An interesting philosophical question

Thinking Skins said:

But why does that matter? He's a young QB who they were able to build a team around. People said the same thing about Big Ben, and he won 2 SBs with that system, while before that they were perennial playoff disappointments. Russell Wilson is a 3rd Rounder with a SB victory. He's the latest revelation that you don't need a QB drafted in the top ten or even ranked as the top guy coming out in order to win in the league, or even by your very own statement, that you don't need a franchise QB to win. I'd love to hear for the clamor of building a solid defense through the draft, build a solid OL through the draft and building all the other pieces through the draft, developing our picks and having actual competitions that improve our quality at these positions so that we can become the new Ravens, or the new Steelers or the new Seahawks, or the new 49ers, all of whom have been to and won SBs in the last 10 years.

Unfortunately, and this goes to my first point, fans and the media cry for that franchise QB and make claims like "this is now a passing league" and "you can't run the ball 30 times a game and still win" and get mad when we make decisions based on that philosophy.

Click to expand...

If you have an elite defense (solid won't cut it) and a great running game, you can make due with a solid game manager at QB and win in this "passing league". Both Wilson in Seattle and Big Ben in Pittsburgh benefited from elite defensive units and powerful running games. Neither were asked to shoulder the load of an elite franchise QB in the mold of Brady, Manning, Rogers or Brees. Consider some of the horrible offensive lines those 4 have been asked to play behind and the seriously suspect defenses they have had to make up for.

I am life long Skins fan so I am cool with the game manager concept. Truly, the last franchise QB we had in DC was Sonny. Joey T came close and maybe without that horrific injury he would have made the leap but the truth is Gibbs won 3 Super Bowl's without a franchise QB. I'd love to see that again, honestly.

I think Kirk could actually be that kind of a QB too. I just don't think Gruden is coach enough to make it happen. He is too tied to the pass and not enough to the run, and I'm not sure he has good enough instincts in his Asst Coaching hires to ever have an elite D because I doubt he will ever find a great coordinator for that side of the ball. People say Gibbs was a Great Coach. Somedays I think what set Gibbs apart was knowing what he didn't know or didn't have time to be involved with (ie - the defense) and being willing to alter his scheme to best suit his players talents. He is the only coach in my life time who was not so tied to "his system" that he was unwilling to modify to fit what his guys did best. So far, I don't see that willingness in Gruden.

There is a backlash in Redskins Land for EVERY move. Its just how it is when your culture is negative. Once we start winning and start showing serious improvement we won't have to worry about all of these critiques.

People are still acting like Griffin is doing something wrong or is a part of the problem even though he isn't even active!! That is how bad its gotten here.

Neophyte said:

If you have an elite defense (solid won't cut it) and a great running game, you can make due with a solid game manager at QB and win in this "passing league". Both Wilson in Seattle and Big Ben in Pittsburgh benefited from elite defensive units and powerful running games. Neither were asked to shoulder the load of an elite franchise QB in the mold of Brady, Manning, Rogers or Brees. Consider some of the horrible offensive lines those 4 have been asked to play behind and the seriously suspect defenses they have had to make up for.

Click to expand...

I'd even disagree with this. Sure we need an elite defense to win it all, but look at the teams that were in contention LAST YEAR without a franchise QB
Bills - 9-7, PF: 4, Yds: 4
Dolphins - 8-8, PF: 20, Yds: 12
Bengals - 10-5-1, PF: 12, Yds: 22
Ravens - 10-6, PF: 6, Yds: 8
Texans - 9-7, PF: 7, Yds: 16
Chiefs - 9-7, PF: 2, Yds: 7
Chargers - 9-7, PF: 13, Yds: 9
Eagles - 10-6, PF: 22, Yds: 28
cardinals - 11-5, PF: 5, Yds: 24

Clearly some of these teams were here by just pure luck or other factors like elite running game, but its not just the elite defenses that have a chance to compete for the big dance. Maybe to win it all, and beat the great QBs you need that but there's also a lot of luck involved in those games and keeping it close means that there's a lot more of a chance you'll get lucky on that one play.

Duh, ok brother. The only surprise would have been if you said anything different.

Due respect right back, but there was more to what I said about Snyder being involved in RG3 being here. There are nuances and context to this and other conversations you seem unwilling to acknowledge or entertain. That's fine--it's a public site. I'm just past the point I'm interested in engaging that way.

It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you tr1 because you take assumptions, accusations, and innuendo and present them as facts. There is no proof that Griffin is still on this roster because Snyder demanded it- none. It could well be 100% McCloughan's decision to retain him to date.

Taking the approach that you've given Snyder enough of your benefit of the doubt and are done doing so - that's fine and I might even agree. But it doesn't make every accusation and rumor out there accurate by default.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thinking Skins:
Quote"So if this is the case why hasn't the idea of more draft picks caught on? I don't really care who's picking, Its just basic probability that if we have more lottery tickets then its more likely that we'll strike gold on one of them."

Each lottery ticket has the same probability of winning as any other ticket. Not more, not less,.......the same. Nice try though.

The key is and what's more important in the multiple draft picks is the ability to use more picks on the SAME position. Take QB for example, it was genius to select two in 2012. May not pan out, but that indeed give us a higher probability of finding one that can play. However, you can't go into a draft and pick all offensive tackles in the hopes that one can play. That's why the draft reverts to a crap shoot. The probabilities go way down when you are only picking for one position even if you have 15 picks.

I think my boogeyman comparison is what is happening here. Some people want to believe he's a bad guy so whenever they see a story they go "SEE!!" some people think he is a meddler so when they read a story they can say "SEE!!"

no matter who the "source" is, if you want to believe it you will.

I hear you Mike. But there are facts and data that IS true in regards to Snyder - we just don't have access to all the info. But as others have pointed out, acknowledging that doesn't mean that there's not a quite a bit of circumstantial evidence of how Snyder operates and what he's about as an owner. I think dismissing folks beliefs as nothing more than a boogeyman ignores a lot of known evidence that is not in dispute, and a lot of rumored stuff that may also have some basis in fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

micks113 said:

Thinking Skins:
Quote"So if this is the case why hasn't the idea of more draft picks caught on? I don't really care who's picking, Its just basic probability that if we have more lottery tickets then its more likely that we'll strike gold on one of them."

Each lottery ticket has the same probability of winning as any other ticket. Not more, not less,.......the same. Nice try though.

Click to expand...

I'm not following. Each ticket has the same probability, but having more tickets gives us more chances, thus increasing the probability - not of a single ticket, but of our team getting a good player.

The key is and what's more important in the multiple draft picks is the ability to use more picks on the SAME position. Take QB for example, it was genius to select two in 2012. May not pan out, but that indeed give us a higher probability of finding one that can play. However, you can't go into a draft and pick all offensive tackles in the hopes that one can play. That's why the draft reverts to a crap shoot. The probabilities go way down when you are only picking for one position even if you have 15 picks.

Click to expand...

This I could go either way on (aka I don't really care about). We drafted two WRs in 2008 and both sucked ***. We drafted one RB in 2012 and he was a steal. 2011 got us Royster and Helu, one was oK the other was cut after a few years. Its not like the multiple draft picks strategy says to trade them for magic beans or Kickers or something. We're still using each pick on a try at a quality player. So ideally we'd get 10 players or so that come in as starters and play as all pros every year in the league. Not likely, but we're talking dream scenario here. But I don't care if our GM was Mel Keiper who just has his board and we simply say who's the top guy remaining, lets pick him. because i'm sure that would at least get us some competitive talent.

My whole point is that we could look at every draft historically and sort them and found out which picks were the top 50 for each draft. Now imagine the 2016 draft is coming up and we want to get one of the top 50 players in this draft. Just because a player is drafted in the top 50 doesn't mean he's a top 50 player. So the question becomes how do we increase the odds that we'll get a top 50 player? Well, there are obvious things like better scouting and recruiting at more schools. But beyond that it just goes to more swings at the plate. There are about 250 players drafted. Beyond that, maybe 500 or so that are tops in the nation every year to be considered for the draft. HOw sure are we of Snyder/Scot/Vinny/Allen/Marty/Norv/Charlie/Zorn/Gibbs/Shanny/Spurrier in terms of talent evaluation that they'll hit a HR on their first swing? or their first two swings? or their first seven swings? Why not give the 10 swings? Or 15 swings? And since we're competing with 31 other teams for these same 50 or so players, we want to have more swings before other teams have their swings, so if we can have say 3 picks in the first 32 that gives us a much greater chance to get three of the top 3 players in the nation because we are guaranteed to at least get a chance to pick from 30 of the top 50 players. Whereas if our picks are all from pick 51 and lower, then we have to hope that other teams make mistakes and don't all draft the top 50 players.

Boone said:

I hear you Mike. But there are facts and data that IS true in regards to Snyder - we just don't have access to all the info. But as others have pointed out, acknowledging that doesn't mean that there's not a quite a bit of circumstantial evidence of how Snyder operates and what he's about as an owner. I think dismissing folks beliefs as nothing more than a boogeyman ignores a lot of known evidence that is not in dispute, and a lot of rumored stuff that may also have some basis in fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I agree, there has been facts. In the past I would totally agree with you. But once Gibbs came back I really didn't see him involved with the team players outside of the "Portis issues" at all. I saw him be there for the players when Sean died but that was really all I recall. I don't see him really doing anything now but living off that horrible rep he can't shake loose.

I see him standing up for the team and the fans when it comes to the name change. I have seen him go out and get the best GM out there (arguably), and I have seen him sit in the background.

I dunno..maybe it is just me that doesn't see him as the real problem. I can accept that. I just also think a big part of it is that people have gotten so used to blaming him that we do even when he isn't anywhere near the problem.

MikeSr619 said:

I agree, there has been facts. In the past I would totally agree with you. But once Gibbs came back I really didn't see him involved with the team players outside of the "Portis issues" at all. I saw him be there for the players when Sean died but that was really all I recall. I don't see him really doing anything now but living off that horrible rep he can't shake loose.

I see him standing up for the team and the fans when it comes to the name change. I have seen him go out and get the best GM out there (arguably), and I have seen him sit in the background.

I dunno..maybe it is just me that doesn't see him as the real problem. I can accept that. I just also think a big part of it is that people have gotten so used to blaming him that we do even when he isn't anywhere near the problem.

Click to expand...

I do think Snyder is the easiest scapegoat, and he made it easy on himself by his earliest actions with the team. But I also think that Shanahan may have over-emphasized some of the interactions between him and Snyder on his way out. It's a lot easier to blame Dan (which most Redskins fans will readily accept) than to look in the mirror and accept any responsibility.

I say all that, BUT the track record with Snyder pretty much sucks. Not pretty much, actually. It sucks. Flat out. We've had a few years to whet our appetites a little, but they were more as a result of superlative leadership (Gibbs) or talent (RG) that didn't stick around more than a year or two. The constant in all this misery is Snyder. To what extent he is directly responsible vs indirect responsibility, I have no idea. But I would argue it is clear he has an impact, and it isn't good.

Whether that impact is because of historical context that isn't accurate any longer is debatable. What isn't debatable in my opinion is that he continues to have negative impacts on the team that I love. At this point, even if we broke off a miraculous season this year, I wouldn't have a ton of faith we could keep it going, just based on history.

TR1:
Quote: So, we can all put our hands over our eyes, or cover our ears or maybe our mouths, but we're in a position to be in as volatile a season as the last two because the 'football people' have acquiesced to the 'ownership.'


There you go again, just what Boone was saying. When you say "because"....... you are making a leap of faith that football people acquised to ownership. Everyone can see that you are just appeasing yourself. Ergo your comments align with your agenda. Keep an open mind. For me I will be happy if one of two things happen. We beat the cowboys or we are a competitive team despite losing. Despite your preconceived notions, Dan Snyder and you have something in common. You do want to win don't you?

tr1 said:

Well, I guess we'll never see the video of the conversation about RG3 staying or going, but 'ownership' signs the checks, and someone picked up that option...and, RG3 is still on the roster.

Click to expand...

And if MCCl advised to pick up the option to give through Pre season to see if RG turned the corner, should the owner write the check or Veto? None of us know what happened with any certainty. To somehow suggest the owner of a billion dollar business not participate is ludicrous. I have to believe he discussed the issue and gave his preference. Which, if it were me making the decisions, would be to exhaust any remaining avenue before giving up on such an expensive investment. But it is clearly the football guys deciding who plays.

Shanahan is a piece of shit who will say anything to save his own rep and damage ours.

Just a question here... COULD Griff only still be on the roster because he's not cleared, therefore ineligible for a trade? Are players trade-able if not able to pass a physical and cleared to play? I have to imagine that NOTHING can happen with Griffin til this happens.. and I haven't heard that he's even been cleared to play.

He had the neuro eval yesterday - Gruden said they had the verbal report but that he wouldn't speak to it until the official written report was in hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right... so he's not yet cleared to play 100% per protocol... is it in the realm of reality that they aren't going to move him in any way until that happens?

They may not, and should not, IMHO, move him at all.

Unless he won't renegotiate the guaranteed part of next year's option.

Ax said:

They may not, and should not, IMHO, move him at all.

Unless he won't renegotiate the guaranteed part of next year's option.

Click to expand...

Well... if he doesn't, then they can't move him other than just cutting him. No one will want to assume the $16m option and still play him, knowing he could get injured.

Nick