Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[VegasSkinsFan]

holy ****, just when I thought this thread couldn't get worse.

[los panda]

[SkinItup]

Originally Posted by skinster

Could have saved ourselves 2 first rounders and a high second by losing a few more games. I don't understand how you or anyone else can justify 3 wins in a completely meaningless season being worth three stud players. Maybe we should have made a deal with the devil and given offered Kerrigan, Orakpo, and Trent Williams as tribute to go 8-8 last year. Worth it?

Ideally, you aren't giving up two high first rounders like Trent and Brian. Something more like Kendall Wright and a A.J. Jenkins pick would be more acceptable.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by skinster

Woah Woah Woah. Let me reiterate. I never said throw any games, and I'm not complaining about anything. If any team threw any game, that would be a mockery of the sport. At the same time, it was in our best interest to lose more games in a MEANINGLESS year, and as a fan I don't think it is unreasonable to want the teams best interest.

I'm not complaining. Simply commenting on someone elses post who said they have no idea why fans would have wanted our team to lose more games last season. All is said is so we could have 3 extra picks. I guarantee each and every single one of you would feel the same now about a 2-14 season as you would a 5-11 season. Both are equal in that they are wasted seasons, but 2-14 would have saved us two firsts and a high second.

Seriously though, it's just the nature of sports all the around. I think what you were TRYING to say is, "Sucks we were just good enough to have to give up picks to get our (hopefully) franchise QB."

[mooby]

Originally Posted by skinster

Woah Woah Woah. Let me reiterate. I never said throw any games, and I'm not complaining about anything. If any team threw any game, that would be a mockery of the sport. At the same time, it was in our best interest to lose more games in a MEANINGLESS year, and as a fan I don't think it is unreasonable to want the teams best interest.

I'm not complaining. Simply commenting on someone elses post who said they have no idea why fans would have wanted our team to lose more games last season. All is said is so we could have 3 extra picks. I guarantee each and every single one of you would feel the same now about a 2-14 season as you would a 5-11 season. Both are equal in that they are wasted seasons, but 2-14 would have saved us two firsts and a high second.

What if we went 2-14, but that still wasn't good enough for the 2nd overall pick, and we ended up with the third overall pick? So we decide we want RG3, but since a bunch of other teams want him too and one (Cleveland) tells the Rams they'll give them 3 first round picks, what do we do? Do we still give up 3 firsts and a 2nd just to move up one spot?

The whole point of that scenario is that we don't know what would've happened. And you can't teach an entire football team of players to lose, and you can't bench them and play your entire bench to lose either, because everybody would know what you're trying to do then, and it would be a pr disaster, probably costing your coach and gm their jobs, and so forth.

[JoeRedskin]

... and, as I recall, there were several quarterbacks who still hadn't made it clear that they were entering the draft.

As I said the first time this discussion came up going to suck for luck debate, you win as often as you can - by as much as you can and then let the chips fall where they may.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by skinster

... I guarantee each and every single one of you would feel the same now about a 2-14 season as you would a 5-11 season...

For me the 5-11 comes with the knowledge that Becks qb play cost us 3 games and Rex wasn't much better. So I can look at the team and say qb was a huge and direct cause. If we were 2-14 I would be thinking more like the Colts are in that we need to blow the whole thing IP and start over. So for me 5-11 is nothing like 2-14. And the picks are just the necessary cost to improve the one area that was the weakest (by far) part of the team.

[MTK]

Alright, let's stay on topic. This thread was painful enough as is.

[Dirtbag59]

I just thing the Redskins got everthing they deserved and r the complete oppos of master cheif who is a pretty cool guy. He kills aliens and doesn't afraid of anything.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

They were middle of the pack in points allowed. That's the only thing that truly matters with defense. Who gives a shit if you give up 500 yards a game if the team only gets 15 points on the board.

It matters because the defense works with what the offense and special teams gives them. A defense can give up relatively more yards and fewer points if it always starts with great field position.

According to FootballOutsiders, NE's defense enjoyed the second best average starting position in the league last year.

By DVOA - which is a better stat than either yards allowed or points allowed, the Pats were dead last. Even if you look at pts/drive they were #21 - despite their great average starting position.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Alright, let's stay on topic. This thread was painful enough as is.

How about we close this one and start a new one as it appears that the dead horse has, indeed, come back as a goat, a chicken and a half eaten taco.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Alright, let's stay on topic. This thread was painful enough as is.

LOL, and here I came into the thread thinking there might be some new insight or word.

Nope, their not even argueing the points like I was. Nope, just argueing about tanking. After the fact. When we have no control over it anymore.

Maybe we should open a thread for fans who just want to argue about nothing at all.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

LOL, and here I came into the thread thinking there might be some new insight or word.

Nope, their not even argueing the points like I was. Nope, just argueing about tanking. After the fact. When we have no control over it anymore.

Maybe we should open a thread for fans who just want to argue about nothing at all.

I think those are called offseason threads. LOL.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I think those are called offseason threads. LOL.

Hey maybe we could change the topic yet again... and argue about something else that means nothing....

No those threads are not called that. Stop making stuff up. lol.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by mooby

What if we went 2-14, but that still wasn't good enough for the 2nd overall pick, and we ended up with the third overall pick? So we decide we want RG3, but since a bunch of other teams want him too and one (Cleveland) tells the Rams they'll give them 3 first round picks, what do we do? Do we still give up 3 firsts and a 2nd just to move up one spot?

The whole point of that scenario is that we don't know what would've happened. And you can't teach an entire football team of players to lose, and you can't bench them and play your entire bench to lose either, because everybody would know what you're trying to do then, and it would be a pr disaster, probably costing your coach and gm their jobs, and so forth.

First of all, 2-14 would have given us the first overall pick because of the tiebreaker.
Second of all, I want to say for a third time in this thread, I'm not saying that the coaches should coach to lose, or the players play to lose, I know that is impossible to pull off and if it wasn't, it would lessen the product of the NFL to have any team tank any game. I'm saying that from a fan perspective it would have been beneficial for us to lose 3 more games. Do you see the difference?