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

Whether drafting for best talent or for specific needs, teams have not only their front offices but also numerous scouts investigating the players they have an interest in several months ahead of the draft. That is in addition to the film studies often done on these players years in advance, sometimes as far back as high school films.

Because so much time and effort is put into setting draft boards well ahead of the actual draft, teams simply remove the names of prospects who are no longer on the board. Teams do not completely change their draft boards or their draft strategies midstream.

Owners and general managers have trust that the people hired to scout these prospects and the information and film study have been done to the best of the team's abilities. Furthermore, owners and general managers have the final say on the team's draft board, so once they have made long and difficult decisions, they are not going to second guess themselves. People don't get to be NFL franchise majority owners or general managers by second guessing their decisions. They also don't get there by trampling the advice of their minority investors and silent partners. They get there by carefully researching their options, making a decision, and carrying their plan through to long-term fruition and return on investment. These people don't drop ideas at the first sign of trouble, and they usually don't act impulsively, especially once they understand that impulse leads to loss of revenue in the NFL. See: Snyder, Daniel M.
Most teams have a system of decision-making checks and balances in place far superior to that of the Washington Redskins.

As simply as this can be explained, the best player available is the best player left on a team's draft board. Players don't become better than other players in the unfriendly confines of the NFL draft. Sometimes two players are identical in rating but not usually. Teams try to avoid that like the plague because owners and general managers dislike being limited by a clock. Who doesn't?

If a team is drafting for position of need, there is no difference. Teams rank every player available at the position or positions of need, and line them up in order of priority. If a team wants a wide receiver, they line up every wide receiver prospect they will draft in ranked order. As those players are drafted, the team removes them from the board. Those spaces do not get filled in with other positions in the draft room after teams have spent months setting the board up. They simply continue down the board until they draft their highest ranked remaining player. Teams don't rank players they have no intention of drafting.

If anyone wants to challenge this post, I suggest checking the M.B.A. program at Harvard or Yale, or perhaps Oxford or Cambridge. This isn't football. This is multi-billion dollar business. So, no matter how much anyone thinks they know about football or about the Washington Redskins, nobody frequenting this message board is speaking from the first-hand experience of owning or managing a professional football franchise. That includes GSPODS. The only experience I personally have with NFL franchises is that I have seen most of the franchise agreements, contracts and other legal agreements filled in. And those are enough to tell everyone, without any doubt or opinion involved, that every draft pick is a business investment.

Owners only care how players perform to the extent that it sells tickets and team merchandise. Owners care how teams perform to the extent that playoff appearances sell additional tickets and merchandise, and provide additional TV revenue. Owners care that SuperBowls bring considerably more revenue. General managers care that players meet long-term goals because general managers are responsible for profit and loss, and keeping their extremely well-paying jobs depends upon remaining profitable. The Redskins aside, most NFL franchises operate either close to the vest or at a loss. Pre-tax, pre-interest income per franchise averages $17.8 Million per season, according to Forbes 2006 figures. The majority owners don't pocket that amount.

Without going too far off track, take the contracts of the 2008 Redskins draft prospects. Add the numbers together. How close is the total to the $17.8 Million that most teams are operating with? That's why teams don't play games with their draft boards. They are etched in stone because billionaire tight-wads got to be billionaires by being tight-wads.

Stop thinking from a fanatic's winning team perspective (OK, it's all we know) and start thinking like a billionaire entrepreneur. Everything is done for a profit, including setting and keeping to an NFL draft board.

Since this isn't specific to the Redskins and encompasses the entire NFL, it's been moved to the appropriate forum. Thanks.

GSPODS wrote:Pre-tax, pre-interest income per franchise averages $17.8 Million per season, according to Forbes 2006 figures.

That figure doesn't include TV money. No NFL franchises are going broke.

GSPODS wrote:Lots and lots of hot air stating the obvious about the NFL draft

Um...what can I say? How 'bout this, duh!!!!! What a long post about nothing. Drafting is a business decision. Thanks.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Lots and lots of hot air stating the obvious about the NFL draft

Um...what can I say? How 'bout this, duh!!!!! What a long post about nothing. Drafting is a business decision. Thanks.

This post was in response to another post in another thread by another member not named KazooSkinsFan. The reason it was posted here was to avoid going off-topic in another thread. What you find obvious isn't common knowledge to every member of THN. And this isn't exactly Football 101. It's Business 6000.

Specific to the reply, there is an option called Silence.
If this or any other post is of no value to you, then skip the reply, which is of no value to anyone. Why respond to what you think was a waste of your time (this post) by wasting everyone elses time with your own useless post? Maybe not everyone feels the way you do. Stop demeaning the efforts of those who at least make an attempt to add something of value to this board every so often. Yes, I said attempt. Nearly every post by nearly everyone is an attempt to add something of value to this message board. Attempting to ruin every thread you personally see no value in is far more detrimental to the overall message board than is skipping the post or skipping the reply.

Would anyone care to address the thread topic?

JSPB22 wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Pre-tax, pre-interest income per franchise averages $17.8 Million per season, according to Forbes 2006 figures.

That figure doesn't include TV money. No NFL franchises are going broke.

True. Approximately $4.5 Billion total is paid out in annual player salaries.
Without @$6 Billion TV revenue, teams would fall very short of making payroll.

The overall point of this post was to address another post in another thread, without going this far off-topic in that thread. The specific comment was that teams continually change their draft boards during the draft. The long and drawn out explanation was to explain why teams don't change their draft boards during the draft. They only remove the players who have been selected from their draft boards. I have no doubt that veteran members of THN already knew most or all of the garble contained in this thread. It was more or less for anyone who has only ever looked at the draft from a fan's perspective. That's quite a few people, I would think, since we are fans, not venture capitalists.
OK. Maybe a few of us are venture captalists, too, but we were fans first.

GSPODS wrote:Whether drafting for best talent or for specific needs, teams have not only their front offices but also numerous scouts investigating the players they have an interest in several months ahead of the draft. That is in addition to the film studies often done on these players years in advance, sometimes as far back as high school films.

Because so much time and effort is put into setting draft boards well ahead of the actual draft, teams simply remove the names of prospects who are no longer on the board. Teams do not completely change their draft boards or their draft strategies midstream.

Owners and general managers have trust that the people hired to scout these prospects and the information and film study have been done to the best of the team's abilities. Furthermore, owners and general managers have the final say on the team's draft board, so once they have made long and difficult decisions, they are not going to second guess themselves. People don't get to be NFL franchise majority owners or general managers by second guessing their decisions. They also don't get there by trampling the advice of their minority investors and silent partners. They get there by carefully researching their options, making a decision, and carrying their plan through to long-term fruition and return on investment. These people don't drop ideas at the first sign of trouble, and they usually don't act impulsively, especially once they understand that impulse leads to loss of revenue in the NFL. See: Snyder, Daniel M.
Most teams have a system of decision-making checks and balances in place far superior to that of the Washington Redskins.

As simply as this can be explained, the best player available is the best player left on a team's draft board. Players don't become better than other players in the unfriendly confines of the NFL draft. Sometimes two players are identical in rating but not usually. Teams try to avoid that like the plague because owners and general managers dislike being limited by a clock. Who doesn't?

If a team is drafting for position of need, there is no difference. Teams rank every player available at the position or positions of need, and line them up in order of priority. If a team wants a wide receiver, they line up every wide receiver prospect they will draft in ranked order. As those players are drafted, the team removes them from the board. Those spaces do not get filled in with other positions in the draft room after teams have spent months setting the board up. They simply continue down the board until they draft their highest ranked remaining player. Teams don't rank players they have no intention of drafting.

If anyone wants to challenge this post, I suggest checking the M.B.A. program at Harvard or Yale, or perhaps Oxford or Cambridge. This isn't football. This is multi-billion dollar business. So, no matter how much anyone thinks they know about football or about the Washington Redskins, nobody frequenting this message board is speaking from the first-hand experience of owning or managing a professional football franchise. That includes GSPODS. The only experience I personally have with NFL franchises is that I have seen most of the franchise agreements, contracts and other legal agreements filled in. And those are enough to tell everyone, without any doubt or opinion involved, that every draft pick is a business investment.

Owners only care how players perform to the extent that it sells tickets and team merchandise. Owners care how teams perform to the extent that playoff appearances sell additional tickets and merchandise, and provide additional TV revenue. Owners care that SuperBowls bring considerably more revenue. General managers care that players meet long-term goals because general managers are responsible for profit and loss, and keeping their extremely well-paying jobs depends upon remaining profitable. The Redskins aside, most NFL franchises operate either close to the vest or at a loss. Pre-tax, pre-interest income per franchise averages $17.8 Million per season, according to Forbes 2006 figures. The majority owners don't pocket that amount.

Without going too far off track, take the contracts of the 2008 Redskins draft prospects. Add the numbers together. How close is the total to the $17.8 Million that most teams are operating with? That's why teams don't play games with their draft boards. They are etched in stone because billionaire tight-wads got to be billionaires by being tight-wads.

Stop thinking from a fanatic's winning team perspective (OK, it's all we know) and start thinking like a billionaire entrepreneur. Everything is done for a profit, including setting and keeping to an NFL draft board.

There is a lot of assumed knowledge thrown in with a little common knowledge. Weed all that out, there's a little research. I give the post a C- due to long windedness.

GSPODS wrote:Specific to the reply, there is an option called Silence.
If this or any other post is of no value to you, then skip the reply, which is of no value to anyone. Why respond to what you think was a waste of your time (this post) by wasting everyone elses time with your own useless post? Maybe not everyone feels the way you do. Stop demeaning the efforts of those who at least make an attempt to add something of value to this board every so often. Yes, I said attempt. Nearly every post by nearly everyone is an attempt to add something of value to this message board. Attempting to ruin every thread you personally see no value in is far more detrimental to the overall message board than is skipping the post or skipping the reply

Regarding the hypocrisy:

Regarding telling me what I'm not allowed to respond to you except according to your rules:

Regarding the "MBA" comments, what you say is NOT what they teach you at top 10 MBA programs as a graduate of one. You're taking that the end game is money (true) and stating that you don't care about the business itself or the employees other then just money (false). A well run business considers all those factors. Some are, some aren't, but no top school teaches MBAs to run businesses poorly. Your recipe is certain disaster. I also do this for a living. Believe me, I'm capitalist. I don't help companies screw employees or not care what field they are in and pursue only cash because that NEVER works in any sort of long term sense quite the reverse.

Other then that, tell me what point I'm supposed to take from this bloviation of the obvious that football is a business? A point that's been hashed and rehashed that you needed to start ANOTHER forum on it?

GSPODS wrote:[I have no doubt that veteran members of THN already knew most or all of the garble contained in this thread. It was more or less for anyone who has only ever looked at the draft from a fan's perspective.

So post it in Football 101.

VetSkinsFan wrote:
There is a lot of assumed knowledge thrown in with a little common knowledge. Weed all that out, there's a little research. I give the post a C- due to long windedness.

You have no idea who I am or what the source(s) of the information contained in the post are. If the source of the information in the post is a person or persons in the position to know, how would one post those people on a message board? Name-dropping? If I posted a name or names, you'd reply in much the same way, with complete incredulity.

If you assume or believe a statement to be false, it doesn't mean the statement is actually false. It also doesn't mean that the opposite is automatically true. If you assume or believe a statement to be true, it doesn't mean the statement is true. It also doesn't mean the opposite is automatically false. A statement without first-hand proof is neither true nor false. It is only assumed or believed to be either true or false.

Assume the post is neither true nor false. There is no proof either way.
Rather than blankly claiming the majority of the post is an assumption, either prove or disprove it for yourself. Simply claiming anything is an assumption does not discredit its validity.

Don't assume that a post (or anything else, for that matter) is either true or false based upon a lack of 'evidence' of any kind. Not everything can be 'proven true' on a message board by linking WaPo, ESPN, Redskins.com and other sports media outlet sources.

If someone you believe to be truthful posts that the sky is falling, are you going to believe it, disbelieve it, or are you going to look outside?
How are you going to prove the sky is falling on a message board?
Are you going to keep typing, "Really. The Sky Is Falling."

Sometimes, first-hand knowledge is the only proof or disproof.
I'm sure you've heard the expressions, "You had to be there" and "If I hadn't seen it with my own two eyes, I wouldn't have believed it."

Maybe everyone thinks that posts claiming to be factual should always be supported. That isn't possible, unless the post is simply taking a statement or an idea from another source. Threads that are nothing more than links to WaPo, ESPN and Redskins.com are superfluous. Redskins fans already read these sites. I get 100 to 200 links per day of Redskins news in different newspapers, blogs and message boards. Almost invariably, they all say the same thing. It looks like this: (AP)

There should be something more to this message board than repeating or rehashing links from other sources, and then linking those sources. That’s what other message boards do. It may also explain, to some degree, why there are wll over 5800 members of THN, but only 100 or fewer daily visitors. Most of the threads in HogWash take far longer to read than the articles that were "borrowed" to start the threads. When someone tries to discuss something that doesn’t appear in every major media format, it would seem to go along with the theme, “Your Premier Independent News Source.” I’m sure I read that somewhere on the main page.

There is a good chance the sources of my post would have done an interview or a PodCast for THN. I think I will skip the effort. Being called a liar somehow drains my motivation to add anything else to this board.

Before you abuse, criticize and accuse
Walk a mile in my shoes. - Joe South

When you say...

GSPODS wrote:You have no idea who I am or what the source(s) of the information contained in the post are

Who cares because whoever you are and whatever your sources are you're completely and utterly wrong. Here's what you're saying drives football teams:

GSPODS wrote:Owners only care how players perform to the extent that it sells tickets and team merchandise. Owners care how teams perform to the extent that playoff appearances sell additional tickets and merchandise, and provide additional TV revenue. Owners care that SuperBowls bring considerably more revenue.

This is bilch water for ANY business. I work mostly in financial services, but across industries. Industries change, but how you build a quality organization doesn't. Your business fundamentals are complete crap, not just a little wrong. Successful businesses know their market and how they fit in it, what their strenghts and weaknesses and design their organization, product, services, pricing, etc to effectively attack that. Your claim companies don't care about anything but short term profits and only view their company and employees as commodities is NOT how successful companies operate. I don't care if I've worked for a football organization or not. I'm telling you your statements ANY business can operate that way successfully is stereotypical hogwash and doesn't reflect reality in any way, shape or form.

And when you say this again you're making it up.

GSPODS wrote: General managers care that players meet long-term goals because general managers are responsible for profit and loss, and keeping their extremely well-paying jobs depends upon remaining profitable. The Redskins aside, most NFL franchises operate either close to the vest or at a loss. Pre-tax, pre-interest income per franchise averages $17.8 Million per season, according to Forbes 2006 figures. The majority owners don't pocket that amount.

Do you know the difference between for example gross, operating and net profit? Do you know the difference between cash and accrual accounting or how manipulatable they are with revenue realization and other "tricks?" See the Enron collapse for that. One thing the players have right is the owners are constantly playing games with that claiming they're not making money when they are because of how they count it and what they count. Then you throw in amortization and depreciation, EBIT... and it's an accounting wonderland. That you make your statement blind to that whole topic ANY MBA reading it would like me would immediately say, "what do you MEAN by 'profit'?"

I love this.

If anyone wants to challenge this post, I suggest checking the M.B.A. program at Harvard or Yale, or perhaps Oxford or Cambridge. This isn't football. This is multi-billion dollar business. So, no matter how much anyone thinks they know about football or about the Washington Redskins, nobody frequenting this message board is speaking from the first-hand experience of owning or managing a professional football franchise. That includes GSPODS.

Let's deconstruct this.

If anyone wants to challenge this post, I suggest checking the M.B.A. program at Harvard or Yale, or perhaps Oxford or Cambridge. This isn't football. This is multi-billion dollar business.

This part is saying that the only way to challenge your post is to earn an MBA from a top notch business school.

So, no matter how much anyone thinks they know about football or about the Washington Redskins, nobody frequenting this message board is speaking from the first-hand experience of owning or managing a professional football franchise. That includes GSPODS.

But here you admit that you, yourself, don't have this knowledge.

Do you see a disconnect? That is, how can you make such a concerte statement that this post is unchallengeable unless you have credential X, but then you, yourself, admit you don't have such a credential?

It's as it I assert that the sky is orange, and then I say you can't challenge my assertion unless you have a Ph.D. in geophysics, even though I don't.

PulpExposure wrote:This part is saying that the only way to challenge your post is to earn an MBA from a top notch business school

And yet I meet that standard and AM challenging his post. He has NO idea what he's talking about. It's all stereotype.

GSPODS wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:
There is a lot of assumed knowledge thrown in with a little common knowledge. Weed all that out, there's a little research. I give the post a C- due to long windedness.

You have no idea who I am or what the source(s) of the information contained in the post are. If the source of the information in the post is a person or persons in the position to know, how would one post those people on a message board? Name-dropping? If I posted a name or names, you'd reply in much the same way, with complete incredulity.

If you assume or believe a statement to be false, it doesn't mean the statement is actually false. It also doesn't mean that the opposite is automatically true. If you assume or believe a statement to be true, it doesn't mean the statement is true. It also doesn't mean the opposite is automatically false. A statement without first-hand proof is neither true nor false. It is only assumed or believed to be either true or false.

Assume the post is neither true nor false. There is no proof either way.
Rather than blankly claiming the majority of the post is an assumption, either prove or disprove it for yourself. Simply claiming anything is an assumption does not discredit its validity.

Don't assume that a post (or anything else, for that matter) is either true or false based upon a lack of 'evidence' of any kind. Not everything can be 'proven true' on a message board by linking WaPo, ESPN, Redskins.com and other sports media outlet sources.

If someone you believe to be truthful posts that the sky is falling, are you going to believe it, disbelieve it, or are you going to look outside?
How are you going to prove the sky is falling on a message board?
Are you going to keep typing, "Really. The Sky Is Falling."

Sometimes, first-hand knowledge is the only proof or disproof.
I'm sure you've heard the expressions, "You had to be there" and "If I hadn't seen it with my own two eyes, I wouldn't have believed it."

Maybe everyone thinks that posts claiming to be factual should always be supported. That isn't possible, unless the post is simply taking a statement or an idea from another source. Threads that are nothing more than links to WaPo, ESPN and Redskins.com are superfluous. Redskins fans already read these sites. I get 100 to 200 links per day of Redskins news in different newspapers, blogs and message boards. Almost invariably, they all say the same thing. It looks like this: (AP)

There should be something more to this message board than repeating or rehashing links from other sources, and then linking those sources. That’s what other message boards do. It may also explain, to some degree, why there are wll over 5800 members of THN, but only 100 or fewer daily visitors. Most of the threads in HogWash take far longer to read than the articles that were "borrowed" to start the threads. When someone tries to discuss something that doesn’t appear in every major media format, it would seem to go along with the theme, “Your Premier Independent News Source.” I’m sure I read that somewhere on the main page.

There is a good chance the sources of my post would have done an interview or a PodCast for THN. I think I will skip the effort. Being called a liar somehow drains my motivation to add anything else to this board.

Before you abuse, criticize and accuse
Walk a mile in my shoes. - Joe South

As stated previously to this, you descredited yourself.

As for my response to this long winded "post," I take the history ot the "author" and start from there....

OK, who is more arogant, a lawyer or an MBA?

yupchagee wrote:OK, who is more arogant, a lawyer or an MBA?

A lawyer's more arrogant, but an MBA's clearly superior.

This is irrelevant though. The lawyer made a bunch of claims regarding the NFL as a BUSINESS, not the LAW of the NFL. This is my home turf so if you want to call me arrogant go for it. I am by the way, but we're still in my field of knowledge. I'm arguing that a successful NFL franchise is going to follow the course of any successful business. The lawyer is claiming a successful NFL franchise follows anti-business stereotypes.

What was the topic again?

Hoss wrote:What was the topic again?

I think pretty much every post has been in reference to GSPODS initial post which I keep quoting and referring to on how NFL teams draft and that it's driven by the fact that they are a business. I'm trying very hard to stay on topic, and since the discussion is all on the initial post and the points being debated were raised there, I think we're doing that.

GSPODS wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Pre-tax, pre-interest income per franchise averages $17.8 Million per season, according to Forbes 2006 figures.

That figure doesn't include TV money. No NFL franchises are going broke.

True. Approximately $4.5 Billion total is paid out in annual player salaries.
Without @$6 Billion TV revenue, teams would fall very short of making payroll.

So, they're just squeaking by on that extra $1.5 billion? I wish I had it so tough.