A Tale of Two Teams...

I'm stealing this post from another board to outline what we really gave up in trades in terms of the points system teams use for trades. I constantly see people saying we get ripped in trades (which isn't true), so here's some details:

Campbell Trade--draft points

Gave up: 2005 3rd rounder: 225 Points
2006 first rounder: 22nd pick: 360 points-value 22nd pick in 2nd round
2006 fourth rounder: 31.4 points-value 22nd pick in 5th round

Total: 616.4 total points

We recieved a 2005 first rounder: 25th pick: 720 points.

Note: the 2006 picks are valued as a round later because they were future picks. Consider it interest.

We actually came out ahead--by quite a bit --on the Campbell trade. The 103 points is actually equal to the 3rd pick in the fourth round.

McIntosh trade

Gave up 2006 2nd rounder: 53rd pick: 370 points
2007 2nd rounder: 6th pick in 2nd round: 240 points-value 6th pick in 3rd rd
2006 6th rounder: 189 pick: 16.8 points.
Got back 2006 2nd rounder: 35th pick: 540 points.

We lost 86.8 points in this trade...which is equal to the 8th pick in the fourth round. We paid a fourth rounder too much. If we would have went to the playoffs this year, we would have broke even.

This trade was consumated with the idea we would make the playoffs, which was not a bad idea.


source: EXTREMESKINS.com - Campbell Trade/McIntosh Trade (http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184323)

Ok so we'll only discuss this season then.

You know what else has been a disaster? The adjustment to a new offense, Portis going down, and key injuries that have really hurt the defense. Those factors have played just as heavily into this season as personnel.

And for the record the team in 1991 was 17-2 overall.

Those injuries were very key but every team has players get hurt, injuries happen. Unfortunately this team had no players that were able to step in and minimize the impact of those injuries.

As for the new offense, only the Redskins would scrap their O after making the playoffs. I'm glad you now agree with me that the Redskins did put in a new offense instead of tweaking the old one like you had stated in past threads.

I'm stealing this post from another board to outline what we really gave up in trades in terms of the points system teams use for trades. I constantly see people saying we get ripped in trades (which isn't true), so here's some details:





source: EXTREMESKINS.com - Campbell Trade/McIntosh Trade (http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184323)

This is a good theoretical analysis. I cant say we came out ahead or got crushed in the JC move since JC has barely played. Maybe next year we will get a better idea if this theoretical analysis is in fact correct.

Those injuries were very key but every team has players get hurt, injuries happen. Unfortunately this team had no players that were able to step in and minimize the impact of those injuries.

As for the new offense, only the Redskins would scrap their O after making the playoffs. I'm glad you now agree with me that the Redskins did put in a new offense instead of tweaking the old one like you had stated in past threads.

Of course they installed a new offense, right from day one Gibbs said the offense was going to be Saunders' deal. I don't think I've ever tried to say anything to the contrary.

The transition was supposed to be smoother considering that Gibbs and Saunders were both spawned from the Coryell philosophy. It's not like they were trying to do a complete 180 offensively, speaking from the point of view of offensive philosophies.

Those injuries were very key but every team has players get hurt, injuries happen. Unfortunately this team had no players that were able to step in and minimize the impact of those injuries.


But a lot of teams have that problem. Look how injuries hurt the Eagles last year. Look how the Giants' swoon this year coincided with guys getting hurt. Look how the Panthers buried themselves in a hole they are struggling to get out of now when they lost the first two games of the year without Steve Smith.

This is a good theoretical analysis. I cant say we came out ahead or got crushed in the JC move since JC has barely played. Maybe next year we will get a better idea if this theoretical analysis is in fact correct.

I'm just trying to point out the rationale behind the trades. We frequently hear people say why did we give up all these picks, well if you just look at the points system it's very easily explained.

Whether the players work out in the long run isn't the argument I'm trying to make, it's was the trade a fair value at the time it was made.

I'm just trying to point out the rationale behind the trade. We frequently hear people say why did we give up all these picks, well if you just look at the points system it's very easily explained.

Whether the players work out in the long run isn't the argument I'm trying to make, it's was the trade a fair value at the time it was made.

Do you have any analysis on the TJ Duckett move in regard to the draft picks we used on that one?

The blog makes some valid points. I know we're all fans here but you've got to be able to look at this objectively. Yes, our FO has made some good choices in FA and the draft, but the questionable choices outway the good ones.

Do you have any analysis on the TJ Duckett move in regard to the draft picks we used on that one?

I don't but I'll try to find something. It might be a little tough considering how convoluted the details of that 3-way trade are.

I'm not sure how they would assign points to an existing player, the points are used for the draft.

Of course they installed a new offense, right from day one Gibbs said the offense was going to be Saunders' deal. I don't think I've ever tried to say anything to the contrary.

The transition was supposed to be smoother considering that Gibbs and Saunders were both spawned from the Coryell philosophy. It's not like they were trying to do a complete 180 offensively, speaking from the point of view of offensive philosophies.

You maintained in a prior thread that all AS was brought in to do was tweak the current Gibbs O and modernize it. It was not a new O just a tweak of the old. I said that a 700 page playbook looked like a new O to me but you insisted it was just a tweak. I'm glad you now see the acquisition of AS for for what it is, a new O.