OT: Washington Football Team: What's in a name?

Status
Not open for further replies.

max21

NBA Yungboy
Apr 17, 2019
4,612
4,990
Virginia
Draft picks in general are low probability, but trading up is even lower probability overall because you spend multiple picks on one player. It's been dreadful results for the Redskins history, starting with the guy I pictured above. But Jason Campbell and RG3 are also examples of how it can fail.

The rate of success when trading up is likely far lower than the rate of success when not doing it, despite a few high profile successes. For each Mahomes, there's a Wentz, RG3, or Ryan Leaf.
That’s fair
 

Jacoby4HOF66

Pull my finger
Mar 13, 2009
30,522
7,726
Is trading up bad if it’s a player you really think will improve your roster dramatically? You essentially take a risk on all of them, building a roster through mid round draft picks sounds nice but 2-7rd picks end up busts more often than not. I’m not advocating them to do it just to be clear
It depends on the status of the team. If it’s a playoff contender and one player is seen as the final piece to a championship the trading multiple picks to get that player is a reasonable move. If a team is in the midst of a 30 year streak of mediocrity and a new coach is trying to build a winning team and winning culture then no trading multiple picks for one player is not a sound strategy, IMO. Drafted and team developed players are the foundation of any winning organization.
 

Ridley Simon

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
18,257
9,233
Marin County — SF Bay Area, CA
Is trading up bad if it’s a player you really think will improve your roster dramatically? You essentially take a risk on all of them, building a roster through mid round draft picks sounds nice but 2-7rd picks end up busts more often than not. I’m not advocating them to do it just to be clear
It’s cost analysis. Going from 19 to 4 will cost at minimum 3 firsts (19 being one of them). Akin to what SF just did to go from 12 to 3.

I don’t see any players not named Lawrence that would warrant that type of cost. I could see the possible argument for Wilson. But that’s it.

so yeah, it’s bad thinking, IMO.

now if they could send over 19, next years first, and something else that isn’t another first (young player) when you KNOW that you will get the player you covet, then I could see it.

But that’s about all I would do for the 4th pick, when you know the top 3 picks will be the top 3 QB’s. I don’t think the 4th or 5th best QB prospect is worth 3 firsts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: max21

EroCaps

Registered User
Aug 24, 2003
18,063
1,722
Virginia
Draft picks in general are low probability, but trading up is even lower probability overall because you spend multiple picks on one player. It's been dreadful results for the Redskins history, starting with the guy I pictured above. But Jason Campbell and RG3 are also examples of how it can fail.

The rate of success when trading up is likely far lower than the rate of success when not doing it, despite a few high profile successes. For each Mahomes, there's a Wentz, RG3, or Ryan Leaf.

"We took a chance and failed so better to never try again" is a shitty philosophy that guarantees long-term failure.
 

Ridley Simon

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
18,257
9,233
Marin County — SF Bay Area, CA
"We took a chance and failed so better to never try again" is a shitty philosophy that guarantees long-term failure.
That’s not what anyone is saying.

there is commentary on how the “all the marbles” trades fail more often than succeed. And that’s true.

Generally poor franchises that make those moves fail. Hence why the examples @kicksavedave mentions about the Redskins were failures. The Redskins have been a poor franchise.

Are they poor now? Not sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Corby78

kicksavedave

I'm just here for the memes and gifs.
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2009
10,754
13,534
Fallbrook, CA
www.tiasarms.org
"We took a chance and failed so better to never try again" is a shitty philosophy that guarantees long-term failure.

Or... one example out of many many others is sufficient reason to understand that the strategy is a highly flawed one. I provided other examples in that post, both ours and other teams.

Trading up rarely works, it works less often than making multiple selections.

And its not like trading up for, at best the #4 QB in this draft which isn't exactly chocked full of can't miss franchise QBs, well that's just stupid on top of dumb. Its not like we'd be trading up for Peyton Manning or John Elway. We're talking Trey Lance? With 14 starts? In Division 5 or some shit? And one start in 2020? Knock yourself out, GM EroCaps.
 

EroCaps

Registered User
Aug 24, 2003
18,063
1,722
Virginia
Or... one example out of many many others is sufficient reason to understand that the strategy is a highly flawed one. I provided other examples in that post, both ours and other teams.

Trading up rarely works, it works less often than making multiple selections.

And its not like trading up for, at best the #4 QB in this draft which isn't exactly chocked full of can't miss franchise QBs, well that's just stupid on top of dumb. Its not like we'd be trading up for Peyton Manning or John Elway. We're talking Trey Lance? With 14 starts? In Division 5 or some shit? And one start in 2020? Knock yourself out, GM EroCaps.

I said I'm not sold on Lance and would not sell the farm. I am open to Fields but not at the price of the #3 pick.

I absolutely support trading multiple picks if scouts tell me there's a QB that can singlehandedly make my team competitive.

There's a list of QBs that teams should have moved-up for and didn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bananas

kicksavedave

I'm just here for the memes and gifs.
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2009
10,754
13,534
Fallbrook, CA
www.tiasarms.org
I said I'm not sold on Lance and would not sell the farm. I am open to Fields but not at the price of the #3 pick.

I absolutely support trading multiple picks if scouts tell me there's a QB that can singlehandedly make my team competitive.

There's a list of QBs that teams should have moved-up for and didn't.

This whole conversation started because Lombardi says the WFT is madly in love with Lance and is trying to trade up to 4 to get him. I think its near universal here that no one likes that plan, for various reasons. I don't like it because I don't like Lance or Fields at 4, I don't like trading up for a QB who is hardly a sure thing, who is at best the #4 QB in the draft, and because in general trading up is less successful than staying put.

Jared Goff and Trubisky are a few more recent examples of teams overrating QBs because they were desperate. Sam Darnold was also traded up for. Josh Rosen too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Corby78

CapitalsCupReality

It’s Go Time!!
Feb 27, 2002
64,629
19,450
I have nothing against Fields because he went to OSU, at all. My issue with him is that multiple sources have said there are issues with his work ethic. He's not a film studier, according to some reports, last in first out of the QB room.

That's my concern because it mirrors Haskins, who was talented but not dedicated. OSU has nothing to do with it other than coincidence.

QBs who are very successful today are students of the game IMO....I don’t like this.
 

CapitalsCupReality

It’s Go Time!!
Feb 27, 2002
64,629
19,450
Honestly....the one glaring thing the history of trading up shows me, is that the bad teams continue to suck.

That bad teams fail when trading up more often that not, does not surprise me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad