The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I think this needs a separate thread because I am seeing from sources all over the internet different number of picks that the Redskins deal gave up to the Rams. Here is from a new story from the Washington Post:

"Even Redskins fans may gulp when they realize how much their team just gave up. Eli Manning, who just won his second Super Bowl for the Giants, cost two first-round picks, plus a third and fifth-round pick. Get out your Draft Chart: 1-1-1-2 blows away 1-1-3-5."

Source : http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/re ... ory_1.html

I am not a math major but this is just not right. The Rams gave up the number 2 overall first round pick to the Redskins for the number 6 overall pick. It is the Rams who gave up a higher round pick for a lower pick this year and at worst it is a swap, nothing more. The Redskins also gave up this year's Second Round pick and the 2013 First round pick and the 2014 First round pick. That means the Redskins only gave up two first rounds and one second round. or 1-1-2

If somebody has other sources on the actual deal different then what is stated here please post it.

History will show that we got a far better QB than the Giants did

Eli's a good QB but RGIII is going to be better

LOVIN THIS TRADE

SprintRightOption wrote:I think this needs a separate thread because I am seeing from sources all over the internet different number of picks that the Redskins deal gave up to the Rams. Here is from a new story from the Washington Post:

"Even Redskins fans may gulp when they realize how much their team just gave up. Eli Manning, who just won his second Super Bowl for the Giants, cost two first-round picks, plus a third and fifth-round pick. Get out your Draft Chart: 1-1-1-2 blows away 1-1-3-5."

Source : http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/re ... ory_1.html

I am not a math major but this is just not right. The Rams gave up the number 2 overall first round pick to the Redskins for the number 6 overall pick. It is the Rams who gave up a higher round pick for a lower pick this year and at worst it is a swap, nothing more. The Redskins also gave up this year's Second Round pick and the 2013 First round pick and the 2014 First round pick. That means the Redskins only gave up two first rounds and one second round. or 1-1-2

If somebody has other sources on the actual deal different then what is stated here please post it.

It is what it is. We have had 1st round picks for the last 20 years. Have we won anything??

Enjoy the fact that we now have RG3--an electrifying and dynamic QB with potential to become a Franchise QB. You can't look at what could have been with the other picks. Focus on what is with this one. RG3

[quote="The Hogster"][/quote]

I am not questioning whether RGIII is a good quarterback I only want to know what the Redskins gave up to get this deal done. When multiple Football sources tell you different amounts of first round picks, it means that nobody really knows what they are talking about. Maybe we will have to wait until Tuesday when it is finalized to find out what the trade actually was.

SprintRightOption wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

I am not questioning whether RGIII is a good quarterback I only want to know what the Redskins gave up to get this deal done. When multiple Football sources tell you different amounts of first round picks, it means that nobody really knows what they are talking about. Maybe we will have to wait until Tuesday when it is finalized to find out what the trade actually was.

No, they're just using the markshark84 accounting method of counting this year's #1 as a pick we gave up.

SprintRightOption wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

I am not questioning whether RGIII is a good quarterback I only want to know what the Redskins gave up to get this deal done. When multiple Football sources tell you different amounts of first round picks, it means that nobody really knows what they are talking about. Maybe we will have to wait until Tuesday when it is finalized to find out what the trade actually was.

From what I hear it's the 2012 2nd, the 2013 1st, and the 2014 1st - in order to move up from 6 to 2.

There could be some mid-late round exchanges there as well. We will find out Tuesday.

SprintRightOption wrote:I think this needs a separate thread because I am seeing from sources all over the internet different number of picks that the Redskins deal gave up to the Rams. Here is from a new story from the Washington Post:

"Even Redskins fans may gulp when they realize how much their team just gave up. Eli Manning, who just won his second Super Bowl for the Giants, cost two first-round picks, plus a third and fifth-round pick. Get out your Draft Chart: 1-1-1-2 blows away 1-1-3-5."

Source : http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/re ... ory_1.html

I am not a math major but this is just not right. The Rams gave up the number 2 overall first round pick to the Redskins for the number 6 overall pick. It is the Rams who gave up a higher round pick for a lower pick this year and at worst it is a swap, nothing more. The Redskins also gave up this year's Second Round pick and the 2013 First round pick and the 2014 First round pick. That means the Redskins only gave up two first rounds and one second round. or 1-1-2

If somebody has other sources on the actual deal different then what is stated here please post it.

I'm not sure what you're upset about here. the skins traded the 2012, 2013 and 2014 first round picks and the 2012 second, for the Rams 2012 first round pick.

In comparison the Giants gave up their first round pick that year, a first the next year and a three and a five for the Chargers first round pick.

if you're comparing the two trades, it's either 1-1-1-2 versus 1-1-3-5 or it's 1-1-2 versus 1-3-5. either way, we paid more for RG3 than the Giants did for Eli...

Skeletor wrote:

SprintRightOption wrote:I think this needs a separate thread because I am seeing from sources all over the internet different number of picks that the Redskins deal gave up to the Rams. Here is from a new story from the Washington Post:

"Even Redskins fans may gulp when they realize how much their team just gave up. Eli Manning, who just won his second Super Bowl for the Giants, cost two first-round picks, plus a third and fifth-round pick. Get out your Draft Chart: 1-1-1-2 blows away 1-1-3-5."

Source : http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/re ... ory_1.html

I am not a math major but this is just not right. The Rams gave up the number 2 overall first round pick to the Redskins for the number 6 overall pick. It is the Rams who gave up a higher round pick for a lower pick this year and at worst it is a swap, nothing more. The Redskins also gave up this year's Second Round pick and the 2013 First round pick and the 2014 First round pick. That means the Redskins only gave up two first rounds and one second round. or 1-1-2

If somebody has other sources on the actual deal different then what is stated here please post it.

I'm not sure what you're upset about here. the skins traded the 2012, 2013 and 2014 first round picks and the 2012 second, for the Rams 2012 first round pick.

In comparison the Giants gave up their first round pick that year, a first the next year and a three and a five for the Chargers first round pick.

if you're comparing the two trades, it's either 1-1-1-2 versus 1-1-3-5 or it's 1-1-2 versus 1-3-5. either way, we paid more for RG3 than the Giants did for Eli...

Also, the Eli trade was after the picks were in. Accordingly, you have to factor in the fact that they were swapping actual players in addition to the picks.

The price in terms of picks was greater, but the Chargers got Phillip Rivers too.

Skeletor wrote:

SprintRightOption wrote:I think this needs a separate thread because I am seeing from sources all over the internet different number of picks that the Redskins deal gave up to the Rams. Here is from a new story from the Washington Post:

"Even Redskins fans may gulp when they realize how much their team just gave up. Eli Manning, who just won his second Super Bowl for the Giants, cost two first-round picks, plus a third and fifth-round pick. Get out your Draft Chart: 1-1-1-2 blows away 1-1-3-5."

Source : http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/re ... ory_1.html

I am not a math major but this is just not right. The Rams gave up the number 2 overall first round pick to the Redskins for the number 6 overall pick. It is the Rams who gave up a higher round pick for a lower pick this year and at worst it is a swap, nothing more. The Redskins also gave up this year's Second Round pick and the 2013 First round pick and the 2014 First round pick. That means the Redskins only gave up two first rounds and one second round. or 1-1-2

If somebody has other sources on the actual deal different then what is stated here please post it.

I'm not sure what you're upset about here. the skins traded the 2012, 2013 and 2014 first round picks and the 2012 second, for the Rams 2012 first round pick.

In comparison the Giants gave up their first round pick that year, a first the next year and a three and a five for the Chargers first round pick.

if you're comparing the two trades, it's either 1-1-1-2 versus 1-1-3-5 or it's 1-1-2 versus 1-3-5. either way, we paid more for RG3 than the Giants did for Eli...

That' s why we need a base understanding of debits and credits. Having football sources say the Redskins gave up three first round draft choices and a second round is not accurate. It also makes you wonder how the Browns with more disposable picks available lost the bidding war when they are just as desperate as the Skins. Did the Browns GM use the phony accounting system and say, wait, the Rams want three first round picks from us plus two number twos to beat the Redskins? In actuality they only had to give up the one extra first round from this year and their next year's number one and some other second rounder to equal what the Skins were offering over two years.

what's the difference whether we say we gave up three first rounders to get one back or we gave up two first rounders to move up? You're arguing semantics, it's the same net result.

We get RG3 (or Luck) and don't have a first rounder till 2015

As for the Giants trade, yeah, they traded players, but it was the same net result, The giants got Eli, Chargers got Rivers, a first rounder, a 3 and a 5.

we still paid more than they did..

Ok, I know this has been stated before, but dear god someone help me before I go all Hulk Smash on everyone. Can someone, anyone, PLEASE enlighten the media "experts" that we gave up TWO, NOT THREE 1st round picks. Unless I am sorley mistaken, we wlll STILL have a 1st this year... Otherwise we would apparently just be Given RG3 from the NFL at the expense of NO draft pick.

Are we losing THIS years overall 6th pick? YES! BUT, we are GETTING a HIGHER PICK #2 OVERALL THIS FREAKING YEAR. OMG, it really is not rocket science. If I read another article, or hear another radio hack lamenting our "unprecidented THREE 1st rounders" I'm seriously going to freak out. Ok to recap

A. We not only KEEP this years 1st round pick, but in FACT, it is a HIGHER pick than we innitially had.

B. We give up next years 1st = ONE FIRST ROUND PICK

C. We give up our 1st rounder in 2014 = ONE FIRST ROUND PICK

D. If we Add those two numerals togegeer, hang with me now I know this is getting crazy complicatped, we get.... Drum roll please.......

TWO FIRST ROUND PICKS!!! TOTAL. PERIOD. END OF STORY ( I know there is also this years 2nd rounder, but I'm trying to keep it simple for the media experts that get paid large sums of money to disect these things).

Holy Crap, I'm starting a website, ww.oneplusone=TWO.freakingcom

I know the world, nay, the UNIVERSE hates the skins, but OMG is it that hard? really?!?! The answer sadly is.. YES. So Because of all the brain dead idiot blowhards that love the sound of "THREE FIRST ROUNDERS!!" will never get it.... I'm going to break it down this way.

We Traded THREE FIRST ROUNDERS.... FOR...... RG3 AND a FIRST ROUND PICK. Not a bad deal eh?? DOH'

As long as we know the truth, that's all that matters. Technically we did trade 3 1st round picks. But, the Rams traded us back a 1st. Accordingly, we traded 3 picks but only "gave up" 2.

Who cares what the media says though. We're getting RG3!!

Yea I hear you, I really had to just vent


As long as WINS follow, I'm good with it. Just frustrating how media loves to sensationalize and make it sound like the "same ol' Skins"

They make it sound bigger than it really is for a reason. I understand your vent.

Look at it this way, for the ability to draft 1 player, we gave up the ability to draft a 4 total players. So trade 1 player for 4 players, or 1 pick for 4 picks.

Its all in the wording, and why does it bother you so much, who cares? It'll either work out great, or fail horribly, only time will tell!

Prowl33 wrote:It'll either work out great, or fail horribly.

Or somewhere in between.

It doesn't matter what it took to land Eli, or Vick. All that matters is this deal is what it took to land RG3.

It's not like Bruce Allen is an idiot. They were negotiating for this, and the FO thought the only sure way to get him now was to pull the trigger. Seal Team 6 style. I support it.

i'm totally with you, spenser, and have been making this point all day, and about previous trades in years past by us and other teams--- they ALWAYS kind of say it in this way that i guess isn't technically incorrect but is definitely misleading. it does drive me nuts.

I can't quite understand why this trade is being compared to the Eli trade straight up.
The situations are completely different.
With Eli pretty much refusing to play in San Diego after they selected him, if they wanted to have their QB of the future actually with the team for the coming season they had to get a deal done. The Rams were willing to drop and could have swapped with any number of teams, while the Chargers had to swap with a team who had a QB they'd be happy with.
The leverage of the Chargers in 2004 was nothing compared to the leverage of the Rams now.

Obviously yes, we've given up quite a lot but to know now means we have a definite plan in the draft and clear objectives through free agency.

ferryrich wrote:I can't quite understand why this trade is being compared to the Eli trade straight up.
The situations are completely different.
With Eli pretty much refusing to play in San Diego after they selected him, if they wanted to have their QB of the future actually with the team for the coming season they had to get a deal done. The Rams were willing to drop and could have swapped with any number of teams, while the Chargers had to swap with a team who had a QB they'd be happy with.
The leverage of the Chargers in 2004 was nothing compared to the leverage of the Rams now.

Obviously yes, we've given up quite a lot but to know now means we have a definite plan in the draft and clear objectives through free agency.

+1

Lets look at the trade from a math stand point.

Rams' 1 = our 1 + 2 + 1(13) + 1(14)

We gve up three 1s and a 2 to get a one. So if they say we gave up the 1s they are correct! If they say we gave up an extra three 1s then they aren't. Prowl3 is correct out is all about the wording.

Wait till Steve Czabin starts talking about this to join out will be 4 fist rounders and a high two, which is close enough to the 1st round you might as erl call it that. So he will call it five first! He always said that Campbell cost us two 1st, a 3rd , and a 4th, because he counted the first that we traded for and used.

Back in 2000 we gave up the #12 and #24 picks to move up to #3 to get Chris Samuals. RG3 is costing an an extra 1st and 2nd over that trade.

Everyone keeps comparing this to the Eli / Rivers trade. It isn't a good comparison because of two major things. The Giants aren't as hard up for aQB as we are. They had Kurt Warner and had just drafted Rivers. Sbs Diego had less leverage, because Eli was threatening not to play fit them and if the Giants didn't make the trade they still were left with Warner and Rivers. And of course the #1 pick got a huge contact back then.

We probably could have done this deal in april for less, but then we might have sunk money into a QB we didn't want. Heck lets say they did a Giants / Chargers you're trade this would have cost even less IF the player the Rams really want was there at #6.

But this way we pay a little more in picks but we can plan our FA strategy knowing we got our guy.

Lets look at the trade from a math stand point.

Rams' 1 = our 1 + 2 + 1(13) + 1(14)

We gve up three 1s and a 2 to get a one. So if they say we gave up the 1s they are correct! If they say we gave up an extra three 1s then they aren't. Prowl3 is correct out is all about the wording.

Wait till Steve Czabin starts talking about this to join out will be 4 fist rounders and a high two, which is close enough to the 1st round you might as erl call it that. So he will call it five first! He always said that Campbell cost us two 1st, a 3rd , and a 4th, because he counted the first that we traded for and used.

Back in 2000 we gave up the #12 and #24 picks to move up to #3 to get Chris Samuals. RG3 is costing an an extra 1st and 2nd over that trade.

Everyone keeps comparing this to the Eli / Rivers trade. It isn't a good comparison because of two major things. The Giants aren't as hard up for aQB as we are. They had Kurt Warner and had just drafted Rivers. Sbs Diego had less leverage, because Eli was threatening not to play fit them and if the Giants didn't make the trade they still were left with Warner and Rivers. And of course the #1 pick got a huge contact back then.

We probably could have done this deal in april for less, but then we might have sunk money into a QB we didn't want. Heck lets say they did a Giants / Chargers you're trade this would have cost even less IF the player the Rams really want was there at #6.

But this way we pay a little more in picks but we can plan our FA strategy knowing we got our guy.

skinsfan#33 wrote:We probably could have done this deal in april for less, but then we might have sunk money into a QB we didn't want. Heck lets say they did a Giants / Chargers you're trade this would have cost even less IF the player the Rams really want was there at #6.

But this way we pay a little more in picks but we can plan our FA strategy knowing we got our guy.

If we had waited, the Browns would have had the pick. The Rams wanted to deal now for two reasons:
1. The value of the pick would be diminished after free agency.
2. This allows them to develop their own FA and draft strategies.

you've got to be kidding me. you people went to this great length to discuss the semantical nature of how many draft picks were actually given up? this is a fake thread right....u can't be serious....

look, the people with any brains don't even need to start posts a out this and they know the following is true and which is the bottom line:

the redskins spent 4 draft picks, which are three first rounders and a high second rounder to draft one player, the largest compensation in terms of draft pick value in the history of the NFL.

the end.

the imposter wrote:look, the people with any brains don't even need to start posts a out this...

Oh, the irony! I'm embarrassed for you.