The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Countertrey wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:This story just seems too bizarre to me. Why would Peyton eliminate a team that has a history of throwing a ton of dough at free agents. Even if he feels this way, and even if we don't want him, it is in BOTH our interests to keep the appearance up.

DUH - MAYBE because this franchise does NOT tend to throw a ton of dough at free agents anymore

OR

maybe because this franchise's FO (which does NOT include D Snyder anymore) is interested but not as badly as some others

OR

maybe because Peyton's advisers can see better opportunities elsewhere

almost ANY franchise would be better at QB with Manning - we are going in a different direction and Peyton's people don't need any more suitors - there are enough out there already without using the Redskins

The Redskins are no longer under the control of Dumb & Dumber anymore

Here's the problem with this line of thinking.

The Redskins have allowed it to be known that they are "Very interested" in Manning. This means that there will be a perception that the Redskins are willing to open the pocketbook one more time. Sure, dumb and dumber may be out of the driver's seat, but it is also known that the Danny WILL make it rain, if he is asked to do so. No way Manning gives up the leverage he gets from that knowledge... even if he has no interest himself.

The bottom line is, Manning and his agents are smart enough to know that you keep Snyder's money in the mix, as you go fishing for contracts elsewhere.

You beat me to replying to a softball. You were a LOT kinder than I would have been though.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

emoses14 wrote:If true, that just reaffirms my (often illogically held) belief that neither of them is as good as they are made out to be. I prefer my team's players to adopt a "between the lines, anyone wearing "their" jersey is the devil and must be killed."

You guys are awfully picky... Considering the two of them have won superbowls, and arguably Top 5 QB's. [sarcasm]But Redskin fans are used to top tier QB play, it's just an every year occurrence here.[/sarcasm]

Taking nothing away from them, but to my eyes, there's a qualitative difference between a guy like Brady Montana, hell even Elway, and the Mannings, especially Peyton. Yes, they've had enormous success, and deserve it, but the happy feet, the going down to the ground as soon as other team comes anywhere near you, the "I don't want to play for the chargers I want to play for the giants, etc., all adds up to this unshakable feeling for me that they are mimicking greatness, not actually great.

Eli is closer to shedding this mantle in my opinion, but I find it curious that Peyton is mr all world qb, the best ever, but he constantly turns into a bumbling, happy feet, easily rattled qb whenever he plays a team that can punch you in the mouth. For me, real qbs get better when the competition gets tougher, not the same or worse. This is an elite versus the not quite elite kinda of point. It in no way means I think they are on the same level as Tim Tebow or something. These are great, good, whatever. Just not all time elite.

SouthLondonRedskin wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

SouthLondonRedskin wrote:Can I just say that 'Hate' is a very strong word to use when talking about a difference of opinion on football matters.

Life is too short at the end of the day...

Just sayin'

+1

I don't mean like Rush Limbaugh hate. More like Tim Tebow like hate. I'm like the Tebow of this site. Unorthodox, disliked, but finds a way to win.

OK. I have no idea who Rush Limbaugh is, was he a linebacker for the Cowboys in the 70s...???

Only kidding, I guess he's a political parasiteor something..?!?

I think you're brave comparing yourself to Tebow however, I'm sure other posters will state why...

Fixed that for you.

Deadskins wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Where will Manning go?

Odds I just saw from Vegas:

New York Jets +200 2/1 bet $100 to win $200
Miami Dolphins +300 3/1 bet $100 to win $300
Washington Redskins +400 4/1 bet $100 to win $400
Seattle Seahawks +500 5/1 bet $100 to win $500
Arizona Cardinals +600 6/1 bet $100 to win $600
Baltimore Ravens +700 7/1 bet $100 to win $700
Houston Texans +900 9/1 bet $100 to win $900
San Francisco 49ers +1000 10/1 bet $100 to win $1000
Field (any team not listed) +100 1/1 bet $100 to win $100

The even money favorite is The Field which includes the Colts. I wonder about the Cowboys.

Why would the field be even money, but they are giving odds on what have to be the favorites?

Baisc math. Even in his prime Tiger was (of course) the favorite ... but not even money or better. Someone from the field is much more likely to win than the single best golfer in the world.

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:Latest odds:

Cardinals: 19% ($100 wins $250)
Dolphins: 16.5% ($100 wins $300)
Redskins: 13% ($100 wins $400)
Jets: 9.5% ($100 wins $600)
Chiefs: 7.5% ($100 wins $800)
Retire: 6% ($100 wins $1,000)
Seahawks: 6% ($100 wins $1,000)
Texans: 4% ($100 wins $1,500)
49ers: 3% ($100 wins $2,000)
Broncos: 3% ($100 wins $2,000)
Titans: 1.5% ($100 wins $4,000)
Team Not Listed: 11% ($100 wins $500)

Changes since opening odds . . .
$100 on retiring started off paying only $250, now paying $1,000.
$100 on Cardinals started off paying $2,500, now pays only $250.
$100 on Chiefs started off paying $5,000, now pays only $800.

I still like the Jets and the Chiefs. Jets might qualify as "one QB away," they have a good D, they have a good running game, they have pretty good WRs, and their OC is Manning's old OC.

DarthMonk

This post contradicts your response above. Only the three favorites have smaller odds than the rest of the field.

Not at all. You are confused (sorry). Every single team has less chance than the rest of the field.

Each and every team in the list has less chance than the rest of the field. The only way this would not be so is if there were a single team with a 50% chance or better.



This from you would have made sense: "The chance of him going to one of the first three teams (48.5%) is less than the chance of him going to one of the other 29 (51.5%)." OR "The chance of him going to one of the first 4 teams (58%) is greater than the chance of him going to one of the other 28 (42%)."

See the difference between that and

Deadskins wrote:Only the three favorites have smaller odds than the rest of the field.

?

Every single team has smaller odds than the rest of the field since every one of them has less than 50% chance.



Darth (math major) Monk

peyton manning coming to washington .... possible, MOST LIKELY, no!!

DarthMonk wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Where will Manning go?

Odds I just saw from Vegas:

New York Jets +200 2/1 bet $100 to win $200
Miami Dolphins +300 3/1 bet $100 to win $300
Washington Redskins +400 4/1 bet $100 to win $400
Seattle Seahawks +500 5/1 bet $100 to win $500
Arizona Cardinals +600 6/1 bet $100 to win $600
Baltimore Ravens +700 7/1 bet $100 to win $700
Houston Texans +900 9/1 bet $100 to win $900
San Francisco 49ers +1000 10/1 bet $100 to win $1000
Field (any team not listed) +100 1/1 bet $100 to win $100

The even money favorite is The Field which includes the Colts. I wonder about the Cowboys.

Why would the field be even money, but they are giving odds on what have to be the favorites?

Baisc math. Even in his prime Tiger was (of course) the favorite ... but not even money or better. Someone from the field is much more likely to win than the single best golfer in the world.

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:Latest odds:

Cardinals: 19% ($100 wins $250)
Dolphins: 16.5% ($100 wins $300)
Redskins: 13% ($100 wins $400)
Jets: 9.5% ($100 wins $600)
Chiefs: 7.5% ($100 wins $800)
Retire: 6% ($100 wins $1,000)
Seahawks: 6% ($100 wins $1,000)
Texans: 4% ($100 wins $1,500)
49ers: 3% ($100 wins $2,000)
Broncos: 3% ($100 wins $2,000)
Titans: 1.5% ($100 wins $4,000)
Team Not Listed: 11% ($100 wins $500)

Changes since opening odds . . .
$100 on retiring started off paying only $250, now paying $1,000.
$100 on Cardinals started off paying $2,500, now pays only $250.
$100 on Chiefs started off paying $5,000, now pays only $800.

I still like the Jets and the Chiefs. Jets might qualify as "one QB away," they have a good D, they have a good running game, they have pretty good WRs, and their OC is Manning's old OC.

DarthMonk

This post contradicts your response above. Only the three favorites have smaller odds than the rest of the field.

Not at all. You are confused (sorry). Every single team has less chance than the rest of the field.

Each and every team in the list has less chance than the rest of the field. The only way this would not be so is if there were a single team with a 50% chance or better.



This from you would have made sense: "The chance of him going to one of the first three teams (48.5%) is less than the chance of him going to one of the other 29 (51.5%)." OR "The chance of him going to one of the first 4 teams (58%) is greater than the chance of him going to one of the other 28 (42%)."

See the difference between that and

Deadskins wrote:Only the three favorites have smaller odds than the rest of the field.

?

Every single team has smaller odds than the rest of the field since every one of them has less than 50% chance.



Darth (math major) Monk

Look at the amount you win based on the $100 bet. Those are the odds.
Cardinals 2.5 to 1
Dolphins 3 to 1
Redskins 4 to 1
Teams not listed 5 to 1
Jets 6 to 1
Chiefs 8 to 1
Retire 10 to 1
Seahawks 10 to 1
Texans 15 to 1
49ers 20 to 1
Broncos 20 to 1
Titans 40 to 1
Hence, the Cardinals, Dolphins, and Redskins are the favorites, and everything from "teams not listed" on down, is the rest of the field.

Deadskins wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Where will Manning go?

Odds I just saw from Vegas:

New York Jets +200 2/1 bet $100 to win $200
Miami Dolphins +300 3/1 bet $100 to win $300
Washington Redskins +400 4/1 bet $100 to win $400
Seattle Seahawks +500 5/1 bet $100 to win $500
Arizona Cardinals +600 6/1 bet $100 to win $600
Baltimore Ravens +700 7/1 bet $100 to win $700
Houston Texans +900 9/1 bet $100 to win $900
San Francisco 49ers +1000 10/1 bet $100 to win $1000
Field (any team not listed) +100 1/1 bet $100 to win $100

The even money favorite is The Field which includes the Colts. I wonder about the Cowboys.

Why would the field be even money, but they are giving odds on what have to be the favorites?

Baisc math. Even in his prime Tiger was (of course) the favorite ... but not even money or better. Someone from the field is much more likely to win than the single best golfer in the world.

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:Latest odds:

Cardinals: 19% ($100 wins $250)
Dolphins: 16.5% ($100 wins $300)
Redskins: 13% ($100 wins $400)
Jets: 9.5% ($100 wins $600)
Chiefs: 7.5% ($100 wins $800)
Retire: 6% ($100 wins $1,000)
Seahawks: 6% ($100 wins $1,000)
Texans: 4% ($100 wins $1,500)
49ers: 3% ($100 wins $2,000)
Broncos: 3% ($100 wins $2,000)
Titans: 1.5% ($100 wins $4,000)
Team Not Listed: 11% ($100 wins $500)

Changes since opening odds . . .
$100 on retiring started off paying only $250, now paying $1,000.
$100 on Cardinals started off paying $2,500, now pays only $250.
$100 on Chiefs started off paying $5,000, now pays only $800.

I still like the Jets and the Chiefs. Jets might qualify as "one QB away," they have a good D, they have a good running game, they have pretty good WRs, and their OC is Manning's old OC.

DarthMonk

This post contradicts your response above. Only the three favorites have smaller odds than the rest of the field.

Not at all. You are confused (sorry). Every single team has less chance than the rest of the field.

Each and every team in the list has less chance than the rest of the field. The only way this would not be so is if there were a single team with a 50% chance or better.



This from you would have made sense: "The chance of him going to one of the first three teams (48.5%) is less than the chance of him going to one of the other 29 (51.5%)." OR "The chance of him going to one of the first 4 teams (58%) is greater than the chance of him going to one of the other 28 (42%)."

See the difference between that and

Deadskins wrote:Only the three favorites have smaller odds than the rest of the field.

?

Every single team has smaller odds than the rest of the field since every one of them has less than 50% chance.



Darth (math major) Monk

Look at the amount you win based on the $100 bet. Those are the odds.
Cardinals 2.5 to 1
Dolphins 3 to 1
Redskins 4 to 1
Teams not listed 5 to 1
Jets 6 to 1
Chiefs 8 to 1
Retire 10 to 1
Seahawks 10 to 1
Texans 15 to 1
49ers 20 to 1
Broncos 20 to 1
Titans 40 to 1

Not sure what your point is.

Those would be the payout odds.

Vegas wants to make money though so the payout odds are different from the odds of each event happening.

For instance, when you play a number at roulette (on a single zero wheel) you have a one in 37 chance when you play, say, 7. The odds are 36 to 1 against you. The house only pays 35 to 1.

None of this really has any bearing on the nature of the above discussion. If teams A, B, C, D, and E are each 11% to land Manning then his chances of landing with one of A, B, C or D are 44% while the chance of landing somewhere in the rest of the field is 56%. If we include E then his chances of landing with one of A, B, C, D, or E are 55% which is a better chance than landing somewhere in the rest of the field.

If you are referring to the two sets of odds/probabilities disagreeing that is becuase the second set is an update of the first.

That's why it says "Changes since opening odds . . ."


DarthMonk

Of course, but I was also talking about the payout odds (which you posted alongside the teams) in reference to the first post, where the favorites were paying out more than the field, which was even money. I didn't understand that. Get it?

PS. I was also a math major (and computer science too).

Peyton and Peyton's people UNDERSTAND that D Snyder can and will do anything at any price that the FO wants

They also CLEARLY know that the Redskins are not as interested as the media are trying to make out

AND

they also have plenty of other players to use

Snyder is not the factor he was BECAUSE this FO does not behave like the media would like to make out we behave

NOT the same old Redskins

NO longer are we the over spenders we used to be

THAT WAS EASY

SkinsJock wrote:Peyton and Peyton's people UNDERSTAND that D Snyder can and will do anything at any price that the FO wants

They also CLEARLY know that the Redskins are not as interested as the media are trying to make out

Since the FO has "leaked" the contrary, it's not just the media...

AND

they also have plenty of other players to use

Snyder is not the factor he was BECAUSE this FO does not behave like the media would like to make out we behave

Ordinarily, this would be true... but it's also true that Snyder will back up his FO with cash, if they ask for it... and that is known throughout the league... AND Shanahan has indicated that he has interest in Manning...

NOT the same old Redskins

NO longer are we the over spenders we used to be

Does not matter... see above

THAT WAS EASY

Perhaps...

thanks trey - we're basically saying the same thing

Snyder's supporting the FO TOTALLY

The NFL people are aware that we are no longer who the media thinks we are

this FO and any FO in need of a QB would look into trying to add Manning

Manning and his people know that we're not really as attractive as many other franchises and we no longer are throwing money away

I'd love to have Manning

BOTH this FO and Mannings people have other plans

I guess the Manning discussion should all be put to rest thanks to the news of the RGIII deal.

StorminMormon86 wrote:I guess the Manning discussion should all be put to rest thanks to the news of the RGIII deal.

you got that right

This FO knew all along that they would get this deal done at some time

I think the Rams wanted to get on with building their franchise and not wait and hope

StorminMormon86 wrote:I guess the Manning discussion should all be put to rest thanks to the news of the RGIII deal.

You'd hope. We need the cap now to sign even more players since we don't have 3 #1's to use on other positions now.

I'm not devastated by the net loss of 2 #1 picks. The best #1 pick we've made in the last 20 years has been Sean Taylor. Other than that, we've had some decent to good players who haven't helped us win anything.

Chris Samuels
Sean Taylor
Champ Bailey
Lavar Arrington
Brian Orakpo

Those were our best 1st Round picks. Then we've had guys like:
Rod Gardner
Carlos Rogers
Jason Campbell
Kenard Lang
Andre Johnson (the Tackle)
Michael Westbrook
Heath Shuler
Tom Carter
Desmond Howard
Bobby Wilson

If RG3 is capable of becoming a Top 10 QB in this league, then it's a no-brainer. This was a good trade. There's no guarantee that a Carlos Rogers, and a Michael Westbrook would have helped the franchise more.

The Hogster wrote:I'm not devastated by the net loss of 2 #1 picks. The best #1 pick we've made in the last 20 years has been Sean Taylor. Other than that, we've had some decent to good players who haven't helped us win anything.

Chris Samuels
Sean Taylor
Champ Bailey
Lavar Arrington
Brian Orakpo

Those were our best 1st Round picks. Then we've had guys like:
Rod Gardner
Carlos Rogers
Jason Campbell
Kenard Lang
Andre Johnson (the Tackle)
Michael Westbrook
Heath Shuler
Tom Carter
Desmond Howard
Bobby Wilson

If RG3 is capable of becoming a Top 10 QB in this league, then it's a no-brainer. This was a good trade. There's no guarantee that a Carlos Rogers, and a Michael Westbrook would have helped the franchise more.

I don't see Laron Landry on your list...

Countertrey wrote:

The Hogster wrote:I'm not devastated by the net loss of 2 #1 picks. The best #1 pick we've made in the last 20 years has been Sean Taylor. Other than that, we've had some decent to good players who haven't helped us win anything.

Chris Samuels
Sean Taylor
Champ Bailey
Lavar Arrington
Brian Orakpo

Those were our best 1st Round picks. Then we've had guys like:
Rod Gardner
Carlos Rogers
Jason Campbell
Kenard Lang
Andre Johnson (the Tackle)
Michael Westbrook
Heath Shuler
Tom Carter
Desmond Howard
Bobby Wilson

If RG3 is capable of becoming a Top 10 QB in this league, then it's a no-brainer. This was a good trade. There's no guarantee that a Carlos Rogers, and a Michael Westbrook would have helped the franchise more.

I don't see Laron Landry on your list...

Put him on the bottom list. While he's got potential to be a great player, he hasn't been able to during his first contract term.

I'd agree. There so much potential... but we've only been teased, so far.

This from ESPN:

The trade will not change the Redskins' plans in pursuing Peyton Manning. They still intend to talk with and try to sign him, even if they are considered a long shot, a team official said.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/76682 ... louis-rams

Manning Focusing on Denver and Arizona per ESPN:


http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/76721 ... ources-say

Arizona makes sense. I would not rule out Miami ... yet.

Why not Denver? They have one hell of a defense. Elway really isn't to pleased with Tebow.

Kilmer72 wrote:Why not Denver? They have one hell of a defense. Elway really isn't to pleased with Tebow.

Um, given the opportunity to have Manning or Tebow, is there any sane person that would pick the latter?

That is what I am saying. The only down fall is Manning gets hit in the right spot and he is done. This can happen to any QB I know but, usually when you are young you can rebound. If I was him I would pick Denver. Their defense is very good.

On Sportscenter this morning, Arizona was dubbed as the "frontrunner" for where Manning was going to end up. But then I hear rumors that he doesn't want to play in the NFC, so Miami or Denver would be his preferred places to play. I think the Jets resigning Sanchez will quell the rumors of Manning going to NY.