Andrew Luck pro day

Talk about the Washington Football Team here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

OK I concede ... we should have won 2 more games (Cowboys) and Cleveland deserved RG3.

Then we'd have been all pumped up, and full of morale at 7-9 and we would have Rex telling everyone how we were going to win the division in 2012.

Then we could have used our #1 pick on a receiver that Rex would overthrow into the hands of the opposition ... and everyone could have bellyached about how we should have picked an offensive lineman to give Rex more time to throw interceptions. :lol:

Yeah .. that's the ticket ... two more wins would have been great!
Irn-Bru
FanFromAnnapolis
FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 12025
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon
Contact:

Post by Irn-Bru »

RayNAustin wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
RayNAustin wrote: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.


I don't think I'm missing the obvious. No one disputes the post facto calculation that if we lost 3 extra games we'd have a higher draft pick.

The "benefit" confered by winning 3 extra games isn't so much in the positive morale boosts associated with 3 wins. The concern is with the necessary detriment to team morale that throwing games would have cost. It's one thing to say that 3 extra losses, in the abstract, would have given us X. But it's another thing to say that a 5-11 team, had they thrown 3 extra games, would have gotten X.


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.

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.


So, what part of this has you confused?

None of it.
SkinsJock
08 Champ
08 Champ
Posts: 18385
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: New England

Post by SkinsJock »

woulda coulda shoulda - how stupid and pointless

we coulda lost some games we won and we coulda won some games we lost = STOOPID

anyone that thinks the team 'benefits' from losing games has NO CLUE about the players and coaches in the NFL - NONE

we were able to look at a lot of players this past season that are going to be a part of this franchise going forward - OR not
you CANNOT evaluate players if you are trying to throw games


the FO wanted a QB and traded up to make sure they got RG3

IF they'd wanted to get Luck they would have traded up to #1 - that's easy to figure out

now we cannot lose no matter who is the QB taken at #1
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance
Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
RayNAustin
Hog
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:56 am

Post by RayNAustin »

Irn-Bru wrote: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.


That's the second time you've said this ... "all else being equal". What pray tell do you mean by "all else being equal, but all else isn't equal" ?

In any event ... I'm not posing an argument that needs advancing. I merely stated a fact that those wins were costly as in THREE DRAFT PICKS. It's not speculation, nor subject to debate ... it's simply a fact.

And for those who like to spew rather than READ .... once again, I DO NOT PROPOSE .. nor have I ever suggested that we should have purposely lost games. I was merely ruminating on the point that three of those five wins cost us 3 high draft picks. I think I also mentioned that had we won both of those close Cowboy games (which everyone, including myself would have gleefully embraced) most likely would have prevented our trade up to the #2 pick. Or put more simply ... those losses were a blessing in disguise, which will likely lead to kicking the crapola out of not just the Cowboys for many years to come, but everyone else.

Therefore ... in RETROSPECT ... those losses were beneficial to the bigger picture, even if no one would have consciously chosen those outcomes, which was the underlying point of my simple comments that brought about this hailstorm of bovine excrement.
User avatar
SouthLondonRedskin
Hog
Posts: 1217
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:02 pm
Location: Co. Cavan, Ireland
Contact:

Post by SouthLondonRedskin »

Also, it's worth remembering that if we had lost a couple more games we may have had the second overall pick in the draft but we may well have also lost our head coach.

It would've been hard for Shanny to carry on here if we had sank to 3-13 or 2-14. That would have been serious regression from the previous season and Dan would've been under pressure to pull the trigger on Shanny and let someone else have a go.

And that seriously would have harmed us IMO. Our better players would have lost any remaining faith and look to leave, outsiders would laugh at us more than they do already and a whole new regime of coaches would be doing an evaluation process on this squad that probably would have set us back a few steps in our development from where we are now.

As it is we have given up some draft picks for an outstanding prospect at QB, but he joins a team that I think most of us here believe has some real potential. If we were picking RG3 due to a 2-14 record then it would be completely different, with a whole new coaching staff perhaps and we may well be further away from the promised land than we are now.

Everything happens for a reason is what I'm saying...
In Scot We Trust!
SkinsJock
08 Champ
08 Champ
Posts: 18385
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: New England

Post by SkinsJock »

I never intended for my venting about wins and losses to be be about a post from SLR
the fans that have thought this franchise would be better off by trying to lose games last season know who they are and they are still stupid


we are a franchise that is struggling to get out of what was just a terrible hole at the end of 2009

we're getting there and we're VERY lucky to have Bruce and Mike making the FO decisions ... PLUS we have Mike as the HC :D

this trade is going to help - BIG TIME

HTTR
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance
Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

RayNAustin wrote: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


I hadn't realized that if you lose more games, you get a better draft pick. I'm glad you're here to explain these nuances to us. As for "if" we had lost more games, here is I've addressed this concept before.

kaz wrote:If aliens from the future came back and told me the outcome of games, I would make sure I won but I'd be sure to lose a lot too so no one knew.

If Queen Elizabeth II could fly I wouldn't think she was the most useless Monarch in British history.

If pancakes were radio active I wouldn't eat them for breakfast. I mean I don't now, but man, if they were radioactive I DEFINITELY wouldn't.
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
langleyparkjoe
**LPJ**
**LPJ**
Posts: 6714
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Langley Park, MD *Tick Tock*
Contact:

Post by langleyparkjoe »

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
RayNAustin wrote: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


I hadn't realized that if you lose more games, you get a better draft pick. I'm glad you're here to explain these nuances to us. As for "if" we had lost more games, here is I've addressed this concept before.

kaz wrote:If aliens from the future came back and told me the outcome of games, I would make sure I won but I'd be sure to lose a lot too so no one knew.

If Queen Elizabeth II could fly I wouldn't think she was the most useless Monarch in British history.

If pancakes were radio active I wouldn't eat them for breakfast. I mean I don't now, but man, if they were radioactive I DEFINITELY wouldn't.


:!:

When Kaz feels like thinking, he's on point.
Hog Bowl Champions
'09 & '17 langleyparkjoe, '10 Cappster, '11 & '13 DarthMonk,
'12 Deadskins, '14 PickSixerTWSS, '15 APEX PREDATOR, '16 vwoodzpusha
Countertrey
the 'mudge
the 'mudge
Posts: 16632
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Post by Countertrey »

Thinking is a lot of work... even moreso for grads of certain schools in the outpost of Michigan... :-$
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
Irn-Bru
FanFromAnnapolis
FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 12025
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon
Contact:

Post by Irn-Bru »

RayNAustin wrote:What pray tell do you mean by "all else being equal, but all else isn't equal" ?

It means it's not the only relevant variable.


In any event ... I'm not posing an argument that needs advancing. I merely stated a fact that those wins were costly as in THREE DRAFT PICKS. It's not speculation, nor subject to debate ... it's simply a fact.

Do you realize that I'm not disputing the fact that more losses would have meant a higher draft pick? That's the reason I'm saying it's not helping the discussion along to keep repeating this point.

Here's what I'm saying in brief: It doesn't follow from "fewer wins = higher draft pick" that, therefore, "in the scheme of things our wins were 'costly' to this franchise."

And for those who like to spew rather than READ .... once again, I DO NOT PROPOSE .. nor have I ever suggested that we should have purposely lost games.

I don't know whether this is directed at me, but if it is and if you can take your own advice, you'll see that I never said you suggested that we should have purposefully lost games. ;)


Therefore ... in RETROSPECT ... those losses were beneficial to the bigger picture, even if no one would have consciously chosen those outcomes, which was the underlying point of my simple comments that brought about this hailstorm of bovine excrement.

Kaz handled your "simple point" pretty well above by giving you a few "simple points" of his own in return. IMO both sets are about as interesting/insightful with respect to this conversation.
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

Countertrey wrote:Thinking is a lot of work... even moreso for grads of certain schools in the outpost of Michigan... :-$


It's the last resort...
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
SkinsJock
08 Champ
08 Champ
Posts: 18385
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: New England

Post by SkinsJock »

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Countertrey wrote:Thinking is a lot of work... even moreso for grads of certain schools in the outpost of Michigan... :-$


It's the last resort...


sorry Kaz - there is nothing resort related in the state of Michigan - not even 'the last resort' :wink:
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance
Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
Countertrey
the 'mudge
the 'mudge
Posts: 16632
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Post by Countertrey »

SkinsJock wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Countertrey wrote:Thinking is a lot of work... even moreso for grads of certain schools in the outpost of Michigan... :-$


It's the last resort...


sorry Kaz - there is nothing resort related in the state of Michigan - not even 'the last resort' :wink:


Ahhh... you've never been to the UP, I see... :wink:
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

Countertrey wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Countertrey wrote:Thinking is a lot of work... even moreso for grads of certain schools in the outpost of Michigan... :-$


It's the last resort...


sorry Kaz - there is nothing resort related in the state of Michigan - not even 'the last resort' :wink:


Ahhh... you've never been to the UP, I see... :wink:


My thought exactly. And wow, you even said it like a Michigander, "the UP."
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
Countertrey
the 'mudge
the 'mudge
Posts: 16632
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Post by Countertrey »

It's on my bucket list...
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
Post Reply