scenarios for a cousins trade

[Manster7588]

If Shany thought Cousins was the 3rd best qb in the draft why on earth would he take tanneyhill at #6 overall. Think about that Shark. When you evaluate a trade you never count the swap.

If Cousins was Shannys 3rd best QB, wouldn't it have been wise to trade back, get a few more starters and take Cousins in the 4th? I can't say who won the trade but I think trading 4 picks for RG3 then taking another QB in the same draft is questionable at best.

 

[Manster7588]

I'm not seeing the logic in 4 picks.

WAS moved from the 6th spot to the 2nd spot...it cost them 3 picks to move up.

Look at it this way. If no trade is made how many players could you have selected?

 

[Sharkinva]

If Shany thought Cousins was the 3rd best qb in the draft why on earth would he take tanneyhill at #6 overall. Think about that Shark. When you evaluate a trade you never count the swap.

If he thought Cousins was the 3rd best QB in that draft, it makes the trade even look worse. Because in that case we could have gotten Cousins in the second round. Also remember we are talking about a guy who thought John Beck was a starting caliber QB.

 

[j_y19]

If he thought Cousins was the 3rd best QB in that draft, it makes the trade even look worse. Because in that case we could have gotten Cousins in the second round. Also remember we are talking about a guy who thought John Beck was a starting caliber QB.

C'mon, shark. I've been as critical as anyone on shanahan, but even I realize that what he said about beck was because that is all he had. He had to try and show some confidence in him. When all you got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail......

 

[skinsdad62]

C'mon, shark. I've been as critical as anyone on shanahan, but even I realize that what he said about beck was because that is all he had. He had to try and show some confidence in him. When all you got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail......

you are wasting your time . time just to move on to the next topic . shark has dug in his heals with this foolishness

 

[ATL96Steeler]

the logic is we used 4 picks to take RG3. 3 1sts and a 2nd.

Had the trade never happened WAS would've had 4 picks over this same time frame...under the circumstance they've had 1.

You swapped 1st round picks...For that privilege, WAS gave STL 3 additional picks...so to move up from 6th to 2nd cost the Redskin 3 picks, not 4 picks.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Look at it this way. If no trade is made how many players could you have selected?

I have...no matter how you slice it the net was -3, not -4.

 

[Manster7588]

I have...no matter how you slice it the net was -3, not -4.

If you read post#50 I acknowledge this. I see how both sides of the argument is correct. The traded pick +3 = 4. Therefore those claiming it cost four picks for RG3 are correct likewise those claiming it was 3 additional picks are correct. I also cannot say who won or lost in this deal. We won't know until one of the two teams have some real success from the trade. As of right now the Ram's are in line for another 6th pick in the draft. They very well can get their own franchise qb from Washington.

 

[Sharkinva]

I have...no matter how you slice it the net was -3, not -4.

How was the net 3 picks and not 4?? They used the 1st and second round picks in 2012, the 1st rounder in 2013 and the 2014 1st rounder. Thats 4 picks period. Had they not done the trade, they would have had three more picks to use on players.

 

[gkekoa]

Follow me here:


When the draft started, we had a first round pick. We used that first round pick on a player.


In RG3's case, we used 3 first round picks and a second.


The cost of the trade up was 2 additional firsts and a second.

 

[j_y19]

Wow, you all are right. You are all saying the same thing. We used 4 picks to take RG3. That was a net 3 picks over if we didn't do the trade. Does it really make any difference in the semantics?

 

[Sharkinva]

Wow, you all are right. You are all saying the same thing. We used 4 picks to take RG3. That was a net 3 picks over if we didn't do the trade. Does it really make any difference in the semantics?

Sure it does, if you walked into a car dealer and paid 4 times the going price price for a car, would you still feel like you got a good deal on it?? We paid a Corvette price for a suped up Caviler.

 

[Manster7588]

Wow, you all are right. You are all saying the same thing. We used 4 picks to take RG3. That was a net 3 picks over if we didn't do the trade. Does it really make any difference in the semantics?

At least you and I see it the same way. And we have no idea who won or lost in this trade. Both teams could end up winners or losers in the end. No way to grade it right now.

 

[Manster7588]

Sure it does, if you walked into a car dealer and paid 4 times the going price price for a car, would you still feel like you got a good deal on it?? We paid a Corvette price for a suped up Caviler.

The problem here is Washington didn't pay 4 time the price. The #2 pick has MUCH more value than the #6.
By the trade chart the #2 is worth 2600. Washington's 2012 #6 (1600) and #2 (540) = (2140) meant Washington HAD to add to the deal. Future picks were a guess at best. Washington's 2013 # 22 (780) brought the price to (2920). Now this would have been a fair trade but with Cleveland in the mix St Louis demanded more. If Washington repeated last season and had the 2014 # 22 again the trade would have cost (3700), however it looks like Washington could be sending a top 5 pick in a heavy QB draft. Currently Washington hold the #6 which would make the total cost (4520) = less than double the going price. The question is would Washington be better off with the players they could have gotten or with RG3?

 

[ATL96Steeler]

If you read post#50 I acknowledge this. I see how both sides of the argument is correct. The traded pick +3 = 4. Therefore those claiming it cost four picks for RG3 are correct likewise those claiming it was 3 additional picks are correct. I also cannot say who won or lost in this deal. We won't know until one of the two teams have some real success from the trade. As of right now the Ram's are in line for another 6th pick in the draft. They very well can get their own franchise qb from Washington.

The picks...had the trade not occurred WAS would have 4 picks...#6, #39 in '12. In 2013 they had #22, and as of today, #6 for 2014. After the trade they have the #2 pick in '12, and to pay for moving up 4 spots they gave up #39 in '12, #22 in '13, and as mentioned as of today #6 in 2014.

Who won...imo really no way to know until the transaction is complete and all the parties have at least 2 yrs worth of snaps in the NFL.

From the WAS fan that says, we could've had 4 starters...well you have 1, so the net loss (if you will) is 3.

It was a bold move that almost certainly set the team back a little because they conceded 2 first round picks, plus a 2nd round pick to take one player...but if RG3 is a 10-12 yr starter on a perennial playoff contender...I would gladly make that trade, but the WAS FO is going to have to work double time to make that happen without the aid of those picks.

 

[Manster7588]

The picks...had the trade not occurred WAS would have 4 picks...#6, #39 in '12. In 2013 they had #22, and as of today, #6 for 2014. After the trade they have the #2 pick in '12, and to pay for moving up 4 spots they gave up #39 in '12, #22 in '13, and as mentioned as of today #6 in 2014.

Who won...imo really no way to know until the transaction is complete and all the parties have at least 2 yrs worth of snaps in the NFL.

From the WAS fan that says, we could've had 4 starters...well you have 1, so the net loss (if you will) is 3.

It was a bold move that almost certainly set the team back a little because they conceded 2 first round picks, plus a 2nd round pick to take one player...but if RG3 is a 10-12 yr starter on a perennial playoff contender...I would gladly make that trade, but the WAS FO is going to have to work double time to make that happen without the aid of those picks.

Agree. I'm just trying to say the same thing Joy said. Both equations are right. Just depends on if you are a glass half full or half empty person.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

How was the net 3 picks and not 4?? They used the 1st and second round picks in 2012, the 1st rounder in 2013 and the 2014 1st rounder. Thats 4 picks period. Had they not done the trade, they would have had three more picks to use on players.

Shark...lol, we may never see this the same way...you're 100% right...WAS started out with 4 picks (#6, #39 in '12, #22 in '13, and #6 projected in '14). Had they not made this trade they would be using their 4th pick in the '14 draft for a total of 4 players.

Instead...after the swap of 1st round picks...STL got #39 from the '12 draft, #22 from the '13 draft, and as of today, the #6 pick in the '14 draft. Those are the 3 picks that WAS sacrificed...the net loss of picks is 3.

 

[PDay8810]

Sure it does, if you walked into a car dealer and paid 4 times the going price price for a car, would you still feel like you got a good deal on it?? We paid a Corvette price for a suped up Caviler.

what a difference 10 games make.
NOW you wanna REDEAL?
what about the next 10 years that had all of Dallas shaking in their boots?

least manster continues to have your back

 

[PDay8810]

Wow, you all are right. You are all saying the same thing. We used 4 picks to take RG3. That was a net 3 picks over if we didn't do the trade. Does it really make any difference in the semantics?

apparently it does with some

 

[Sharkinva]

what a difference 10 games make.
NOW you wanna REDEAL?
what about the next 10 years that had all of Dallas shaking in their boots?

least manster continues to have your back

Actually dont need any one to "Have my back". I have always maintained my own ability to have my own opinion. The concept of Bobert being a pain in the ass for the rest of the division for the next ten years still remains in place. However Im not a fanboy willing to make excuses for any player that is playing poorly. As of right now, the trade looks to be leaning towards a mistake based on play by Bobert, and what the trade cost us. Is it salvagable?? Sure it is. But as it stands right now my honest opinion is, its leaning towards a mistake. If his level of play continues to decline I hope like hell we arent stuck with inconsistent for the next ten years. If it improves, the original IF still stands. But Im one of the few around here who didnt defend Campbell, McNabb, and I wont defend poor play and excuses for Bob simply because we made the trade for him.

Clear on that?? And it still remains that as a Cowboys fan your worst fear is that he does develop and you were wrong, Skins fans worst fear is the trade was a mistake. Nothing on that front has changed.