In a tie for the 6th Pick with the Jaguars, the tie-breaker goes to.......

[burgold]

Now The Truth: Nobody on my side of the isle is happy with ONLY 5 wins. On the other side, having 1, or fewer wins, was the wish of "those fans" who convinced themselves that they are somehow the ultimate, long term thinking, enlightened, super fans. Kinda like, liberals.

Spin.

May be the first time that Sarge and Fan since have been labeled as liberals... Frankly, if you look at the strategies during the debt ceiling and other debates recently on the Hill... it would be hard not to call the conservative strategy "Suck for... Romney?"

I think the greatest irony is if this staff decides to go after Mike Flynn and then a more developmental qb in the draft. Then, all the losing some were begging for would have been in vain because the team wanted the best young free agent prospect and the draft slotting was irrelevent.

 

[Ax]

The theory that drafting higher will net better players, resulting in a better team, looks and sounds good, on paper.

A blurb from the Washington Post's notebook today, carves the theory up quite nicely.

Next April, the Rams will have the second pick of the draft, the forth time in five seasons with the No.1 or No.2 selection...

Now, I realize that this means little. Many factors go into the results. But as many times as we hear the cries of "Duh! Picking higher is always better!"

This simply, and indisputably cries, "No! It doesn't!"

 

[burgold]

The theory that drafting higher will net better players, resulting in a better team, looks and sounds good, on paper.

A blurb from the Washington Post's notebook today, carves the theory up quite nicely.



Now, I realize that this means little. Many factors go into the results. But as many times as we hear the cries of "Duh! Picking higher is always better!"

This simply, and indisputably cries, "No! It doesn't!"

Yup, and there have been a gazillion psych studies that show the impact of success. Winning breeds winning. Confidence is an amazingly powerful tool.

More, losing is also powerful. Once you lay down once, it's easier to do it the next time, esp. when the incentives to winning or mostly intrisic. Players mostly get paid the same whether they win or lose. So, the external motivation to win is either the next contract or incentives... though performance incentives don't necessarily correlate to winning.

That's why rewarding an Al Haynesworth with a super contract doesn't work. You've eliminated his motivator and the game itself or the team itself doesn't push him.

 

[Ax]

May be the first time that Sarge and Fan since have been labeled as liberals...

Sarge and fansince are two of my favorite members here. I consider them brothers from another mother.

Occasionally though, brothers are known to scuffle. Makes us tougher.

And, while I may have playfully pimp slapped their point of view with an inference to how it could be construed as "acting like" liberals, in this instance, I would never use such vile language to describe them.

 

[burgold]

Fair enough... says the black sheep of the B&G family. lol.

 

[Ax]

Fair enough... says the black sheep of the B&G family. lol.

You're one of my favs too. It's good to get the opposite perspective on things.

 

[Oldfan]

...I see we've lowered the bar from If the Skins luck had been terrible this season, resulting in zero wins. That would have been a better outcome than five wins because we would be drafting higher.

Yes, I lowered the bar to take away one of your escape routes.

Sadly, I will continue my campaign of redundant redundancy. If we went 3-13 that would MOST LIKELY mean we were a 3-win team.

But, my hypothetical question shut off that escape route too. It gave you a true five-win team.

Why not just admit you are wrong? It's obvious that you know you are when you duck my question anyway.

 

[Nobody]

so then the Skins should immediately swap the 6th pick for the 32nd pick in every round and save some bucks! heck swap all picks for the last 9 in the entire draft!

what? there might be a conditional involved in the logic?

If it would get us 20 picks in the final round, I wouldn't be opposed to trading every other draft pick we have.

 

[Oldfan]

The theory that drafting higher will net better players, resulting in a better team, looks and sounds good, on paper.

A blurb from the Washington Post's notebook today, carves the theory up quite nicely.

Nah. Man. Pointing out exceptions doesn't "carve up" what is true as a general rule.

 

[Henry]

Yes, I lowered the bar to take away one of your escape routes.

Er, you made the statement. I responded to it. We debated it for while and then you decided to change your statement. That's not ME taking an escape route, guy.

But, my hypothetical question shut off that escape route too. It gave you a true five-win team.

Sorry, your hypothetical is bunk. A true five-win team wins five games. However at the end of my post I did address it anyway. Maybe you missed it. Start with 'would it be cool ...'

Why not just admit you are wrong? It's obvious that you know you are when you duck my question anyway.

Despite your chronic belief about your own personal opinions, there is no wrong or right. If you want me to 'admit' that you've stated your opinion convincingly, sure. You usually do. I've read it before from other posters as well. But I don't agree with it and am explaining why.

 

[Oldfan]

...A true five-win team wins five games ...'

This is one of those statements which has the ring of truth, but it's actually absurd when given a little thought.

What you said, in effect, is that luck isn't a factor in NFL seasons.

 

[Henry]

This is one of those statements which has the ring of truth, but it's actually absurd when given a little thought.

What you said, in effect, is that luck isn't a factor in NFL seasons.

I haven't said that any more than you've been saying luck isn't a factor in the draft.

 

[Oldfan]

I haven't said that any more than you've been saying luck isn't a factor in the draft.

1) I never said that; 2) The only thing the draft has in common with the 16-game season is that they are both NFL products.

So, let's stick to the point.

What you have said, in effect, is that if the Skins put together a roster capable of winning five games in a season, that team will win five games in a season, regardless of luck, good or bad, with injuries or breaks during games.

Will you stand by that?

 

[Goaldeje]

This debate needs to come with a warning label.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Henry]

1) I never said that;

I know. That was my point.

2) The only thing the draft has in common with the 16-game season is that they are both NFL products.

So, let's stick to the point.

What you have said, in effect, is that if the Skins put together a roster capable of winning five games in a season, that team will win five games in a season, regardless of luck, good or bad, with injuries or breaks during games.

Will you stand by that?

What I've said, I've said quite a few times in this thread, using your words:

Hmmm ... how about "A coach that wins five games is MORE LIKELY to be better than a coach that wins zero." Is that a fact?

Again I have to ask: "A roster that wins five games is MORE LIKELY to be better than a roster that wins zero." Is that a fact?

If we went 3-13 that would MOST LIKELY mean we were a 3-win team.

Oddly, you've never addressed any of these questions/statements. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and I won't assume that means you think I'm right and you've been ducking the issue. Maybe you could give me an answer now.

 

[Oldfan]

...Oddly, you've never addressed any of these questions/statements. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and I won't assume that means you think I'm right and you've been ducking the issue. Maybe you could give me an answer now.

Henry, you are the Fred Astaire of Redskins' forums. Nobody tap dances quite so well when trapped in debate.

But, setting aside the nonsense, here's the undeniable bottom line of this debate:

For a rebuilding team, misfortune during the season, leading to fewer wins and a higher draft position, is preferable to good fortune leading to more wins and a lower draft position.

Thus, for example, a true five-win team benefits from bad breaks and a three-win outcome and is disadvantaged by good breaks and seven wins.

Intelligent fans should realize this.

 

[Henry]

Henry, you are the Fred Astaire of Redskins' forums. Nobody tap dances quite so well when trapped in debate.

You should probably get off this kick. It doesn't reflect well on you.

Thus, for example, a true five-win team benefits from bad breaks and a three-win outcome and is disadvantaged by good breaks and seven wins.

Intelligent fans should realize this.

Of course. However, as we have collectively pointed out, no one can really know whether the team is a 'true' five win team or not. Maybe we were a seven-win team that is benefitting from bad breaks. Maybe we were a three-win team that got too many good ones.

We can't know that. All we have to go on is what we actually are. A 5-win team. And I'd rather be that than a 3-win team. Or a 0-win team. Because we are most likely better than those teams and are more likely to have less to do to build a winner.

If some of you want to wring your hands over the fact that the team didn't finish below your personal vision of it's current talent level, go ahead. Since I don't share that vision I'm not really worried about it.

 

[Nobody]

But, setting aside the nonsense, here's the undeniable bottom line of this debate:

For a rebuilding team, misfortune during the season, leading to fewer wins and a higher draft position, is preferable to good fortune leading to more wins and a lower draft position.............Intelligent fans should realize this.

Really? Based on what? Plenty of teams over the years have won and succeeded with high/multiple draft picks. The Patriots are experts at this.

Winning breeds a winning attitude. Losing breeds a losing attitude. Look how many teams have had losing so engrained in them for so long, that even when talent arrives, they get sucked into the doldrums of the losing culture of the team. The Redskins, Lions, Browns, Raiders, Rams, Chiefs, Bengals, Jaguars, Cardinals and Panthers are all perfect examples of this.

Not only does losing breed a losing attitude, but who wants to go play for a horrible team that has consistently been horrible regardless of the talent they've had on the roster?

The Brown have sucked my entire life, and they consistently have top 5 draft picks, so that alone counteracts everything you just said. If you were a GM, and you were offered 5 draft picks for your top pick, would you not take it? The quantity of draft picks benefits you a lot more than the position of those picks.

Intelligent fans should realize this.

 

[Oldfan]

You should probably get off this kick. It doesn't reflect well on you.

Thanks for the tip.

Of course. However, as we have collectively pointed out, no one can really know whether the team is a 'true' five win team or not.

It doesn't matter in the least. The concept I set out in the hypothetical holds true regardless of what we know.

 

[Oldfan]

Really? Based on what? Plenty of teams over the years have won and succeeded with high/multiple draft picks. The Patriots are experts at this.

Winning breeds a winning attitude. Losing breeds a losing attitude. Look how many teams have had losing so engrained in them for so long, that even when talent arrives, they get sucked into the doldrums of the losing culture of the team. The Redskins, Lions, Browns, Raiders, Rams, Chiefs, Bengals, Jaguars, Cardinals and Panthers are all perfect examples of this.

Not only does losing breed a losing attitude, but who wants to go play for a horrible team that has consistently been horrible regardless of the talent they've had on the roster?

The Brown have sucked my entire life, and they consistently have top 5 draft picks, so that alone counteracts everything you just said. If you were a GM, and you were offered 5 draft picks for your top pick, would you not take it? The quantity of draft picks benefits you a lot more than the position of those picks.

Intelligent fans should realize this.

There are two processes involved in reaching a goal: There’s the planning process and the execution process. A smart plan for a rebuilding team like ours differs from a smart plan for a team like the Patriots who are trying to maintain an elite status.

The Detroit Lions plan was to rebuild through the draft. Nothing wrong with the plan. The execution of the plan was poor by Millen, much better by Mayhew.

Your example of the Browns failure contradicts nothing I said. There are lots of teams who draft poorly.

If I had the number three pick, I might well trade down for the right two or three picks, as you suggest. So what? My number three pick is still worth more in trade than a number six pick.

Your claim about the “winning culture” is baloney. You don’t create a winning culture by adding a couple of garbage wins to a season.

First, you build a strong roster,
then you coach them right,
then you win consistently,
then the “winning culture” results