Article: Nine Players, Infinite Sadness (Washington Post on RG3 trade)

[LACHAMP46]

It was, ultimately, the most meaningless big trade of all time.

No matter how you look at it....we wasted a bounty load of picks to get 2 players....2 good, solid players...and let 1 good one go...decent %%%...but it looks like we could have done better. If this is the success rate, we need to trade back every year.

 

[OldSchool]

Does anyone wanna do the work and see what we could have had? I'm too lazy.

You're asking for an impossible task. Each pick changes all the possible picks after. There's no way of knowing what would be the result. Yeah it's easy to say we could have had Mack and Donald. But would we take Donald after adding Mack? What would the Raiders have done different at their pick? Maybe they take Donald but maybe they took the guy at 12 who that team wanted and that team took Donald. I know it's easy to say we could have had X Y or Z but it's really impossible to say that.

 

[OldSchool]

No matter how you look at it....we wasted a bounty load of picks to get 2 players....2 good, solid players...and let 1 good one go...decent %%%...but it looks like we could have done better. If this is the success rate, we need to trade back every year.

I read an article somewhere and I can't find it now but very few of these big trades, 3 or more picks for 1 pick, are even half of the picks parlayed into good players. The draft is just too simply a crap shoot and big trades rarely work out for either team let alone the team getting all the picks.

 

[tempests]

Neither team got what they wanted out of that trade.

Foolish trade up by Washington, wasted opportunity by the Rams IMO.

 

[bomebadeeda]

That is a false equivalency.
The Rams had multiple picks/players that were a gamble.
The Redskins had one.

Having said that you can argue the Rams (who had more variables at risk) did a better job.

No, it's an absolute statement. Rams had 2, thus some degree of success (mind you not as much as they would have liked...) The Redskins have no players, thus no success.........

 

[Rambitious1]

No, it's an absolute statement. Rams had 2, thus some degree of success (mind you not as much as they would have liked...) The Redskins have no players, thus no success.........

 

[Yamahopper]

Each team had it's own objectives with the trade
Rams needed players and a lot of them. They got them and 3 of them turned out to be good players. 3 out of 9 is a very good average.
Washington had one need and they filled it.
Bob3 got them to the playoffs. The 9 players the Rams drafted never got them to even .500.
So since winning is the only thing that matters Washington won that trade.

 

[Merlin]

It's pointless to look back at things like this, altho I guess we are all guilty of it from time to time. But, for instance, take that 2014 draft: If we don't have that #2 overall pick from Washington to take a tackle, maybe we take a tackle at 13 (or move up, who knows) and miss out on Donald.

Having those extra picks allowed us to make other moves, even if they weren't a direct result.

I find it interesting to look back at trades once the results are in so to speak. What I dislike is nuking it too early in discussion, which all Rams' boards undoubtedly did over the first few years post-trade. I mean that's what we do as fans on these sites, but in all of that discussion you still can't really say for sure.

We can now. Most notable is that the Rams didn't get an impact player from all those picks. I suppose Jenks was an impact guy for NY last year, but he wasn't really for us. AO is the lone option Snead's got who could still raise the bar and help make that trade look better for us, if he kills it under Wade. So got my fingers crossed there.

 

[fearsomefour]

Brocker being deemed "unspectacular" shows another guy just looking at sack stats.
Brackets is a hell of a good player.
Also, RG3 was solid his rookie year. Made some plays but was not great.

 

[bnw]

I think Brocker is far from " Unspectacular" and is going to open Eyes this year!
The BIG IF is Stedman Bailey, Sad story, What if!?!
And the other Players the Rams Drafted because of these picks! Like Donald!!!

I agree about Brockers. His impact should not be overlooked.

 

[LesBaker]

Three of nine of course is not a good rate. GRob busting is a big part of how that thing ends up looking too, as if they'd hit on that pick it would have been just about right in terms of what to expect given league miss rates per round and whatnot.

3 of 9 is about average. One was a 5th rounder which has a VERY low hit rate, even making a roster is pretty good for a 5th rounder.

Bailey was a solid guy even with jackshit at QB, but tragically that ended poorly.

Jenkins cannot be counted as a miss, he should be counted as a big time hit. He signed a contract making him one of the highest paid CB's in league history so how can he be anything but a hit. The fact that he wanted to get paid by testing free agency isn't anyone's fault, it's how the new CBA has changed how teams do business. Get used to guys deciding to leave for a big fat check. We would ALL do the same thing.

Stacey had a pretty decent season on a crappy team and got traded. That's not a hit or a miss. He was picked 160 overall in round 5.

So really it's better than 3 out of 9. Not to mention Brockers is an above average player.

As far as the discussion about who "won the trade" it isn't even close. In fact it's a blowout. Griffin started 35 games for Washington. His record was 14-21. He isn't playing for them now and got benched. His NFL resume is shit.

Janoris Jenkins had 4 good to excellent years for the Rams. By himself he would win the trade.