Saga of RGIII

[Jr.]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

I don't think what a team paid (in salary or trade) should be factored into what a player has done (or hasn't) on the field. Hell, if that's the case then Ricky Williams is the biggest bust ever. The Saints gave up an entire draft... they'd need at least one ring for him not to be the biggest bust, right? Besides, if we're going to factor GM effects in this, we have to consider the salary cap $ the Skins were stripped of during this same period. They really couldn't afford to put together a quality team based on what the NFL did to them, and probably wouldn't have made the trade if they knew that was going to happen.

The whole point of a bust is the player's performance against the team's investment to acquire the player.

No one considers 4/5/6/7 round picks busts because the investment is very small.

In that regard, I think considering what the team paid (their investment) should be factored in to discussing how much of a bust (or gem) a player is.

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jr.

The whole point of a bust is the player's performance against the team's investment to acquire the player.

I disagree with this.

To me a bust is a player who doesn't live up to his expectations. A teams investment is irrelevant.


A player isn't less of a bust if he ends up sucking after being drafted number one overall to a team that earned that pick versus one that bought that pick.

[Jr.]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

I disagree with this. To me a bust is a player who doesn't live up to his expectations. A teams investment is irrelevant. A player isn't less of a bust if he ends up sucking after being drafted number one overall to a team that earned that pick versus one that bought that pick.

I think that expectations and the team's investment go hand in hand. When Washington traded 6 picks or whatever it was to get RGIII, the expectations for him went up in my mind because the investment was higher than a team drafting someone 2nd overall just by being at that pick.

Same thing with big contracts. A player who signs a $100M contract has higher expectations placed on them than if they had signed a $25M contract. Every team wants a good return on investment. Higher investment means a higher return is expected.

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jr.

I think that expectations and the team's investment go hand in hand. When Washington traded 6 picks or whatever it was to get RGIII, the expectations for him went up in my mind because the investment was higher than a team drafting someone 2nd overall just by being at that pick. Same thing with big contracts. A player who signs a $100M contract has higher expectations placed on them than if they had signed a $25M contract. Every team wants a good return on investment. Higher investment means a higher return is expected.

They only made that trade though because the expectation was already set.

If they didn't draft him in that slot someone else would have and this discussion would be the same whether he was a Redskin or a Ram.


I can agree that by making the trades the bar is raised for that organization but it has no bearing on someone being considered a "bust."

[mestevo]

Mortgaging the future of the team to select a player at a certain slot to me raises expectations of the performance of that team, since expectations of a player taken in that QB and slot in the draft remain sky high no matter the compensation.

Failure of the team to meet those expectations gets judged independent of whether or not that player was worth that slot.

My 2 cents anyways. I can see how fans would just pile that all together, it's nearly just an argument in semantics. Scapegoating vs attributing blame/expectations to others. Plenty of all of the above to go around though.

[SPTO]

I think weighing a bust against the team's investment does play a part. Another example of this (though it's not exactly the same) is the Herschel Walker trade. The Vikings thought "ok we need one final piece to get to the SB" so they look around and decide that Walker's their man. Now contrary to how some younger people might view it, Walker was still a premier RB in the league at the time and the expectation when the trade was made was that Minny were going to go to the SB within a year or two.

Problem is, Minnesota gave up EVERYTHING while their head coach Jerry Burns didn't make one single adjustment for Walker. They kept running their regular offense which severely limited Walker's ability to shine. He was a bust in Minnesota and indeed it kind of derailed his career as he had a comeback year in '92 with Philly but quickly faded into being a part time player afterwards.

As for Dallas....Well we know how that turned out.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jr.

The whole point of a bust is the player's performance against the team's investment to acquire the player. No one considers 4/5/6/7 round picks busts because the investment is very small. In that regard, I think considering what the team paid (their investment) should be factored in to discussing how much of a bust (or gem) a player is.

Quote: Originally Posted by Jr.

I think that expectations and the team's investment go hand in hand. When Washington traded 6 picks or whatever it was to get RGIII, the expectations for him went up in my mind because the investment was higher than a team drafting someone 2nd overall just by being at that pick. Same thing with big contracts. A player who signs a $100M contract has higher expectations placed on them than if they had signed a $25M contract. Every team wants a good return on investment. Higher investment means a higher return is expected.

But I wouldn't say a team that picks 2nd invests anymore than a team who picks 7th... that's just wear they pick. I know this situation isn't exactly like that bc they traded up for the pick, but it's still based on the expectations of the player. The only reason that changes on an individual level is if you didn't know much about the player before hand. You hear a player is being picked early and/or someone is trading picks to get him and YOUR expectations may raise, but that's just bc you went from uninformed to informed.

Personally I don't think a player can be a bust, and then later not be a bust. He can be considered a bust, and if he turns it around, then he was incorrectly classified as one. So with that in mind, the team investment angle doesn't work. That angle would say that if Sanchez has the same career trajectory in PHI as he had on the Jets, he was a bust but then later wasn't (bc the Jets invested A LOT more in him than PHI). The way I look at it, he either continues being inconsistent and not developing (and is considered a bust across the board) or he continues playing well and grows on the Eagles (and shows that he's not a bust, but didn't get it all together on the Jets for various reasons).

[burter]

I know what everyone is saying and I feel a lot of the same way, so I'm really confused in myself on why I want him on my cardinals. I'm not sure why I feel this way, but I really do think he would work really good in our system. Back in Baylor and first year in Washington, his deep ball was probably top 5 in the league. Like he was deadly with it. With the way we play, it would seem like he would be a great fit for us. But than you hear and read stuff about him and it's like do you really want to try? But more important than that is how he has regressed. Now it could be because he is trying really hard to be a pocket qb or it could be that he is nervous about running and getting injured again. In any case he just does not look like the guy from baylor and his rookie year.

Now I do not think he is a bust. I think we need at least another year of him fully healthy and either a starter for the skins(even though I think they suck and for some reason everyone puts it on rg3) or get to a team that is good and see if he can make them great.

Do you all think he would be a good fit for my team? Am I just being delusional?