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

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.

Yeah .. that's the ticket ... two more wins would have been great!

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.

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

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.

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...

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

this trade is going to help - BIG TIME

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.

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.

Thinking is a lot of work... even moreso for grads of certain schools in the outpost of Michigan...

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.

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...

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'

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'

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

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'

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

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

It's on my bucket list...