Re: 2014 draft prospects Early edition
 

Oops I take it back OT group very talented.

Re: 2014 draft prospects Early edition
 

[quote=Mattyk;1060165]Still a long way to go to see if the trade was worth it.[/quote]I disagree. Two years is plenty. More time just allows for revisionism.

Re: 2014 draft prospects Early edition
 

[quote=GTripp0012;1060240]I disagree. Two years is plenty. More time just allows for revisionism.[/quote]

If you are weighing the trade versus the picks, then at a minimum you have to wait until this year is over to weigh the trade since picks are still being exchanged. If Robert has another year like the 1st one then it is easily worth it.

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;1060240]I disagree. Two years is plenty. More time just allows for revisionism.[/QUOTE]

How can 2 years be plenty when you can't even judge one draft in 3 years?

Not to mention how subjective early evaluation of draft picks are to begin with, right now we have ROY campaign and one average campaign for Griffin, weighed against a lackluster performance by Tannehill (presumed qb with no trade) and good dealing by St.Louis that we would not have done anyway (not trading our pick to Dallas and they aren't offering us what they gave St Louis) .

I would think you could legitimately need 5 years from the date of the trade barring a SB or an incredible bust for Griffin.

Re: 2014 draft prospects Early edition
 

I am convinced that we will use our first pick on a WR or a TE.

What if we traded the #34 pick plus Kirk Cousins to move up and take WR Mike Evans? Or TE Eric Ebron?

Re: 2014 draft prospects Early edition
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1060248]How can 2 years be plenty when you can't even judge one draft in 3 years?

Not to mention how subjective early evaluation of draft picks are to begin with, right now we have ROY campaign and one average campaign for Griffin, weighed against a lackluster performance by Tannehill (presumed qb with no trade) and good dealing by St.Louis that we would not have done anyway (not trading our pick to Dallas and they aren't offering us what they gave St Louis) .

I would think you could legitimately need 5 years from the date of the trade barring a SB or an incredible bust for Griffin.[/quote]Waiting three years (or five years) to judge a draft is basically waiting for revisionism to judge a draft.

Some prefer that methodology, I understand. Less risk of being wrong. You can fit narratives to everything after x about of time. Matt Leinart -> parties too much. Etc.

But there's a difference between writing a post-mortem on someone's career and judging assets in a trade, or judging a move in context.

Example: we didn't need the last two seasons to judge the validity of the Mike Shanahan hire. All the information we needed to conclude that it was a bad hire was available two years ago. But since then, he had his best and worst season here. Those events are part of the Mike Shanahan story, but contained no new information about the joke of a coaching search the team ran in 2009.

I'm not necessarily against revisionism in any form, but I don't think waiting until hindsight is 50/50 makes a ton of sense.

Re: 2014 draft prospects Early edition
 

[quote=Skinsfanatic;1060244]If you are weighing the trade versus the picks, then at a minimum you have to wait until this year is over to weigh the trade since picks are still being exchanged. If Robert has another year like the 1st one then it is easily worth it.[/quote]A bad idea can prove "worth it", by the way. Those things are not exclusive.

If we had went 11-5 this year, the Mike Shanahan hire would have worked. By my definition, at least, two division titles in four years is on the right track. But the process that brought him here would be no less flawed.

Re: 2014 draft prospects Early edition
 

[quote=GTripp0012;1060250][B]Waiting three years (or five years) to judge a draft is basically waiting for revisionism to judge a draft.[/B]

Some prefer that methodology, I understand. Less risk of being wrong. You can fit narratives to everything after x about of time. Matt Leinart -> parties too much. Etc.

But there's a difference between writing a post-mortem on someone's career and judging assets in a trade, or judging a move in context.

Example: we didn't need the last two seasons to judge the validity of the Mike Shanahan hire. All the information we needed to conclude that it was a bad hire was available two years ago. But since then, he had his best and worst season here. Those events are part of the Mike Shanahan story, but contained no new information about the joke of a coaching search the team ran in 2009.

I'm not necessarily against revisionism in any form, but I don't think waiting until hindsight is 50/50 makes a ton of sense.[/quote]

So basically, unless the players have an immediate impact, the draft was a failure. However, if you wait three years to see how players develop, you are justing filling your own narrative.

Seahawks have had some bad drafts by those measures then, because those drafts weren't considered good moves at the time and it took a year or two for a lot of their high impact players to develop. Well I guess a Super Bowl Championship creates revisionist history on draft picks and how successful they are then.

Re: 2014 draft prospects Early edition
 

[quote=donofriose;1060252]So basically, unless the players have an immediate impact, the draft was a failure. However, if you wait three years to see how players develop, you are justing filling your own narrative.

Seahawks have had some bad drafts by those measures then, because those drafts weren't considered good moves at the time and it took a year or two for a lot of their high impact players to develop. Well I guess a Super Bowl Championship creates revisionist history on draft picks and how successful they are then.[/quote]I don't think a two year impact and immediate impact are the same thing at all. People do jump to conclusions after 4 or 5 games. But 32 games is certainly not too early.

Anyone who changes their opinion of a player after a Super Bowl is the very definition of a revisionist.

Re: 2014 draft prospects Early edition
 

[quote=GTripp0012;1060260]I don't think a two year impact and immediate impact are the same thing at all. People do jump to conclusions after 4 or 5 games. But 32 games is certainly not too early.

Anyone who changes their opinion of a player after a Super Bowl is the very definition of a revisionist.[/quote]

The Rams trade basically was trading for a franchise QB. Luck went #1 and Russell Wilson got a ring. Outside of those two what other franchise QBs have been drafted? None. It will become obvious the skins won the trade when the Rams have to swallow and try to find a QB.


Rams have added lots of players and Clemens looked better than Sam. Those two WRs from West Virginia so far haven't done much. They got Quinn, they would have gotten at least one impact player anyway. Rams got more picks in quantity, but we won a division title and they have yet to make the playoffs.

Re: 2014 draft prospects Early edition
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1060263]The Rams trade basically was trading for a franchise QB. Luck went #1 and Russell Wilson got a ring. Outside of those two what other franchise QBs have been drafted? None. It will become obvious the skins won the trade when the Rams have to swallow and try to find a QB.


Rams have added lots of players and Clemens looked better than Sam. Those two WRs from West Virginia so far haven't done much. They got Quinn, they would have gotten at least one impact player anyway. Rams got more picks in quantity, but we won a division title and they have yet to make the playoffs.[/quote]

Where you are wrong is you think RG3 is a franchise QB. He had a nice rookie season running a unconventional offense where he rushed for 800 yards and 7 to 8 td's. He's not going to be able to do that and have a long career. Right now he can't carry the offense w/out running as we saw last year. Let's hope there's a better balance with him, passing and some running.

Re: 2014 draft prospects Early edition
 

[quote=GTripp0012;1060240]I disagree. Two years is plenty. More time just allows for revisionism.[/quote]

Sounds like calling the winner of a race after a 1/4 mile when there's still another mile to go. More time allows for more results, and isn't that what we're judging?

Re: 2014 draft prospects Early edition
 

told ya'll bout Dri Archer. Blazing Speed

Re: 2014 draft prospects Early edition
 

Uh oh. Stephon Tuitt is having foot surgery.

[url=http://www.nfl.com/combine/story/0ap2000000328559/article/notre-dames-stephon-tuitt-not-cleared-for-combine]Notre Dame's Stephon Tuitt not cleared for combine - NFL.com[/url]


Maybe he'll drop a round and we can grab him later.

Re: 2014 draft prospects Early edition
 

[quote=Monkeydad;1060346]Uh oh. Stephon Tuitt is having foot surgery.

[url=http://www.nfl.com/combine/story/0ap2000000328559/article/notre-dames-stephon-tuitt-not-cleared-for-combine]Notre Dame's Stephon Tuitt not cleared for combine - NFL.com[/url]


Maybe he'll drop a round and we can grab him later.[/quote]

Ain't gonna happen, but it would be great to get him with our 3rd round pick.