Huh? So you mean to tell me if we get bounced in the playoffs in the 1st round for the next 4 years straight then trade was worth it? Sorry but that's a weak ass take and I expect much more than that from my team. If Stafford can't get the team to accomplish AT LEAST the same thing jg did then it was a waste of time and resources and people shouldn't be chastised or mocked for having that opinion because it is more than fair.
If you are going to look at it in a vacuum and not look at context, then I would say your take is a "weak ass" take. It would depend on what caused the losses. If we lose due to factors other than Stafford, then it would be beyond ridiculous to use those 4 hypothetical losses to evaluate the trade.
I don't think that (Goff + 2 First Round Picks + 1 Third Round Pick = Guaranteed Superbowl Win) either, so I am not sure how that would be the criteria to judge the trade.
You can evaluate the Stafford trade completely on an 'if we win a superbowl in the next 2-4 years' basis. That is fine, and that is one way to evaluate it. But it is not the only way. Another, and as far as I am concerned, better way to evaluate it is 'are we better after the trade (all things considered) then we were before'. If I can say yes to that, for ANY trade, then it was worth it. There are no guarantees in life, and especially in sports. You can only give yourself a better chance or put yourself in a better position. The best team in the NFL wins the superbowl what, about 20-25% of the time?
If a trade puts you in a better position, then you do it. Too often people vastly overvalue future draft pics, as if there is some sort of guaranteed quality of player. You might get an Aaron Donald in the first round, but you are much more likely to get a dud. WAY more likely.
You have to admit, it is a little funny to say "people shouldn't be chastised or mocked for having that opinion," two sentences after mocking and chastising people with a different opinion.
touchdownwire.usatoday.com
