Andrew Luck pro day

[RayNAustin]

This is all very compelling, but Luck is still going to go to Indy.

If Luck fell to us, it would be unreal, but we are going to end up with RGIII -- which is a very good situation to be in.

I'm not saying I "expect" Luck to go #2 to us .... I'm just saying that the possibility isn't as impossible as many apparently think.

I also find it rather bazaar that 74% of the respondents here on the poll chose RG3 as the QB they'd like to draft, while apparently believing that Luck going to the Colts is somehow a carved in stone - no brainer.

But in our Orwellian world of up=down, I guess such direct contradiction seems altogether "logical".

Agree. After seeing the results, I would also like to ask: if you had the #1 pick, who would you select?

Because people believe RGIII will inevitably fall to us, they are selecting him.

Personally .... I'm torn. I think both will be outstanding QBs. I think RG3 has an edge in play making ability, with Luck having an edge in size, experience and durability to take the inevitable hits.

So, it's really a much harder choice in my opinion ... no clear right and wrong choice. Forced to pick, I'd say that Luck would be my choice for the Redskins to start day one ... but if I were choosing for the Colts, I'd consider RG3's athleticism as an advantage for a rebuilding team that could learn and grow together as an offense due to his ability to improvise and create plays on his own.

Whoever goes to the Colts will be at a disadvantage for early success because the Redskins have a more solid team and an established offensive system that will help the youngster early .... I think a kid like RG3 and his athleticism would allow him to be more successful under the Colts circumstances, while Luck would only need to absorb the Redskin playbook, and take his pro style offense experience onto the field early.

How do you like that "on-the-fence" answer?

[PulpExposure]

Ray, the nice thing about it, is the Redskins will be in good shape with either QB.

It's not like there's this gigantic gulf between 1 and 2. It's not as if we're looking at Luck and Tannehill, for instance.

[markshark84]

This is all very compelling, but Luck is still going to go to Indy.

If Luck fell to us, it would be unreal, but we are going to end up with RGIII -- which is a very good situation to be in.

I'm not saying I "expect" Luck to go #2 to us .... I'm just saying that the possibility isn't as impossible as many apparently think.

I also find it rather bazaar that 74% of the respondents here on the poll chose RG3 as the QB they'd like to draft, while apparently believing that Luck going to the Colts is somehow a carved in stone - no brainer.

But in our Orwellian world of up=down, I guess such direct contradiction seems altogether "logical".

Agree. After seeing the results, I would also like to ask: if you had the #1 pick, who would you select?

Because people believe RGIII will inevitably fall to us, they are selecting him.

Personally .... I'm torn. I think both will be outstanding QBs. I think RG3 has an edge in play making ability, with Luck having an edge in size, experience and durability to take the inevitable hits.

So, it's really a much harder choice in my opinion ... no clear right and wrong choice. Forced to pick, I'd say that Luck would be my choice for the Redskins to start day one ... but if I were choosing for the Colts, I'd consider RG3's athleticism as an advantage for a rebuilding team that could learn and grow together as an offense due to his ability to improvise and create plays on his own.

Whoever goes to the Colts will be at a disadvantage for early success because the Redskins have a more solid team and an established offensive system that will help the youngster early .... I think a kid like RG3 and his athleticism would allow him to be more successful under the Colts circumstances, while Luck would only need to absorb the Redskin playbook, and take his pro style offense experience onto the field early.

How do you like that "on-the-fence" answer?

Honestly, I don't see that as an "on-the-fence" answer. Your answer is basically the same as mine: I would prefer Luck but there are advantages to either player.

[HEROHAMO]

In our case the no.2 pick is just as good as if it were the no.1 pick. Both Luck and RG3 are the closest things to cant miss prospects.

[RayNAustin]

Ray, the nice thing about it, is the Redskins will be in good shape with either QB.

It's not like there's this gigantic gulf between 1 and 2. It's not as if we're looking at Luck and Tannehill, for instance.

Very true! Both of these guys are going to be fine pros .... the odds are one of them is going to be better than the other, but which one can't be known now, and will only be discovered 3-5 years down the road.

[chiefhog44]

Ray, the nice thing about it, is the Redskins will be in good shape with either QB.

It's not like there's this gigantic gulf between 1 and 2. It's not as if we're looking at Luck and Tannehill, for instance.

Very true! Both of these guys are going to be fine pros .... the odds are one of them is going to be better than the other, but which one can't be known now, and will only be discovered 3-5 years down the road.

Marino and Elway came out in the same year. It is possible both are great

[RayNAustin]

Ray, the nice thing about it, is the Redskins will be in good shape with either QB.

It's not like there's this gigantic gulf between 1 and 2. It's not as if we're looking at Luck and Tannehill, for instance.

Very true! Both of these guys are going to be fine pros .... the odds are one of them is going to be better than the other, but which one can't be known now, and will only be discovered 3-5 years down the road.

Marino and Elway came out in the same year. It is possible both are great

There ya go! Luck-Marino .... Elway-RG3.

It's going to be exciting to watch both players develop.

[HarleyHog]

Personally, I think both are fantastic prospects, but I don't want Luck as it would remind me of last year's Troll saga. RGIII is the pick for me.

[Countertrey]

Personally, I think both are fantastic prospects, but I don't want Luck as it would remind me of last year's Troll saga. RGIII is the pick for me.

It won't help, then that the "Whiff for Griff" campaign was conceived as a response to that over the edge episode, huh?

[HarleyHog]

I would rather whiff than suck. At least a swing and a miss is trying.

[Deadskins]

I would rather whiff than suck. At least a swing and a miss is trying.

Well said.

[Irn-Bru]

Personally, I think both are fantastic prospects, but I don't want Luck as it would remind me of last year's Troll saga. RGIII is the pick for me.

So true!

[Irn-Bru]

I would rather whiff than suck. At least a swing and a miss is trying.

+1

We didn't have to obliterate locker room morale and we still were able to trade for the guy we wanted. Yes, it meant giving up multiple first round picks, but I still think we're better off than we would have been had the coaches/players mailed it in.

[RayNAustin]

Unfortunately, each of the 2 wins against the Giants cost us a #1 draft pick, so in retrospect, those two meaningless victories were pretty costly.

[DarthMonk]

Unfortunately, each of the 2 wins against the Giants cost us a #1 draft pick, so in retrospect, those two meaningless victories were pretty costly.

Had we lost those games with all other outcomes the same we'd have been 3-13 and still picked after the Rams. Now if we had lost both Giants games AND the game against the Rams then we'd have been 2-14 and the Rams 3-13.

DarthMonk

[RayNAustin]

Unfortunately, each of the 2 wins against the Giants cost us a #1 draft pick, so in retrospect, those two meaningless victories were pretty costly.

Had we lost those games with all other outcomes the same we'd have been 3-13 and still picked after the Rams. Now if we had lost both Giants games AND the game against the Rams then we'd have been 2-14 and the Rams 3-13.

DarthMonk

My bad .... those three meaningless victories cost us 2 -#1's and a #2.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Unfortunately, each of the 2 wins against the Giants cost us a #1 draft pick, so in retrospect, those two meaningless victories were pretty costly.

So freaking what? If we'd lost all our games we'd have first pick now. If we won all our games we'd have won a Super Bowl. If we'd swept the Eagles and Cowboys in addition to the Giants we'd have swept the division.

Winning by losing is and always was a stupid idea. And throwing games is a great way to be both stupid and create a losing culture.

[RayNAustin]

Unfortunately, each of the 2 wins against the Giants cost us a #1 draft pick, so in retrospect, those two meaningless victories were pretty costly.

So freaking what? If we'd lost all our games we'd have first pick now. If we won all our games we'd have won a Super Bowl. If we'd swept the Eagles and Cowboys in addition to the Giants we'd have swept the division.

Winning by losing is and always was a stupid idea. And throwing games is a great way to be both stupid and create a losing culture.

You never heard me suggest we purposely lose games to improve draft position .. I was just stating the fact that those wins were very costly in the greater scheme of things.

Water under the bridge .... but if you have really been jone'sing for a reason to fuss with me ... have at it.

[Irn-Bru]

Unfortunately, each of the 2 wins against the Giants cost us a #1 draft pick, so in retrospect, those two meaningless victories were pretty costly.

My contention is we'd be worse off had we tried to lose them. And since in retrospect that's the only way we could have lost, in the larger scheme of things those victories weren't costly at all.

[DarthMonk]

Unfortunately, each of the 2 wins against the Giants cost us a #1 draft pick, so in retrospect, those two meaningless victories were pretty costly.

Had we lost those games with all other outcomes the same we'd have been 3-13 and still picked after the Rams. Now if we had lost both Giants games AND the game against the Rams then we'd have been 2-14 and the Rams 3-13.

DarthMonk

My bad .... those three meaningless victories cost us 2 -#1's and a #2.

The 2 wins against the Giants cost us nada. You could argue the three cost us.

Of course, there are other legit points made by other posters to argue otherwise. As long as you aren't arguing for losing on purpose like the posts of a few others then yeah, they cost us.

DarthMonk

[KazooSkinsFan]

Unfortunately, each of the 2 wins against the Giants cost us a #1 draft pick, so in retrospect, those two meaningless victories were pretty costly.

So freaking what? If we'd lost all our games we'd have first pick now. If we won all our games we'd have won a Super Bowl. If we'd swept the Eagles and Cowboys in addition to the Giants we'd have swept the division.

Winning by losing is and always was a stupid idea. And throwing games is a great way to be both stupid and create a losing culture.

You never heard me suggest we purposely lose games to improve draft position .. I was just stating the fact that those wins were very costly in the greater scheme of things.

Water under the bridge .... but if you have really been jone'sing for a reason to fuss with me ... have at it.

It's what it sounds like, and I'm not the only one who interpreted your remark that way. So get all defensive if you want, but you could have just said that wasn't what you meant.

I think you create a winning culture by winning. Our whole team benefited from two more wins and in particular that we beat the eventual champion twice. Had we lost two more games and won three games it would affect everyone's perception of us, including players we're courting and our own team. We got Garcon who other teams would have paid as much, having Griffin come to an already decent core of a team was clearly a factor in that. And that feeds on other players. We get the BS cap penalty lifted and we can do even more.

Where you are wrong is that things don't happen in isolation. We lose two more games and it doesn't mean that everything is the same except we lost two more games.

[RayNAustin]

Unfortunately, each of the 2 wins against the Giants cost us a #1 draft pick, so in retrospect, those two meaningless victories were pretty costly.

So freaking what? If we'd lost all our games we'd have first pick now. If we won all our games we'd have won a Super Bowl. If we'd swept the Eagles and Cowboys in addition to the Giants we'd have swept the division.

Winning by losing is and always was a stupid idea. And throwing games is a great way to be both stupid and create a losing culture.

You never heard me suggest we purposely lose games to improve draft position .. I was just stating the fact that those wins were very costly in the greater scheme of things.

Water under the bridge .... but if you have really been jone'sing for a reason to fuss with me ... have at it.

It's what it sounds like, and I'm not the only one who interpreted your remark that way. So get all defensive if you want, but you could have just said that wasn't what you meant.

I think you create a winning culture by winning. Our whole team benefited from two more wins and in particular that we beat the eventual champion twice. Had we lost two more games and won three games it would affect everyone's perception of us, including players we're courting and our own team. We got Garcon who other teams would have paid as much, having Griffin come to an already decent core of a team was clearly a factor in that. And that feeds on other players. We get the BS cap penalty lifted and we can do even more.

Where you are wrong is that things don't happen in isolation. We lose two more games and it doesn't mean that everything is the same except we lost two more games.

I'm not being "defensive" at all ... as I know what I said and I also know that I have never advocated, suggested, insinuated losing on purpose. I find such a thing poor sportsmanship and dishonest, so you were jumping to unsupported conclusions in a rather knee-jerk reaction to a simple comment of fact .... that fact being that the wins were costly from a draft position perspective.

As for the benefits of winning three more games measured against retaining 2 #1's and a #2 pick .... that of course is pure conjecture, and impossible to prove. We only know what the cost was ... 3 high picks, which was my original statement .... those wins were costly.

As for attracting free agents like Garcon ... the securing of the number 2 pick and a top flight QB in the draft carries a lot more weight than the win/loss record of last year. Had the Redskin FO not been aggressive and failed to secure that #2 ... I don't think our 5-11 season would serve as any meaningful incentive for free agents to sign up.

By the same measure, those two close losses to the Cowboys which could have and should have been wins, would likely have ... in retrospect, taken us out of the picture for beating Cleveland out for that #2 pick ... leaving us in a "Cleveland-Miami" situation.

The prospect of going into the 2012 season with Rex as the only viable starter as opposed to having RG3 or Luck ... well ... I'll take 5-11 and one of those guys versus 7-9 and Rex Grossman.

That's all I was saying .... never would I contemplate for a nanosecond the idea of losing on purpose to the freaking Cowboys (or anyone else). But that doesn't preclude me from coming to the determination that those two Cowboy losses were ultimately beneficial in the greater scheme of things.

[Irn-Bru]

As for the benefits of winning three more games measured against retaining 2 #1's and a #2 pick .... that of course is pure conjecture, and impossible to prove. We only know what the cost was ... 3 high picks, which was my original statement .... those wins were costly.

All else being equal, perhaps. But all anyone else in this thread is saying is that all else is not equal in this case, so this "costly win" thing is a strange way of putting it. I don't think it advances your argument to repeat that if we had lost 3 extra games we'd have the pick we needed to trade for.

[RayNAustin]

As for the benefits of winning three more games measured against retaining 2 #1's and a #2 pick .... that of course is pure conjecture, and impossible to prove. We only know what the cost was ... 3 high picks, which was my original statement .... those wins were costly.

All else being equal, perhaps. But all anyone else in this thread is saying is that all else is not equal in this case, so this "costly win" thing is a strange way of putting it. I don't think it advances your argument to repeat that if we had lost 3 extra games we'd have the pick we needed to trade for.

I don't see how you can miss the obvious. Had we lost three extra games, and had received the #2 pick outright .. we would have retained the 2nd round pick this year (which would have been almost like a 1st round pick given it's placement so high in the second round)... plus the #1's for 2013 and 2014. That would have been more of a benefit to the team (in my opinion) than the three wins provided ... which so far has been assigned to benefiting morale and a winning attitude ... if such things can be applied to a 5-11 season, which in my view they cannot be.

That analysis is in no way alluding to a preference to lose games purposely in order to effect that result ... but just pointing out the obvious benefit if we had lost those games honestly.

Throughout most seasons ... several games are determined by a play here and a missed opportunity there. It is often a fine line between finishing 9-7, or 6-10 .... and I'd say those 3 games made all the difference in the world for the NYG this past year. So between those two results, the benefit is obvious. However, the difference between 2-14 and 5-11 has no material gain other than being ranked 6th worst in the league versus 2nd worst. Still not an enviable spot either way. Therefore, it is simply my point that had we lost three of those very close games, we would have ultimately benefited more than the wins themselves provided. I am not arguing that it would have been a benefit had we purposely lost those games ... that's an entirely different kettle of fish. You never want to encourage, teach or advocate "quitting" or "losing" on purpose. That's not the type of players or locker room or coaching staff that anyone would want to be a part of.

So, what part of this has you confused?

[Countertrey]

Unfortunately, each of the 2 wins against the Giants cost us a #1 draft pick, so in retrospect, those two meaningless victories were pretty costly.

My contention is we'd be worse off had we tried to lose them. And since in retrospect that's the only way we could have lost, in the larger scheme of things those victories weren't costly at all.

Well, of course we'd be worse off. The league's "Mara How Abuse your Authority to Screw Other Teams in Your Division" committee would have deemed that, clearly, the Redskins deliberately lost those games, in clear violation of the spirit of play, forcing the league to award them a total of 4 additional wins, with the losses spread among other teams in the league. Undoubtedly, an additional 2 wins would have been assigned to the Dallas Cowboys as well.