Redskins get 2nd pick. Flynn not a Redskin.

[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!

[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 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, 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

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

[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.