Redskins get 2nd pick. Flynn not a Redskin.

[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?