how you lose is important

I would rather lose because we aren't quite good enough but had effort and solid scheming than fluke out and win just enough to keep us mediocre. no matter what people say about draft position, it matters, it matters because if you have access to better players then you simply need to pick them, and we have a solid gm now.

I am ok with losing RIGHT NOW, because im looking big picture. we build an Oline, a Dline, and then slot in pieces, and then we can start takiing shots at "franchise qb's". in case some of you havent been paying attention, going all in on a franchise qb is stupid if you dont have an Oline, and we are all fed up with losing but id rather build a dynasty with a fast turnaround of 1-2 seasons, than be mediocre for another 10 years.

I have always said the best way to build a team is to take your lumps, build a good Oline, then build a solid defence, then pick up talent wherever its best and needed then roll the dice on qbs, we have done it the opposite way.

so for now im ok with losing thats why I despise gruden, I would rather have a coach who uses rg3, and works with him to get the most out of him, and if he fails its on him. we know what rg3 ceiling is, but thats over now, so id just play whoeevr, take our lumps and just keep building, next year make a run at the playoffs and the following year you go after a rookie qb

I have never heard anyone in sports or competition say they were ok with losing. what is the point of competing if you dont care if you win or lose?

The true thing you should be doing is winning while building a successful team.

We are sitting on top of the division after winning a hard fought game at home. Talking about losing out or trying for draft picks are for teams like Cleveland or even now Philly.

I wouldn't.

Nope.

If the front office knows what its doing draft position doesnt matter. If the front office doesnt know what its doing the team loses games.

I'd rather not see the team continue to lose games.

Plenty of great picks to be had in the middle rounds. In fact, I think the most successful FOs pick in the middle rounds (not consistently in the top - see Jaguars, Titans, Lions).

the idea that if the front office knows what its doing then draft position doesnt matter is abject stupidity, the whole point of the draft is that bad teams should get better IF THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. I would rather depend on my teams management knowing what they are doing and having the ability to draft the best possible player, than depending on everyone else to screw up.

The simple fact is that losing because of scheme, sucks but you can solve that by scheming better, losing because of a lack of talent AND bad scheming means you wont ever get better quickly.

we have been bad for so long that most of us have lost hope or we grasp it to hard only to be disapointed, I would rather lose and improve than win and stay mediocre, its really that simple.

would I vastly prefer winning of course, but do I want to consistently win 6-9 games? hell no

if you look at almost all the most recent dynasties aside from the Patriots who lucked out with Brady, all of them went through some pretty rough times and stockpiled talent. the cowpies went 1-15 right before their dynasty run and if not for jerrah being an asshat , lets be honest they would have been probably the all time dynasty. we have gone the other direction, mediocrity and high priced free agents who rarely panned out go hand in hand with not drafting well.

Rymanofthenorth said:

if you look at almost all the most recent dynasties aside from the Patriots who lucked out with Brady, all of them went through some pretty rough times and stockpiled talent.

Click to expand...

I'll be happy to discuss this later when I have time but this statement is completely untrue.

Suck for Luck? No thanks.

Rymanofthenorth said:

if you look at almost all the most recent dynasties aside from the Patriots who lucked out with Brady, all of them went through some pretty rough times and stockpiled talent. the cowpies went 1-15 right before their dynasty run and if not for jerrah being an asshat , lets be honest they would have been probably the all time dynasty. we have gone the other direction, mediocrity and high priced free agents who rarely panned out go hand in hand with not drafting well.

Click to expand...

Ryman,

Much of what you are saying is exactly what the team appears to be doing with small incremental steps.

McCloughan made it his first priority to plug in free agency acquisitions for the time being to solidify the defensive line with the likes of Paea, Knighton, Francois, etc. That has immediately made us more competitive on defense on Sundays. There is little to believe that this philosophy won't continue in the next two to three years, and that McCloughan won't use his own draft picks along the defensive front as well. The free agency approach to the d-line simply buys you a bit more time in terms of stockpiling along the defensive front.

As for the O-line, McCloughan went against the grain, stuck up his two middle fingers to the outsiders, and brought in Scherff. If that doesn't scream making a commitment to the offensive line, I don't know what does. Additionally, having Callahan in the fold, committing to Morgan Moses (another early round pick) at RT, and giving him every opportunity to solidify that spot long term suggests a strong commitment towards making the offensive line a strength that we can lean on long term. It sure as hell beats the band-aid approach we've previously tried and failed miserably with. That being said, I personally feel we still need another year of solid drafting along the offensive line to take a major leap forward.

What can't be lost in the shuffle though is that how you win is important too. For the first time since probably the Ravens game that Cousins led us back in during his rookie year, this team showed enough composure to dig down deep and find a way.

For a team that has perpetual losing down to a science, it's immensely important to be able to not feel sorry for yourself and make something happen, as opposed to settling for the same depressing outcome week in and week out.

It's games like the Eagles one that can be minor turning points towards something more special down the road. It's important that the players get these experiences too.

Give me wins over draft picks... so far this draft class had show that this group knows what they are doing evaluating talent. Time to establish the mentality that winning is the goal and that winning 7 games instead of 6 games is priority. Allowing a team to lose is a loser mentality, regardless of the long term thought process. Acceptance of losing is just that... accepting losing.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Screw this losing crap. I want to win.

Ryman,

Ok, so I'm not sure what you consider a 'recent dynasty' but I don't consider the Cowboys of 25 years ago all that recent. That team was built before the free agency era really took hold.

If you want to talk recent teams that maintain a sustained level of good to excellent play, including one or more superbowls, then history does NOT show teams that suffered years of awful records before suddenly emerging into greatness.

Take the Seahawks, for example. That team has won 11+ for three straight season thanks to building a strong defense and solid running game through the draft. Here are the five years leading up too their back-to-back Super Bowl appearances:

4-12
5-11
7-9
7-9
11-5

Only one player from the 4-12 team's next draft was on the 2013 Superbowl winning Seahawks. 2nd rounder Max Unger.
The rest of the team was built through the drafts following the 5-11, 7-9 and 7-9 teams. The current Seahawks team was built with drafts from basically one bad season and a couple mediocre ones.

Let's go back to the team that won the Superbowl before the Seahawks: The Baltimore Ravens. Oddly, another team that wins with a strong running game and stout defense. Since the team has come into existence, a period of 20 years, they have had four seasons with 10 or more losses. The five seasons preceding the Harbaugh Era (6 playoff appearances in 7 years including a SB win) looked like this:

10-6
9-7
6-10
13-3
5-11

When exactly were they drafting high and stockpiling talent?

Next would be the Giants (I'm skipping them because I hate them) and before them the Packers: Since the free agency era started (a period of over 20 years) the Packers have had exactly two seasons of ten losses or more. They have been to the playoffs 14 times and won 2 superbowls during that span. Here are the seasons leading up to their latest Super Bowl win:

4-12
8-8
13-3
6-10
11-5

It should be noted that the Packers are as good as they are basically because they have Aaron Rodgers, whom they drafted in the 24th spot of the draft after a 10-6 season.

Next is the Pittsburgh Steelers ... do I REALLY need to go over them? This team NEVER drafts high. They have had two losing seasons since ... well, since before the first Gulf War. They haven't been worse than 6-10 since Reagan was in office. All they do is draft well and win and draft well and win. I effing hate them. I hate their fans. I hate their goddam city and their stupid towels and their spoiled fans and everything about them.

But they know how to draft. And they don't need to lose to do it.

I can keep going. We can do the Colts. They are basically Payton Manning and Andrew Luck. The rest of their drafting doesn't matter (None of the players drafted with Manning lasted more than four seasons in the NFL). If we draft the next Manning this whole discussion becomes moot.

I suppose if you delve back into the 90s and look at the Rams and the Bucs ... you can see they sucked for years until they turned things around. It has happened where teams have sucked for long time and managed to stockpile talent that way, but the truly good teams, the ones that are good for more than a few years ... they know what they're doing. They don't need multiple high drafts to make it happen.

Supposedly, we have a guy who knows what he's doing. We shouldn't need to keep sucking for him to make it happen.

We've had TONS of high draft picks over the past two decades. How's that been working out for us?

No thanks. I don't root for losses.

what a crappy post OP. Shame on you.

The GM's and FO pretenders in our fine organization were not all top notch but it's fairly easy to see the effect a competent evaluator has on building a contender just using our own history as example.

Wiki has a pretty good list of what the Skins have done in the first round over the years. Some more lists of total drafts.

If we peruse the lists and take note of the draft positions we'll find that the bulk of our 'known' guys come from the later slots.
Many consider the 81 draft to be our 'finest' in terms of talent who made long term contributions. Most first rounders were in the 20th pick range or higher. 1983 was also pretty good picking from 28th slot. As we get into the 90's our drafts began to suck pretty bad( Beathard left 1989). Casserley had a very spotty record but did manage to dig up a few gems, he's also credited with digging up Jake and Bosco as a scout. Casserly left after 1999.
High first rounders after Casserly weren't all bad, the dart board approach worked but even with these premium picks we suffered. Stars with no supporting cast fails.

So much for the old stuff but the point is that a good GM can still get it done without losing horribly for years.

While I understand Ryman's position, it might be just a little too simplistic. Yes the draft is set up to afford teams with poor records the opportunity to select the 'prime beef' out of college but a GM also has to be able to identify quality talent across the board and acquire it from anywhere. Astute drafting at all levels, a sprinkling in of younger quality vet FA's and some hidden rook FA gems are all in the recipe for success.

Lumps and bumps can still be had within the framework of a competitive team, a competitive team by it's very nature is going to win some games. It will also cull out those who can't or are unwilling to compete at a high level during the process . Even the best can wither without positive results.

Besides, the same league that allows you to get 'prime beef' won't let you keep it all anyway, teams aren't allowed to spend the money to keep a bevy of the best for very long.

Contenders find and keep a few of their 'best' and supplement them with quality from all over the place.

"We've had TONS of high draft picks over the past two decades. How's that been working out for us?" actually we haven't and thats been part of the problem, the last time we had two high picks we got samuels and arrington, if you go look on the extremeskins archive you will see I was advocating for urlacher lol, my point being aside from that draft we tended to draft in the middle of the first round and rarely where the topflight talent was. and if you look at the teams who grab the topflight talent it usually comes in the early part of the first round not the later rounds, the guys who do well from the laters rounds tend to be system fits not all around talents.

bottom line, id rather lose for a season or two and then build a dynasty than be average for a decade

Well, Henry fileted the false bullshit premise quite well.

It's a loser's mentality, to wish losing on your team. In some fairy tale hope that it will somehow make you better.

Rymanofthenorth said:

"We've had TONS of high draft picks over the past two decades. How's that been working out for us?" actually we haven't and thats been part of the problem, the last time we had two high picks we got samuels and arrington,

Click to expand...

Over the past 20 years, we've made ten top ten picks. That's an average of one every other year.

For twenty years.

Relative to successful teams. That's a ton.

if you go look on the extremeskins archive you will see I was advocating for urlacher lol, my point being aside from that draft we tended to draft in the middle of the first round and rarely where the topflight talent was. and if you look at the teams who grab the topflight talent it usually comes in the early part of the first round not the later rounds, the guys who do well from the laters rounds tend to be system fits not all around talents.

Click to expand...

Uh huh.

I'm going to list some players off of the teams I mentioned in my previous post. Feel free to point out which are either:
a) top ten draft picks or
b) role players

Russell Wilson
Kam Chancellor
Richard Sherman
Aaron Rodgers
Clay Matthews
Joe Flacco
Ray Lewis
Ray Rice
Ed Reed
Ben Roethlisberger
James Harrison
Troy Polamalu
Antonio Brown

These are the biggest names on offense and defense of some of the most successful teams in the league. We can throw in the Patriots too if you want but you already said no. I don't see a ton of stars drafted high in the first round. Those teams just know how to draft.

I will give the OP a little slack because of one reason.
With our ability to screw up draft picks in years past, I can see how fans would want a top pick.

This is where I and most people will disagree with him however.
1: With Scot M in town now we should not care if we are drafting 5th or 20th. This man is one of the best in the business. He will rebuild this team.
2nd point. Learning how to win takes time. You can't assume that we can just plug in a top 5 player every year and everyone will just start winning. Enjoy the learning how to win process. Bad teams need to learn how to win and become good teams. We are learning how to become a good team.