's are easier to find than great QB's. He better be great though, since they could have had Tannehill without giving up anything.

[KYPack]

I think Shanny is in full-blown panic mode. This is a foolish trade, but establishes the Skins record as the team that has pissed away the most draft picks in NFL history.

[Joemailman]

I think Shanny is in full-blown panic mode. This is a foolish trade, but establishes the Skins record as the team that has pissed away the most draft picks in NFL history.

Who is running the show there? Snyder, Bruce Allen, or Shanahan?

[ND72]

Trade chart does not exist anymore with new cba....nfl network tonight said managements do have a new chart but has not been seen publicly. Also, future draft picks are valued at pick #16 of that picks round.

[swede]

Trade chart does not exist anymore with new cba....nfl network tonight said managements do have a new chart but has not been seen publicly. Also, future draft picks are valued at pick #16 of that picks round.

I would think that, if I were a GM, the new chart would not matter as much as what I think about the values anyway. Somebody may propose a trade based on the chart but we all know that we would look at what we would lose or gain based on our own draft board. I'll hold out for more or accept less on my own calculations.

The "chart" always seemed to me to be a better scorecard for the media and fans than it is an indispensable tool for the teams.

[mraynrand]

I disagree. Simmons and Taylor were big parts of the Super Bowl team. Replacing them would not have been easy. We don't even know what the conditional picks are, but chances are, based on Favre's quick development, the Packers would have lost those, too. The initial players netted still others through trades and FA compensations. Losing all those roster assets would have made the Packers very different during the '90s.

Sherman gutted the depth of the roster by continually trading 2-for1 with draft picks. Investing 4 to 6 draft picks in one player does the same thing.

So knowing what you know about Favre's career and the career of the others (including things you left out like Simmons having to be let go due to temperament, Taylor with multiple knee injuries). You wouldn't have made the trade?

I would. I'd trade relative mediocrity like Taylor, Simmons, and Buckley in a minute for a HOF, top 5-10 all-time QB. But that's just me I guess.

[pbmax]

Without quibbling about exactly which players were affected, I think I got the nature of the trade correct. Packers would have sacrificed plenty of players, but certainly no one who was nearly as replaceable as Favre. Plus, the whole point is the value of the player being traded for - RGIII and Favre. Obviously at the time, Favre was only worth a #19 pick, but he turned out to be much, much more. That's why it was a total steal. had the Packers given up what the 'skins are giving up for RGIII, it would not have been a steal, but OBOALOO45, it would have been a good deal - I think the Packers could make up for the missing draft picks in trades and FA - requiring a little more juggling from Wolf. If RGIII turns out to be a pedestrian QB, and not a Brett Favre quality guy, it will set the 'skins back several years. But they're used to that.

On balance, I agree that it still makes sense to acquire Favre in that scenario. The team is better (though not as much). But the trouble is risk. Nobody knew whether Favre would cut it or if RGIII will. So to commit those resources to an unknown quantity (unlike, say, Peyton Manning four years ago) is, over time, a losing approach.

[pbmax]

Who is running the show there? Snyder, Bruce Allen, or Shanahan?

Shanny made Bruce Allen part of the package deal when he got hired, so Bruce is working for Mike. Allen had a rep since his Raider/Tampa days with Chucky of being coach friendly. Cerrato is out of the picture. Its Shanny's show, but its unclear what kind of pressure Snyder might be placing on him.

So picture Shanahan at his desk with a gavel, Year At A Glance calendar, Jake Plummer bobblehead and some rubber stamps and ink pads, calling out the shots. Then picture a guillotine hanging over his head.

[pbmax]

Trade chart does not exist anymore with new cba....nfl network tonight said managements do have a new chart but has not been seen publicly. Also, future draft picks are valued at pick #16 of that picks round.

Aren't they also discounted a round?

[mraynrand]

On balance, I agree that it still makes sense to acquire Favre in that scenario. The team is better (though not as much). But the trouble is risk. Nobody knew whether Favre would cut it or if RGIII will. So to commit those resources to an unknown quantity (unlike, say, Peyton Manning four years ago) is, over time, a losing approach.

Unless RGIII really is a faster, quicker, more accurate, less dog-killing Mike Vick.

I'll take the top 10 HOF QB against at best 3-4 starters who would be very lucky to be named in the top 100-300 for their positions. That's where I'm at with it. But I'm assuming the guy is that good. If he only has as much impact as a Hershel Walker or Ricky Williams, it's a bad deal.

Anyway, the Redskins are used to a losing approach. Why not roll the dice? :)

[MJZiggy]

Unless RGIII really is a faster, quicker, more accurate, less dog-killing Mike Vick.

I'll take the top 10 HOF QB against at best 3-4 starters who would be very lucky to be named in the top 100-300 for their positions. That's where I'm at with it. But I'm assuming the guy is that good. If he only has as much impact as a Hershel Walker or Ricky Williams, it's a bad deal.

Anyway, the Redskins are used to a losing approach. Why not roll the dice? :)

How did you know in 1991 that Favre was a top 10 HOF QB. When we acquired him, he was a 3rd string QB whose coach hated him and whose greatest accomplishment thus far was in trying to drink himself out of the league.

[Patler]

So knowing what you know about Favre's career and the career of the others (including things you left out like Simmons having to be let go due to temperament, Taylor with multiple knee injuries). You wouldn't have made the trade?

I would. I'd trade relative mediocrity like Taylor, Simmons, and Buckley in a minute for a HOF, top 5-10 all-time QB. But that's just me I guess.

No, I would not.

[Brandon494]

No, I would not.

Your crazy if you would not make that trade especially in today's NFL.

[Patler]

I would never trade 4 to 6 top draft picks over three years for one player. You will never have enough quality players to do anything even with the one star.

[King Friday]

I think the fact that, even in hindsight, trading a bunch of picks for BRETT FAVRE is arguable at best is probably the best argument that trading a bunch of picks for one draft pick is dumb. You aren't likely to ever get a guy the caliber of Favre, and could easily wind up with a complete dud...and lose out on all the other picks as well.

[pbmax]

Unless RGIII really is a faster, quicker, more accurate, less dog-killing Mike Vick.

I'll take the top 10 HOF QB against at best 3-4 starters who would be very lucky to be named in the top 100-300 for their positions. That's where I'm at with it. But I'm assuming the guy is that good. If he only has as much impact as a Hershel Walker or Ricky Williams, it's a bad deal.

Anyway, the Redskins are used to a losing approach. Why not roll the dice? :)

If you knew beforehand, then the risk is eliminated. But the Redskin's penchant for rolling the dice is what got them into this predicament in the first place. Its a better deal than for Herschel Walker since the QB is more important, but its going to hurt at some point.

Short term, they could get a real boost. Since it was a swap of firsts this year, they will have another top flight rookie to help. But by the time that Griffin and his fellow first rounder are ready to compete at the highest level they can, the team will be handicapped.

[mraynrand]

If you knew beforehand, then the risk is eliminated. But the Redskin's penchant for rolling the dice is what got them into this predicament in the first place. Its a better deal than for Herschel Walker since the QB is more important, but its going to hurt at some point.

Short term, they could get a real boost. Since it was a swap of firsts this year, they will have another top flight rookie to help. But by the time that Griffin and his fellow first rounder are ready to compete at the highest level they can, the team will be handicapped.


I thought it was a fun hypothetical.

The idea of the team being handicapped is a guess. I would agree that your chances of getting a good surrounding cast goes down, but it's not impossible. There's about a 40% success rates among the best teams, last time I looked this up - of guys in rounds 1-4 significantly contributing. If you blow the picks on RGIII then 1) RGIII has to be extremely good, and 2) you have to be a really good GM over the next three years to compensate for the lost picks. I don't know if Allen and Shanny have it in 'em. Their history is risky picks/trades that don't pan out (e.g. the #2 for McNabb was a head scratcher).

[Patler]

There's about a 40% success rates among the best teams, last time I looked this up - of guys in rounds 1-4 significantly contributing.

I wonder what the success rate is on rounds 2-4, because that is what they are looking at next year and the year after.

By the time the league gets done with then this year, and having traded their 1st and 2nd, maybe their staff can take an early vacation the week of the draft! :smile:

[Cheesehead Craig]

blah blah blah blah blah... But this is Herschel Walker level dumb.

That about sums it up.

[gbgary]

they may not have the bucks to sigh rg3 with the cap hit they're being forced to take. maybe they'll trade down now. lol

[Joemailman]

they may not have the bucks to sigh rg3 with the cap hit they're being forced to take. maybe they'll trade down now. lol

They can delay some, or even all of the salary cap hit until 2013 if they want to.

[pbmax]

Seems like the Redskins were never in the Payton Manning chase after all, doesn't it?

PFT speculates that one reason the Skins went so far this early for the Rams pick was the cap penalty. His theory is that once the Rams knew the Skins couldn't afford a top level free agent, they had the Skins over a barrel.

[woodbuck27]

Good grief ! Two more first round picks ... plus plus ! Source ?

The news just gets worse for the Washington Redskins:

NFL Cracks Down on Cowboys and Redskins for Cutting Salary Cap Corners.

The NFL (http://bleacherreport.com/nfl) does not approve of the way the Dallas Cowboys and Washington Redskins chose to arrange their payrolls in the uncapped 2010 season.
According to ESPN's Adam Schefter (https://twitter.com/#%21/adamschefter), the league has decided to punish the Cowboys and Redskins:

NFL is taking away millions of dolllar of salary-cap space from Cowboys and Redskins for how they front-loaded deals during uncapped year.
— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) March 12, 2012 (https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/179279542773489664)
Cowboys lose $10 million in cap space, Redskins lose $36 million in space. Can split it over 2012 and 2013 any way they want. More at ESPN.
— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) March 12, 2012 (https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/179283923803713536)

[sharpe1027]

If the Packers had to make this trade in '92 for Brett Favre, they would have lost Buckley, Simmons, George Teague, and Mark D'Onofrio - but would have gotten their second first round pick at #19 back.

Who here wouldn't have traded Buckley, Simmons, George Teague, and Mark D'Onofrio for Brett Favre any day of the week. If RGIII is an all time great, it's potentially a total bargain. But I still think it's crazy, cuz he'll probably blow out a knee in week III.

In the year Favre was drafted, Dan McGwire (#1 QB drafted) and Todd Marinovich (#2 QB drafted) went ahead of Favre. So, with Luck #1 and RGIII #2, your analogy makes more sense if you replace Favre with Marinovich.

I would prefer Buckley, Simmons, George Teague, and Mark D'Onofrio over Marinovich. ;)

[mraynrand]

In the year Favre was drafted, Dan McGwire (#1 QB drafted) and Todd Marinovich (#2 QB drafted) went ahead of Favre. So, with Luck #1 and RGIII #2, your analogy makes more sense if you replace Favre with Marinovich.

I would prefer Buckley, Simmons, George Teague, and Mark D'Onofrio over Marinovich. ;)

OK, but the hypothetical I was posing was assuming RGIII turns out to be a great QB, is the trade worth it? I was surprised to see people balking on the trade, EVEN if RGIII was as good as say Favre. So, answer this: If RGIII is slightly better than Vick - that is, a bit faster, a bit quicker, and a more accurate passer, would you make the trade? I would in a heartbeat.

[woodbuck27]

Shanny made Bruce Allen part of the package deal when he got hired, so Bruce is working for Mike. Allen had a rep since his Raider/Tampa days with Chucky of being coach friendly. Cerrato is out of the picture. Its Shanny's show, but its unclear what kind of pressure Snyder might be placing on him.

So picture Shanahan at his desk with a gavel, Year At A Glance calendar, Jake Plummer bobblehead and some rubber stamps and ink pads, calling out the shots. Then picture a guillotine hanging over his head.


I think what your implying is straight up. Shanahan is shitting his pants every day. (-: He's uncomfortable in Washington.

[woodbuck27]

OK, but the hypothetical I was posing was assuming RGIII turns out to be a great QB, is the trade worth it? I was surprised to see people balking on the trade, EVEN if RGIII was as good as say Favre. So, answer this: If RGIII is slightly better than Vick - that is, a bit faster, a bit quicker, and a more accurate passer, would you make the trade? I would in a heartbeat.

How good is your three year...four year...five year plan to win the Super Bowl. Because it's ALL ABOUT THAT.

[sharpe1027]

OK, but the hypothetical I was posing was assuming RGIII turns out to be a great QB, is the trade worth it? I was surprised to see people balking on the trade, EVEN if RGIII was as good as say Favre. So, answer this: If RGIII is slightly better than Vick - that is, a bit faster, a bit quicker, and a more accurate passer, would you make the trade? I would in a heartbeat.

You would need to assume that none of your other first round picks are likely would end up being great players in their own right or else it is at best a wash.

The problem I have with the hypothetical is that you must assume that you can correctly judge RGIII with 100% accuracy, but you are guaranteed not to correctly judge any of your first round picks over the next three years.

[Fritz]

This deal confirms Snyder as a sure-fire pick to get into the Owners Hall of Shame. This guy keeps making the same kind of mistake, over and over. Gamble the future away.

And Mike Shanahan's reputation continues to crumble.

[woodbuck27]

This deal confirms Snyder as a sure-fire pick to get into the Owners Hall of Shame. This guy keeps making the same kind of mistake, over and over. Gamble the future away.

And Mike Shanahan's reputation continues to crumble.

What must it be like to be a Redskins fan? The Redskins had other options. One of them was to look hard at Matt Flynn. That option would have cost them what? A third round pick. One pick to us and get a legitimate NFL ready 'starting QB'. Wouldn't Shanahan's shirt collar feel less tight?

[woodbuck27]

Holmgren gripes about Griffin trade

Posted by Mike Florio on March 15, 2012, 8:16 PM EDT
http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/mikeholmgrenseattleseahawksvtampabayc2shl5tk6b2l-e1331856833749.jpg?w=244 Getty Images

Last week at this time, the Rams were working out a deal to send the second overall pick in the 2012 draft to the Redskins for the sixth overall selection plus two other first-round picks and a second-round pick. The Browns were in the running for the pick that most likely will become the rights to Robert Griffin III (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/7406/robert-griffin-iii), but in the end the Rams decided not to do business with the Browns.

Browns president Mike Holmgren isn’t happy that a franchise that was once headquartered in Cleveland dissed the team that currently plays there. He seems to think it was an inside job by the Rams to steer the pick to the Redskins.

“Honestly, when it didn’t happen I think there are reasons that I can’t go into right now, but there is a very close relationship between the people getting the deal done and the people who offered. And I’m not sure anything we offered would have been good enough (http://www.espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&post_id=694).

We were very, very aggressive and it didn’t work,” Holmgren said during a Thursday conference call for season-ticket holders, via Tony Grossi of ESPN Cleveland.

(With all the football players getting new jobs lately, I forgot to point out that Grossi has a new job, too — he’s back on the Browns beat with ESPN Cleveland, which to its tremendous credit wasn’t troubled by Grossi’s Twitter malfunction from late January.)

As Grossi explains it, Rams coach Jeff Fisher and Redskins coach Mike Shanahan have a friendship. That friendship, in Holmgren’s view, ensured that the Redskins would get the pick.

But while Holmgren claimed that the Browns made “every bit the offer” that the Rams accepted from the Redskins, Holmgren didn’t disclose the terms. Was it three first-round picks and a second-round pick? Or was it some other package that Holmgren believes the Rams should have regarded as equivalent?

Peter King of SI.com reports via Twitter (https://twitter.com/#!/SI_PeterKing) that Rams G.M. Les Snead instructed teams to make their best offer. The Redskins did and the Browns did. Then, the Browns wanted to make another offer, but the Rams had already decided to accept what the Redskins had offered.

Holmgren’s comments seem misguided, for several reasons.

First, the Rams had the right to trade the pick to anyone to whom they wanted to trade the pick. There are no rules in this regard apart from the two interested teams coming to a mutual agreement and the league providing its approval.

Second, absent specific disclosure by Holmgren of the offer that was made in response to the Rams’ request for the “best offer,” there’s simply no way to assess the validity of Holmgren’s complaint.

Third, if Holmgren knew the Redskins were at the table and knew that the relationships involved pointed to St. Louis doing the deal with D.C., why bother to even try? Or, even better, why not offer more than what the Redskins were expected to put on the table?

Fourth, it wasn’t in the Rams’ interests to keep Griffin in the conference. All things being equal, it made more sense to ship the pick to the AFC, since the Rams will now face Griffin at least once every three years, and possibly any year in the six-team NFC playoff field. Thus, if it truly was a tie (and since Holmgren didn’t disclose the offer we don’t know that), the Rams would have been more inclined to trade Griffin to the Browns.

Fifth, the comments will do little to shore up the confidence of Colt McCoy (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/5699/colt-mccoy), or to allow the team to sell whoever the starter may be in 2012 as the first choice. The first choice was Griffin, and now everyone knows it.

Sixth, whining about the situation serves no purpose. Browns fans won’t get mad at the Rams or the Redskins; they’ll assume that the failure to land Griffin is the latest new product rolling off the assembly line at the “factory of sadness (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRBDMMVctu8).”

Seventh, Holmgren has surely benefited from his own friendships and relationships many more times than he has been burned by those maintained by others. The Godfather of what once was known loosely as the Green Bay Mafia (Jon Gruden perhaps was Luca Brasi), Holmgren knows how to call in favors and/or throw his weight around when he needs to.

He’s frustrated primarily because he wasn’t able to do it this time. He would have wise, in our view, to keep those frustrations to himself.

And with that I’ll officially withdraw my application for employment with the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

[pbmax]

M1 still working all the angles. This story gives him some cover for failing to land the pick without having to explain exactly how they valued it and whether they should have offered more originally.

[woodbuck27]

M1 still working all the angles. This story gives him some cover for failing to land the pick without having to explain exactly how they valued it and whether they should have offered more originally.

and after the FACT. What's M1 whining about.There are other QB options and one of those is a highly touted Matt Flynn. He once had a relationship with Matt Flynn's (maybe) former teams GM.

That option will likely cost M1's Browns 'just' one third round pick; not a combination of first and second round picks.

[woodbuck27]

In light of 2001 Hasselbeck trade, Holmgren’s complaints are hollow

Posted by Mike Florio on March 16, 2012, 1:37 PM EDT
http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/77917008_crop_650x440-e1331919252480.jpg?w=236 Getty Images

Browns president Mike Holmgren isn’t happy that his team wasn’t selected to make a deal with the Rams for the second overall pick in the draft.

“Honestly, when it didn’t happen I think there are reasons that I can’t go into right now, but there is a very close relationship between the people getting the deal done and the people who offered.

And I’m not sure anything we offered would have been good enough (http://www.espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&post_id=694),” Holmgren told season-ticket holders on Thursday.

To the extent the fix was in, Holmgren would know. Eleven years ago, Holmgren finagled a trade with his old team and his old boss for quarterback Matthew Hasselbeck (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/519/matt-hasselbeck).

As explained at the time by Don Banks of SI.com, the Dolphins were ready to send the 26th pick (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/16/holmgren-gripes-about-griffin-trade/) in round one to the Packers for Hasselbeck.

Then, at the last minute, Holmgren’s Seahawks offered a flip-flop of first-round picks, with the Packers moving from No. 17 to No. 10 and the Seahawks sliding from No. 10 down to No. 17.

“I figured if it got done today, I’d be a Miami Dolphin,” Hasselbeck told Banks.

“The Packers called and said, ‘You’re traded, but it’s not quite official yet until Mike Holmgren does some paperwork.’

And I said, ‘Mike Holmgren? It’s Seattle?’”

And so, thanks to his relationship with G.M. Ron Wolf, Holmgren was able to swoop in and swipe Hasselbeck, without even giving up a draft pick.

Under the now-outdated draft trade chart (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/draft/draft-trade-chart/), the flip-flop of picks No. 10 and 17 was worth 350 points.

The No. 26 pick in the first round was worth twice that.

So there’s yet another reason (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/16/holmgren-gripes-about-griffin-trade/) to not like Holmgren’s comments.

They’re hypocritical.

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/18/picking-apart-the-browns-pitch-for-the-griffin-pick/

Picking apart the Browns’ pitch for the Griffin pick

Posted by Mike Florio on March 18, 2012, 8:31 PM EDT

[Guiness]

In light of 2001 Hasselbeck trade, Holmgren’s complaints are hollow

Posted by Mike Florio on March 16, 2012, 1:37 PM EDT
Getty Images


Under the now-outdated draft trade chart (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/draft/draft-trade-chart/), the flip-flop of picks No. 10 and 17 was worth 350 points.

The No. 26 pick in the first round was worth twice that.

So there’s yet another reason (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/16/holmgren-gripes-about-griffin-trade/) to not like Holmgren’s comments.

They’re hypocritical.

There was also the little thing of Ahman Green being added in, and he worked out pretty well. Don't know what he was valued at, maybe more than the 350 points?

[pbmax]

There was also the little thing of Ahman Green being added in, and he worked out pretty well. Don't know what he was valued at, maybe more than the 350 points?

I think Ahman and Fred Vinson were a separate deal. But what Florio cannot explain in hindsight is how possible it would have been to trade those two first round picks back into the top ten. Picking in the second half of the first round (even twice) does not get Sherman the pass rusher he wanted.

[Guiness]

I think Ahman and Fred Vinson were a separate deal. But what Florio cannot explain in hindsight is how possible it would have been to trade those two first round picks back into the top ten. Picking in the second half of the first round (even twice) does not get Sherman the pass rusher he wanted.

Right, my mistake. I thought he was part of the first round pick swaps. If it was Hasselbeck to move up 7 picks that does seem lobsided, it depends how badly Sherman wanted Reynolds, and it was probably a lot. I don't remember, was he the Pack's first choice, or was there someone else who went off the board before Sherman picked?

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/20/mike-holmgren-thinks-colt-mccoy-is-fine-with-pursuit-of-griffin/

Mike Holmgren thinks Colt McCoy is fine with pursuit of Griffin

Posted by Josh Alper on March 20, 2012, 9:48 AM EDT