PDA

View Full Version : Would You Give Up the 2013 #1 pick for RG3?


descendency
02-28-2012, 05:25 AM
The rumor is that Washington wants that #2 pick really bad. So bad, that they're offering a 2012 1st (4 spots lower than the Rams are selecting now), 2nd, and 3rd as well as a 2013 1st. That 2013 #1 could be a very very high pick...

I really like RG3, but Washington's offense is terrible. Their line is bad. Their receivers are bad. Their running game is bad. Their defense isn't much better (especially the secondary).

After Cam Newton, a lot of people will think RG3 can step right in and win a Super Bowl, but the Panthers had more to their team than Washington does. He's going to take time to develop and could have a very Peyton Manning-esque rookie year.

They will play in one of the best divisions. Tell me Washington isn't nuts for trading all of that for RG3?

AntoinCD
02-28-2012, 05:48 AM
Obviously if Washington make the trade they are banking on the first being a lot lower than first overall, plus they are hoping RG3 will be their long term franchsie QB. It's hard to quantify what would be overpaying for a guy you can hitch your wagon to for 10+ years.

That being said if the choice was 2012 1st, 2nd and 3rd plus the #1 overall pick in 2013 I wouldn't personally. You are using two picks on what should be elite prospects and two picks on what should be at the very least good starters.

For arguements sake they could potentially get

Morris Claiborne
Mohammed Sanu
Ben Jones
Matt Barkley

If they think RG3 is more valuable than all 4 of those guys then they would be silly not to do it, but it is a very hard sell to say that he would be better than those 4 combined

dannyz
02-28-2012, 05:50 AM
The thing is when you do all that it hurts your team and the player you Trade up for. I Love RGIII but like you said they expect him to Win Games and go to the Playoffs right now but in trading for him you are taking away guys that can help him get better. I think Washington has better Talent right now than Cleveland, even if RGIII turns out to be a Franchise QB for them I don't see them winning the the NFC East or going to the playoffs every year.

descendency
02-28-2012, 06:09 AM
My concern wouldn't be making the playoffs. It'd be giving up a 6th overall pick and a 1st overall pick, plus two other quality picks for 1 player.

As already mentioned, it's hard to not envision where Matt Barkley (or whomever is the #1 QB next year) + Mo Claiborne + Mohammed Sanu + Ben Jones > Robert Griffin III.

Then again, if you draft the first 3 guys (Claiborne, Sanu, and Jones), you probably won't be drafting #1 overall next year, so getting a guy like Barkley may not be an option.

Shane P. Hallam
02-28-2012, 06:17 AM
The Panthers had more to their team than Washington does


Hindsight is 20/20, many didn't feel that way about the Panthers last year (and don't about the Colts this year, but if they play well, people will forget that).

The Redskins defense was 13th in yards per game and offense was 15th in yards per game. Not great, but not awful. They gave up points and didn't score point consistently, but with how bad the QB play was, I think they can redeem themselves with better QB play. They aren't THAT far off. If the O-line can stay healthy, they actually are solid, defense has some good players, and they have a nice young RB. I think it is worth it.

AntoinCD
02-28-2012, 06:27 AM
My concern wouldn't be making the playoffs. It'd be giving up a 6th overall pick and a 1st overall pick, plus two other quality picks for 1 player.

As already mentioned, it's hard to not envision where Matt Barkley (or whomever is the #1 QB next year) + Mo Claiborne + Mohammed Sanu + Ben Jones > Robert Griffin III.

Then again, if you draft the first 3 guys (Claiborne, Sanu, and Jones), you probably won't be drafting #1 overall next year, so getting a guy like Barkley may not be an option.

Yeah if they think their 2013 pick will be first overall they won't make the trade IMO. Overall though they will expect the pick to be no lower than about 12

703SKINS202
02-28-2012, 06:55 AM
Hindsight is 20/20, many didn't feel that way about the Panthers last year (and don't about the Colts this year, but if they play well, people will forget that).

The Redskins defense was 13th in yards per game and offense was 15th in yards per game. Not great, but not awful. They gave up points and didn't score point consistently, but with how bad the QB play was, I think they can redeem themselves with better QB play. They aren't THAT far off. If the O-line can stay healthy, they actually are solid, defense has some good players, and they have a nice young RB. I think it is worth it.

Exactly, this team isn't as bad as some people are thinking. We were lauded with horrible quarterback play throughout the season. If the Skins can add someone like V Jax or Colston along with an Eddie Royal they could really have a potent offense with RG3.

On defense the pieces are there in the front 7 especially with Jarvis Jenkins coming back after missing his rookie season. Secondary could definitely use some help but this is the Redskins best chance to get a franchise QB in a long time. Doubt they end up with the #1 pick in 2013.

DiG
02-28-2012, 07:06 AM
I'd easily give up more than a 2013 first if i needed to. I don't see much of a gap personally between Luck and RG3 and you don't know when you will have the opportunity again to bring in a franchise prospect of that caliber. I don't think Barkley is on RG3 and Lucks level nor do I think he is as perfect a fit in Shanahans offense let alone the thought that there are 31 other teams and theres no way to say you won't have to trade up again next year for a top QB. If you can do it, you need to do it.

BuddyCHRIST
02-28-2012, 07:24 AM
Yup, because they don't have a franchise QB and they need one. If they believe RG3 is that guy then they should get him. I also don't believe by any stretch it will be worth the number 1 overall next year, and even if they are still terrible next year, getting the actual number 1 pick requires luck as well. Some other team could be just as terrible. They could miss out on a franchise QB again and theyd be right where they are.

descendency
02-28-2012, 07:32 AM
I'd easily give up more than a 2013 first if i needed to. I don't see much of a gap personally between Luck and RG3 and you don't know when you will have the opportunity again to bring in a franchise prospect of that caliber. I don't think Barkley is on RG3 and Lucks level nor do I think he is as perfect a fit in Shanahans offense let alone the thought that there are 31 other teams and theres no way to say you won't have to trade up again next year for a top QB. If you can do it, you need to do it.

I'm really talking about all of the picks they might have to give up. Yeah, there is a really good argument to be made for RG3 in Washington.

I do think it's a fairly good point that that Washington hasn't even had decent QB play, so RG3 might be better than them anyways.

As far as whom will get the #1 overall pick next year; it really depends on whom has the worst luck with injuries and whatnot. Washington has to be on that list.

DiG
02-28-2012, 07:37 AM
I'm really talking about all of the picks they might have to give up. Yeah, there is a really good argument to be made for RG3 in Washington.

I do think it's a fairly good point that that Washington hasn't even had decent QB play, so RG3 might be better than them anyways.

As far as whom will get the #1 overall pick next year; it really depends on whom has the worst luck with injuries and whatnot. Washington has to be on that list.

Decent is an understatement...Over the last 10 years the Redskins starting QBs have been: Grossman, Beck, Aged McNabb, Campbell, Brunell, Ramsey, Shane Mathews, Tony Banks, and Brad Johnson. I can't help but think RG3 would in his first year be better than everyone on that damn list. We may have to give up some picks to get him but we also happen to have some of the most cap space in the entire league that could be used to bring in young talent as well where needed.

georgiafan
02-28-2012, 07:55 AM
Redskins are not gonna win that divison without better QB play and RG3 will be long gone by the time they pick. So they should trade up for him assuming they dont have a similar grade on the 3rd ranked QB.

PossibleCabbage
02-28-2012, 08:37 AM
As a rule, I don't like trading future first round picks for players who are unproven at the NFL level. So I wouldn't do it.

Razor
02-28-2012, 09:01 AM
They will play in one of the best divisions. Tell me Washington isn't nuts for trading all of that for RG3?

They're not nuts. Normally I'd be opposed to spending that amount of picks on a player, but RGIII is special. Redskins may not have the best receivers, but they have a very talented defense, a promising running game, a left tackle and two pretty damn good TEs. With better play from their QB they could be competing for the division, especially if they use some of their cap space on one or more receivers in FA. Reggie Wayne could help a new QB in the league and a guy like Colston could come in and make a difference as well if he stays healthy.

vidae
02-28-2012, 09:06 AM
In a word, yes. I love RG3.

bitonti
02-28-2012, 09:10 AM
reading Prisco's article on Case Keenum yesterday (yeah I know), here's a question... Case Keenum quoted as saying no one says RG3 is a system QB but he is considered one? I think it's a valid question. NO one's really concerned about Rg3's production in that run and shoot spread system?

ATLDirtyBirds
02-28-2012, 09:14 AM
I'd do it. They have a solid base to their D, and can pick up a FA WR. Gotta do it. Otherwise, you're winning 4-6 games next year and selecting Matt Barkley. Go get the difference maker.

onejayhawk
02-28-2012, 11:25 AM
reading Prisco's article on Case Keenum yesterday (yeah I know), here's a question... Case Keenum quoted as saying no one says RG3 is a system QB but he is considered one? I think it's a valid question. NO one's really concerned about Rg3's production in that run and shoot spread system?

They see the easy opposite hash to sideline throw, and understand that the system is not structured to hide a weak arm, like, for example, Sothern Cal.

J

PossibleCabbage
02-28-2012, 11:54 AM
They see the easy opposite hash to sideline throw, and understand that the system is not structured to hide a weak arm, like, for example, Southern Cal.

Yeah, the criticism "system QB" is "that guy only succeeded because of the system he played in" not "that guy played in an offense that is unlike NFL offense."

You really can't expect college players these days to play in anything resembling an NFL offense, particularly quarterbacks.

keylime_5
02-28-2012, 12:00 PM
there is definitely a difference between a marginally talented QB being great in a system that it's easy to be great in, and an incredibly talented QB being great in a system that it's easy to be great in. Be able to make all (or at least most) of the throws first, then we'll talk.

FlyingElvis
02-28-2012, 12:16 PM
Exactly, this team isn't as bad as some people are thinking. We were lauded with horrible quarterback play throughout the season. If the Skins can add someone like V Jax or Colston along with an Eddie Royal they could really have a potent offense with RG3.

On defense the pieces are there in the front 7 especially with Jarvis Jenkins coming back after missing his rookie season. Secondary could definitely use some help but this is the Redskins best chance to get a franchise QB in a long time. Doubt they end up with the #1 pick in 2013.

I think the FA point is the really important one. Adding VJax gives a kid like RGIII a proven target and also takes a ton of pressure off Davis/Cooley and the developing WRs. (I still believe, Hank!) Draft picks are not locks, so giving up some extra ones is ok if you're convinced you get the franchise QB.

Let's not forget, as well, that they're not winning a ton of games with the previously mentioned Claiborne / Sanu / Jones combo if they can't land a true stud at QB next year. RGIII is just perfect for what Shanny wants in a QB, so that has to be considered as a huge plus in favor of making a huge trade.

FWIW - I think that price tag is never going to happen, anyway.

Complex
02-28-2012, 12:19 PM
Don't teams usally trade 2 1st round picks when trading up for the top 2-3 picks?

bigbuc
02-28-2012, 12:27 PM
Back in 04 the NY Gmen gave up two 1st's a 3rd and a 5th to move up from 4 to 1. Worked out well for them... If you think that RG3 is the guy... go get your guy... at any price.

fear the elf
02-28-2012, 12:40 PM
They also had some decent talent on that team already. Tiki, Shockey, Amani Toomer, and Ike Hilliard. That's not too shabby.

JRTPlaya21
02-28-2012, 01:05 PM
If we are "so bad" like the OP thinks then how in the hell did we sweep the Giants & almost beat the Patriots......yeah football is weird.

steelersrock151
02-28-2012, 01:09 PM
Two firsts and a second is fair price for moving from 6 to 2. Rams will want more. Maybe first and second this year and first and third next.

FlyingElvis
02-28-2012, 01:12 PM
Don't teams usally trade 2 1st round picks when trading up for the top 2-3 picks?

Back in 04 the NY Gmen gave up two 1st's a 3rd and a 5th to move up from 4 to 1. Worked out well for them... If you think that RG3 is the guy... go get your guy... at any price.

The talk is two 1st round picks plus Washington's 2nd and 3rd this year.

1st + 1st + 3rd + 5th to move up 3 spots. 4 --> 1 for New York

1st + 1st + 2nd + 3rd to move up 4 spots. 6 --> 2 for Washington

We're talking a 2nd round pick instead of a 5th. That's a pretty big difference, imo. I still wouldn't call it impossible, though.

toonsterwu
02-28-2012, 04:27 PM
I don't think the Redskins are nearly as bad as you seem to think. The defensive front 7 is strong (and the return of Jarvis Jenkins, who was viewed as their top DL guy, will help). They need a CB and a FS (more competition than anything, not that they need an elite guy in there at FS, as they have some options), but they have the makings of a solid defense. Offensively (besides QB), there's some raw pieces. They need two OL (RT and interior ... assuming Trent lays off the drugs) and a top WR, but they have RB options and a dynamic TE.

At the end of the day, if you truly believe that a QB is elite, the trade is okay.

That said, yesterday I cautioned to watch out for Tannehill and the Skins, and today, the Post noted the same thing. His skillset fits what the Shanahan's want. I think they probably have RG3 as their top option, but if the price gets too high, Tannehill at 6 may be appealing.

Vendetta1
02-28-2012, 04:33 PM
no thats way to much. cam newton had steve smith , shockey, and greg olson, to throw to and johnathan stewart and deangelo williams in the backfield .. way more then he would have in wash.

Bulldogs
02-28-2012, 05:16 PM
no thats way to much. cam newton had steve smith , shockey, and greg olson, to throw to and johnathan stewart and deangelo williams in the backfield .. way more then he would have in wash.

Meh, Steve Smith and Jeremy Shockey were thought of as washed up (Shockey probably still is). I'll give you Olsen and two good backs though.

bigbuc
02-28-2012, 05:47 PM
Even the team that drafts RG3 is not going to be playoff bound next year. What you will be is better and have a player that you can build your franchise around la a the NY Gmen. So if the Redskins give up two 1's a 2 and a 3 it's all good if RG3 becomes the guy... if he doesn't is when it hurts bad.

bigbuc
02-28-2012, 05:49 PM
Also what if the Rams do this trade soon and by all acts from GOD the Colts take RG3... Would the Skins or any other team be upset or happy or whatever about it.