just more speculation about RGIII

[tooge]

Well, at least they mention the chiefs


Robert Griffin trade rumors already spinning out of control
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on February 28, 2012, 4:04 PM EST

APForget the Combine. Forget free agency. Robert Griffin III trade chatter dominates the NFL discussion these days.

And it’s still February.

Perhaps Rams COO Kevin Demoff is right: It’s getting less crazy to imagine a deal could be completed before free agency. We’ve read and heard an unprecedented amount of trade rumors about the No. 2 overall pick for this time of year.

Let’s go over the latest:

1. Mike Jones of the Washington Post writes the Redskins would give up the No. 6 overall pick and next year’s first round pick in addition to multiple picks in the mid-to-upper rounds of the draft. Consider this the starting point for negotiations.

The Rams are reportedly looking for a similar package to the one San Diego netted for Eli Manning: Two firsts (including the No. 4 overall pick), a third- and fifth-round pick. The Redskins sound ready to meet this demand.

2. Texas A&M prospect Ryan Tannehill is watching the Griffin talk closely. Jones believes the Redskins would take Tannehill at No. 6 overal if they can’t get Griffin.

3. Terry Pluto of the Cleveland Plain-Dealer believes the Browns will ultimately have to give up three first-round picks in order to land Griffin. Do I hear four, Redskins? (This reminds us of a classic article by the Onion.)

4. Demoff told Peter King of SI.com that the Rams received a feeler from a team “you would never expect.” Does Kansas City count? If not, we’ll roll with Philadelphia as our irresponsible guess for a mystery team. Enter your pick below.

5. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch considers the Redskins the early favorite to land Griffin. This sounds true based on all the reports, plus Mike Shanahan’s close relationship with Jeff Fisher.

[Fat Elvis]

If the Chiefs don't land RG3 or Peyton Manning, I will have a lot more time on my hands the next 4-5 years.

RG3 is just flat out exciting. Even if we didn't win a Super Bowl with him in the next five years, it sure would be fun to watch him play and develop.

I'm simply at the point where I would like SOMETHING exciting to happen with this franchise.

[DomerNKC]

Originally Posted by Guru

NO way Pioli gives up the draft for one guy. No matter how good he potentially could be.

i would gladly give up our 2009 draft entirely.

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

I understand what Kenpom says, and I don't care. Relative value and worth, it's not even close. Raji + Houston would be two very fine additions.

Well, if we are gonna do this.

How about Orakpo and Mallett (who went 4 picks later, or Demarco Murray who went at the pick after Houston)

Houston was a great pick, two years later.

Doesnt mean that Raji is better than Jackson RIGHT NOW.

He isn't and every non biased advanced stats site grades Jackson higher.

It is entirely possible that Jackson redeems Pioli for that pick at 3 if he continues to improve.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by notorious

I think we should just play it safe and use our picks to upgrade our weak positions and build depth.

Trading picks for an unproven QB is stupid. You should only use picks to trade for proven veterans.

It has worked great in the past, so why wouldn't it work again?

I don't have a problem trading a draft away. But we are essentially trading two drafts away. That's just reckless. Again, if you whiff on a first round QB, that's fine. If you whiff on a first round QB you traded 2 rounds away for, you essentially set your team back 5-6 years.

[qabbaan]

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis

If the Chiefs don't land RG3 or Peyton Manning, I will have a lot more time on my hands the next 4-5 years.

RG3 is just flat out exciting. Even if we didn't win a Super Bowl with him in the next five years, it sure would be fun to watch him play and develop.

I'm simply at the point where I would like SOMETHING exciting to happen with this franchise.

Being exciting has little to do with this... Michael Vick has been pimped as exciting for ten years and he is never going to win anything.

Your success as a QB in the NFL who gives your team a shot at winning the super bowl depends on your ability to be a pocket passer and not much else.

[Fat Elvis]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I don't have a problem trading a draft away. But we are essentially trading two drafts away. That's just reckless. Again, if you whiff on a first round QB, that's fine. If you whiff on a first round QB you traded 2 rounds away for, you essentially set your team back 5-6 years.

You set your team back only if you are too stupid to adjust your personel strategies to the decisions you make.

[Fat Elvis]

Originally Posted by qabbaan

Being exciting has little to do with this... Michael Vick has been pimped as exciting for ten years and he is never going to win anything.

Your success as a QB in the NFL who gives your team a shot at winning the super bowl depends on your ability to be a pocket passer and not much else.

I wanted Michael Vick coming out of Leavenworth. More fun than watching Cassel.

[Chiefshrink]

Originally Posted by Laz

st. louis is starting every rumor they can to try and drive up the price.

I hope it blows up in their face and they don't get shit

BINGO !!!

[Chiefshrink]

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis

If the Chiefs don't land RG3 or Peyton Manning, I will have a lot more time on my hands the next 4-5 years.

RG3 is just flat out exciting. Even if we didn't win a Super Bowl with him in the next five years, it sure would be fun to watch him play and develop.

I'm simply at the point where I would like SOMETHING exciting to happen with this franchise.

Amen Fat man

[Mr. Laz]

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis

You set your team back only if you are too stupid to adjust your personel strategies to the decisions you make.

I'm talking about if RGIII is anything less than a franchise QB.

When you make that kind of a bold trade, you HAVE to start him for 3-4 years. You have no choice. More importantly, you are giving away two drafts. Which means that the guys you formerly had for cheap like Albert, Moeaki, Houston, etc.... those guys are going to start to get paid and you wont' be able to afford all of them.

We'd have a 2-3 year window. After that, we better hope RGIII is Peyton Manning good (even Matt Ryan good wont' be good enough to carry a team built purely through free agency).

[bricks]

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis

If the Chiefs don't land RG3 or Peyton Manning, I will have a lot more time on my hands the next 4-5 years.

RG3 is just flat out exciting. Even if we didn't win a Super Bowl with him in the next five years, it sure would be fun to watch him play and develop.

I'm simply at the point where I would like SOMETHING exciting to happen with this franchise.

And this franchise has had a lot of excitement. Hasn't it? I don't know if anybody can argue that. We've seen this franchise field excellent defenses during the DT years. We've seen this franchise field great offenses during the Vermeil era. Can we call that excitement? I know I can. Don't get me wrong, there has been a lot of sh*tiness along the way as well ala Herm era. The Chiefs have given the fans a mix of a little bit of everything except a bowl.

What we've really seen are a lot of one dimensional teams. It either the team is good on offense or defense and hardly ever both. I want to see an actual team for once that can win it all. The excitement stage hasn't reached to the pinnacle as of yet till they can actually build a well balanced team for once.

Im with superbowl or nothing. I would like excitement to reach its ultimate peak and not just enough to lead to a heartbreak. We've experienced to many of those. It'd be nice to see a change. Never lose out on the big picture man because at the end of the day the big picture is the reason you, I and others watch this game.

Thats all I gotta say.

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I don't have a problem trading a draft away. But we are essentially trading two drafts away. That's just reckless. Again, if you whiff on a first round QB, that's fine. If you whiff on a first round QB you traded 2 rounds away for, you essentially set your team back 5-6 years.

The Giants traded 2 1st round picks(Philip Rivers, '05 pick), a third rounder, and a 5th rounder. HOW ON EARTH IS THAT AN ENTIRE DRAFT?! Or even TWO for that matter?

So if you trade our first this year, a tagged Carr(who we're losing anyway), and a2nd or 3rd and a 4th or 5th. Then, receive one or two compensatory picks(from Orton and Shaun Smith), how in the hell is that TWO FULL DRAFTS?

Hell, trade our first, Carr, a 3rd and 5th this year and a 3rd next year and we still make out.

RG3, is worth it. Why don't you ask the Giants if Manning wasn't worth the risk.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by eric007

But they did not trade the entire draft,think.

Two problems with this post.

1. Fewer QB hungry teams that year than this year

2. NYG traded essentially the #4 pick for the #1 pick. Not #11 for #2.

[splatbass]

Originally Posted by aturnis

Hell, trade our first, Carr, a 3rd and 5th this year and a 3rd next year and we still make out.

I don't think that is enough to get him.