You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Does the Rams Redskins RGIII trade work out for both teams?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 15, 16, 17  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bulger2holt


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 2250
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Slateman wrote:
So who did the Rams take with the Skins picks?


These are all part of the RG3 trade

Brockers
Jenkins
Pead (acquired from trading down with Skins pick)
Watkins (acquired from trading down one of the 2nd rounders)
2013 #1 pick ?
2014 #1 pick ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gmen


Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 17498
Location: Myyyyy precioussss
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prior to the season I thought the Rams won the trade. Hindsight is 20/20, but now I firmly believe the Rams lost out on this one. Let's set aside the fact that Bradford continues to look middle of the road. RG3 looks like the real deal, and is probably the most popular name in football right now aside from Brady and Manning. Imagine him playing in a dome 8 games a year. He would've brought excitement, revenue, fans, everything a franchise could hope for. Again, hindsight is 20/20, but they should have traded away Bradford for a few 2nd round picks and gone with RG3. But who knows? Maybe RG3 wouldn't have this kind of success in a different offensive scheme?
_________________


scar988 wrote:
I'm of the belief the best QB in NY right now (July 2017) is Geno Smith.

SMH
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rich7sena


Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Posts: 6859
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it all still remains to be seen. This trade won't completely flesh out until maybe another 3-4 years.

I think both teams are happy with it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Victor Cruz Pun


Joined: 11 Feb 2012
Posts: 10336
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Keleth wrote:
mozwanted wrote:

We swapped the first rounders this year. We gave up a 2nd this year, and 2 future first rounders.

only pick rams got from redskins this year was a 2nd round pick our first rounders were swapped.

Also note future first rounders have almost 30% decline in value points then current draft picks.

In the end if rams front office did not make the trade and expect to get 2 late first rounders. They were hoping to get top 10-15 picks. Rams would definitely lose the deal. Because knowing what rg3 is now i would give up more then 2 first rounders.


You got RGIII for 3 1st round picks.

Anyway that is by the by.
Why does it matter what you gave up.
It looks like the Skins have got their franchise QB who it appears may well be an elite QB.
That is priceless.


I don't know why but it always bugs me a lot when I see someone say that the Rams got 3 1st round picks out of the RG3 trade. You got 2 and then you swapped 1st rounders with them since you also lost a 1st.
_________________
mission27 wrote:
I would consider myself an extremely aggressive person, though not violent.

For example, I once attacked a stray dog.


thelawoffices wrote:
You guys are dumb af


#JDI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 69131
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Victor Cruz Pun wrote:
Keleth wrote:
mozwanted wrote:

We swapped the first rounders this year. We gave up a 2nd this year, and 2 future first rounders.

only pick rams got from redskins this year was a 2nd round pick our first rounders were swapped.

Also note future first rounders have almost 30% decline in value points then current draft picks.

In the end if rams front office did not make the trade and expect to get 2 late first rounders. They were hoping to get top 10-15 picks. Rams would definitely lose the deal. Because knowing what rg3 is now i would give up more then 2 first rounders.


You got RGIII for 3 1st round picks.

Anyway that is by the by.
Why does it matter what you gave up.
It looks like the Skins have got their franchise QB who it appears may well be an elite QB.
That is priceless.


I don't know why but it always bugs me a lot when I see someone say that the Rams got 3 1st round picks out of the RG3 trade. You got 2 and then you swapped 1st rounders with them since you also lost a 1st.


Just stop. Seriously. RGIII was traded for 3 1st round picks and a 2nd. That's a fact. Drop it. This has really started to get on my nerves.

Here is what the trade can end up being:
Rams trade:
RGIII(#2)

Redskins trade:
Michael Brockers(#6)
Janoris Jenkins(#39)
Terrance Williams(2013 1st)
Loucheiz Purifoy(2014 1st)

It's that simple, 3 1sts and a 2nd for RGIII.

What people seem to not comprehend is that when you swap a 1st for a 1st...you're still giving up a 1st. Stop trying to apply some sort of profit principle here. It doesn't apply.

RGIII was traded for 3 1sts and a 2nd. That's a fact. A FACT. Now, can we please move on?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
footy_29


Joined: 31 Jan 2007
Posts: 11492
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think mozwanted's point was contingent upon the traditional valuation of future firsts. A 2013 First is valued as a 2012 mid-Second, and a 2014 First is valued as a 2012 mid-Third.

2012 #6 = 1600
2012 #39 = 510
2012 Mid-Second (2013 First) = 420
2012 Mid-Third (2014 First) = 190

Value of 2012 #2 = 2600
Return Value from Redskins = 2720

That's how the Trade Value Chart works.

Obviously they are exceedingly valuable picks (even if they are in the range of 22-32) but it is a delay on the return, particularly as prospects take time to develop. I know Rams fans seem confident that both Brockers and Jenkins are immediate hits, but that is likely not the case for all of those picks. It is the reason that those future picks are valued a round lower for each year they are in the future, and they are valued as mid-round picks because you cannot be certain about your return.

As of now, I do not think the Redskins can be lower than 18 (perfect storm), and with a win it will be 23-25.


Last edited by footy_29 on Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bulger2holt


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 2250
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A Redskins loss today would be nice. Could put that pick around 18-22 depending on what a few other teams do.

Would love for that pick to be one of the WR's Allen, Patterson, Williams or Hunter. Could be OT Fisher too, or one of the big TE's. Either way, it's going to be a really good player.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 69131
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

footy_29 wrote:
I think mozwanted's point was contingent upon the traditional valuation of future firsts. A 2013 First is valued as a 2012 mid-Second, and a 2014 First is valued as a 2012 mid-Third.

2012 #6 = 1600
2012 #39 = 510
2012 Mid-Second (2013 First) = 420
2012 Mid-Third (2014 First) = 190

Value of 2012 #1 = 2600
Return Value from Redskins = 2720

That's how the Trade Value Chart works.

Obviously they are exceedingly valuable picks (even if they are in the range of 22-32) but it is a delay on the return, particularly as prospects take time to develop. I know Rams fans seem confident that both Brockers and Jenkins are immediate hits, but that is likely not the case for all of those picks. It is the reason that those future picks are valued a round lower for each year they are in the future, and they are valued as mid-round picks because you cannot be certain about your return.

As of now, I do not think the Redskins can be lower than 21, and with a win it will be 23-25.


2013 1st is still a 1st...same with the 2014 1st.

As for the bold, I don't see how one can come to that conclusion based on Snead's draft record so far with the Rams.

Mozwanted's point is weak.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 40976
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rams are gonna look back and groan that they passed on RGiii and stuck with Bradford.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bulger2holt


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 2250
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
Rams are gonna look back and groan that they passed on RGiii and stuck with Bradford.



Bradford has lead the Rams to within a game of the playoffs in 2 of his first 3 years. Not bad considering how talent deprived the Rams are, especially at OL and WR. His high ankle sprain derailed his second year, thanks to running for his life often due to horrendous o-line play. You have to also consider he has had 3 new offenses in 3 years. People who bash Bradford don't have a clue to the circumstances he has faced. People just look at numbers and make their decision.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thaiphoon


Moderator
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 19117
Location: Northern Virginia
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

footy_29 wrote:
I think mozwanted's point was contingent upon the traditional valuation of future firsts. A 2013 First is valued as a 2012 mid-Second, and a 2014 First is valued as a 2012 mid-Third.

2012 #6 = 1600
2012 #39 = 510
2012 Mid-Second (2013 First) = 420
2012 Mid-Third (2014 First) = 190

Value of 2012 #2 = 2600
Return Value from Redskins = 2720

That's how the Trade Value Chart works.

Obviously they are exceedingly valuable picks (even if they are in the range of 22-32) but it is a delay on the return, particularly as prospects take time to develop. I know Rams fans seem confident that both Brockers and Jenkins are immediate hits, but that is likely not the case for all of those picks. It is the reason that those future picks are valued a round lower for each year they are in the future, and they are valued as mid-round picks because you cannot be certain about your return.

As of now, I do not think the Redskins can be lower than 18 (perfect storm), and with a win it will be 23-25.


Correct Footy. We overpaid in terms of draft value, but not much
_________________


As long as Dan Snyder owns the team, the Redskins will not win another Super Bowl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
footy_29


Joined: 31 Jan 2007
Posts: 11492
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
footy_29 wrote:
I think mozwanted's point was contingent upon the traditional valuation of future firsts. A 2013 First is valued as a 2012 mid-Second, and a 2014 First is valued as a 2012 mid-Third.

2012 #6 = 1600
2012 #39 = 510
2012 Mid-Second (2013 First) = 420
2012 Mid-Third (2014 First) = 190

Value of 2012 #1 = 2600
Return Value from Redskins = 2720

That's how the Trade Value Chart works.

Obviously they are exceedingly valuable picks (even if they are in the range of 22-32) but it is a delay on the return, particularly as prospects take time to develop. I know Rams fans seem confident that both Brockers and Jenkins are immediate hits, but that is likely not the case for all of those picks. It is the reason that those future picks are valued a round lower for each year they are in the future, and they are valued as mid-round picks because you cannot be certain about your return.

As of now, I do not think the Redskins can be lower than 21, and with a win it will be 23-25.


2013 1st is still a 1st...same with the 2014 1st.

As for the bold, I don't see how one can come to that conclusion based on Snead's draft record so far with the Rams.

Mozwanted's point is weak.


Try to take off your rose shades for a second and read what I said. Since you obviously didn't, let me repeat myself.

According to the trade value chart, a future pick will be valued a round lower AND as a mid-round pick in that round. For a pick 2 years in the future, it will be valued TWO rounds lower in the year that the trade takes place.

footy wrote:
Obviously they are exceedingly valuable picks (even if they are in the range of 22-32) but it is a delay on the return, particularly as prospects take time to develop

Translation: First round picks are still first round picks and have considerable value. The reason they are valued lower is because you have to wait for the return value.

It means that a team that is not very good at the moment can benefit in the future because that deferred value will help when they get themselves back on the right track (~4-5 years). The Redskins did this on a much smaller scale with Jason Campbell who was traded in the 2010 off-season for a 2012 4th rounder. At the time, the trade's value was a 6th rounder.

You blindly assume that every Snead pick he makes with a Redskins pick is going to be an instant contributor. While Brian Quick was not acquired with his pick, he would be an example as to why picks are valued lower when they are future picks. Pead has 5 attempts this year, and he was a Redskins pick...hardly an instant impact.

Snead has had less than 12 months on the job. We have seen one free agency period and one draft. TO say that his record indicates anything is premature. Redskins fans are still waiting to assess Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen, and we've seen three drafts.

Try to be objective.


Last edited by footy_29 on Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thaiphoon


Moderator
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 19117
Location: Northern Virginia
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
Victor Cruz Pun wrote:
Keleth wrote:
mozwanted wrote:

We swapped the first rounders this year. We gave up a 2nd this year, and 2 future first rounders.

only pick rams got from redskins this year was a 2nd round pick our first rounders were swapped.

Also note future first rounders have almost 30% decline in value points then current draft picks.

In the end if rams front office did not make the trade and expect to get 2 late first rounders. They were hoping to get top 10-15 picks. Rams would definitely lose the deal. Because knowing what rg3 is now i would give up more then 2 first rounders.


You got RGIII for 3 1st round picks.

Anyway that is by the by.
Why does it matter what you gave up.
It looks like the Skins have got their franchise QB who it appears may well be an elite QB.
That is priceless.


I don't know why but it always bugs me a lot when I see someone say that the Rams got 3 1st round picks out of the RG3 trade. You got 2 and then you swapped 1st rounders with them since you also lost a 1st.


Just stop. Seriously. RGIII was traded for 3 1st round picks and a 2nd. That's a fact. Drop it. This has really started to get on my nerves.

Here is what the trade can end up being:
Rams trade:
RGIII(#2)

Redskins trade:
Michael Brockers(#6)
Janoris Jenkins(#39)
Terrance Williams(2013 1st)
Loucheiz Purifoy(2014 1st)Stop

It's that simple, 3 1sts and a 2nd for RGIII.

What people seem to not comprehend is that whenwhen you swap a 1st for a 1st...you're still giving up a 1st. Stop trying to apply some sort of profit principle here. It doesn't apply.

RGIII was traded for 3 1sts and a 2nd. That's a fact. A FACT. Now, can we please move on?


It annoys me too. Why can't people understand this basic fact??

I do agree with Footy though. Future picks are valued on the chart as one round lower
_________________


As long as Dan Snyder owns the team, the Redskins will not win another Super Bowl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 69131
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

footy_29 wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
footy_29 wrote:
I think mozwanted's point was contingent upon the traditional valuation of future firsts. A 2013 First is valued as a 2012 mid-Second, and a 2014 First is valued as a 2012 mid-Third.

2012 #6 = 1600
2012 #39 = 510
2012 Mid-Second (2013 First) = 420
2012 Mid-Third (2014 First) = 190

Value of 2012 #1 = 2600
Return Value from Redskins = 2720

That's how the Trade Value Chart works.

Obviously they are exceedingly valuable picks (even if they are in the range of 22-32) but it is a delay on the return, particularly as prospects take time to develop. I know Rams fans seem confident that both Brockers and Jenkins are immediate hits, but that is likely not the case for all of those picks. It is the reason that those future picks are valued a round lower for each year they are in the future, and they are valued as mid-round picks because you cannot be certain about your return.

As of now, I do not think the Redskins can be lower than 21, and with a win it will be 23-25.


2013 1st is still a 1st...same with the 2014 1st.

As for the bold, I don't see how one can come to that conclusion based on Snead's draft record so far with the Rams.

Mozwanted's point is weak.


Try to take off your rose shades for a second and read what I said. Since you obviously didn't, let me repeat myself.

According to the trade value chart, a future pick will be valued a round lower AND as a mid-round pick in that round. For a pick 2 years in the future, it will be valued TWO rounds lower in the year that the trade takes place.

footy wrote:
Obviously they are exceedingly valuable picks (even if they are in the range of 22-32) but it is a delay on the return, particularly as prospects take time to develop

Translation: First round picks are still first round picks and have considerable value. The reason they are valued lower is because you have to wait for the return value.

It means that a team that is not very good at the moment can benefit in the future because that deferred value will help when they get themselves back on the right track (~4-5 years). The Redskins did this on a much smaller scale with Jason Campbell who was traded in the 2010 off-season for a 2012 4th rounder. At the time, the trade's value was a 6th rounder.

You blindly assume that every Snead pick he makes with a Redskins pick is going to be an instant contributor. While Brian Quick was not acquired with his pick, he would be an example as to why picks are valued lower when they are future picks. Pead has 5 attempts this year, and he was a Redskins pick...hardly an instant impact.

Snead has had less than 12 months on the job. We have seen one free agency period and one draft. TO say that his record indicates anything is premature. Redskins fans are still waiting to assess Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen, and we've seen three drafts.

Try to be objective.


Pead was acquired with a pick from a trade down from #6. He's loosely connected with the deal but he's not a direct Redskins pick.

You try to be objective, thus far, he's picked Michael Brockers and Janoris Jenkins with those two picks. So how you can conclude that it's not likely he'll hit on both those 1sts is beyond me.

As for the whole devaluing firsts, go back to many arguments between some on this board including myself who don't buy that and others who believe the time value of money applies.

When teams trade future 1sts for current picks, they lose in almost every single case because the 1st rounder ends up becoming more valuable than the later pick.

While it is discounted to an extent because you have to wait and use it rather than get instant gratification, as NFL history has shown us, that 1st round pick doesn't end up losing value in the vast majority of cases. It GAINS value.

So to imply that 2014 1st rounder is worth a 2012 mid 3rd rounder doesn't work for me.

I understand what you're saying but I don't agree with it because I think despite you having to wait to use the pick, in the end, it ends up being more valuable in the future.

Unlike with the TMV when there are a lot of factors that can make less money today more valuable than more money in the future.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 69131
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thaiphoon wrote:
footy_29 wrote:
I think mozwanted's point was contingent upon the traditional valuation of future firsts. A 2013 First is valued as a 2012 mid-Second, and a 2014 First is valued as a 2012 mid-Third.

2012 #6 = 1600
2012 #39 = 510
2012 Mid-Second (2013 First) = 420
2012 Mid-Third (2014 First) = 190

Value of 2012 #2 = 2600
Return Value from Redskins = 2720

That's how the Trade Value Chart works.

Obviously they are exceedingly valuable picks (even if they are in the range of 22-32) but it is a delay on the return, particularly as prospects take time to develop. I know Rams fans seem confident that both Brockers and Jenkins are immediate hits, but that is likely not the case for all of those picks. It is the reason that those future picks are valued a round lower for each year they are in the future, and they are valued as mid-round picks because you cannot be certain about your return.

As of now, I do not think the Redskins can be lower than 18 (perfect storm), and with a win it will be 23-25.


Correct Footy. We overpaid in terms of draft value, but not much


As I said at the time, I don't think you overpaid at all. I think you paid what you had to and you got a player who is more than worth it. Both sides won the deal. Rams have their young QB and they picked up a lot of compensation while the Redskins now have their young QB of the future.

And look, both teams were/are in playoff contention until the near end. Both could end up with winning records...who would have expected that before the year?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 15, 16, 17  Next
Page 16 of 17

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group