NFL writers give harsh reviews of Commanders’ trade for Carson Wentz

Anytime you trade for a volatile quarterback, the reviews are going to be mixed, if not heavily maligned. Is that fair? Like anything, it depends on the context. For the Washington Commanders,  trading for Carson Wentz was the right move.

Why do we say that? Well, for starters they had just whiffed on trading for Aaron Rodgers and Russell Wilson. They even did due diligence on Deshaun Watson, but ultimately decided his legal situation wasn’t worth navigating.

That left Washington with one of three options: trade for Wentz, trade for Jimmy Garoppolo, or sign a free agent. At the end of the day, Wentz is a considerable upgrade to Taylor Heinicke and was acquired for a fair haul.

Sure, Wentz’s $28 million cap hit for next season is tough to swallow, but his contract includes an easy out after 2022. The way we see it, the positives far outweigh the negatives. If this was an “all-in” move we’d think otherwise.

Unfortunately, some NFL writers don’t see it that way.

In a recent article for Bleacher Report, writer Ian Wharton ranked the worst moves of NFL’s “early free-agency period.” What checked in at No. 1, you ask? That would be the Commanders’ decision to trade for Wentz.

The Commanders’ trade for Carson Wentz has not been well-received by NFL media members.

Here’s what Wharton had to say about the trade.

"” . . . Because of the money owed to Wentz ($28.3 million cap hit, per Spotrac) and his lackluster performance to end the 2021 season, it didn’t seem likely Indianapolis could fetch a meaningful return. The Washington Commodores were happy to prove us wrong. Instead of reading the room and offering the Colts pennies for the right to save $15 million in dead cap charges, the Washington Commanders gave general manager Chris Ballard a gift basket of assets. Via Yahoo Sports, Washington swapped 2022 second-round picks with Indianapolis, gave up a 2022 third-round pick and conditional 2023 third-round pick and got a 2022 seventh-rounder. It was an astonishing return for a mediocre quarterback with on- and off-field questions.”"

Wharton continued to imply that Garoppolo would’ve been the wiser trade option and that Washington should’ve waited to see if Baker Mayfield became available (revisionist history at its finest). To top it all off, Wharton made the case that signing one of Jameis Winston or Marcus Mariota would’ve made more sense.

For starters, we’d take Wentz over Garoppolo (in this setting) all day, every day. For a team like the Colts, Jimmy G’s game-manager style would fit better than Wentz’s reckless gunslinger tendencies. And since when did trading a likely second- and third-round pick for a top-15 QB become an “astonishing return.”

You want to make a fuss about Washington absorbing Wentz’s full contract that’s fine, but the return haul was more than reasonable. It’s not a perfect trade, but it was the best Washington can do at the time. That matters, and yet Wharton insisted on analyzing the trade at face value.

Anyway, let’s transition to NFL.com’s assessment of the trade.