rtandler Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 There has been some discussion on another thread about the value of having a decent record and not making the playoffs as opposed to tanking the season and reaping the benfits of an easier schedule and better draft pick. There are those who say that winning has a value in and of itself and those who say the heck with the wins, give me a better draft pick. IMO, the good in winning one of the 16 NFL games played in a season far outweighs any benefits that may come from losing. That's just not from the player's point of view, but I'd rather enjoy more winning game days. I'd much rather have a season like 1979 where the Skins lost out of a playoff spot in gut-wrenching fashion in the last minutes of the last game than go through something like 1993 or 1994. BTW, the Skins drafted Art Monk after the 1979 season. After 1993 they took Heath Shuler and after '94 it was Michael Westbrok. Not much of a payoff for all that suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Absolutley have the best record possible. No reason to ever tank the season or any game (well im sure GB wish they did in 1988.... it was the difference between Aikman and Tony Mandarich) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuji869 Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 I would rather go into the final weekend of the season being still alive for the playoffs then knowing the season in over by mid-season! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoDrill Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 I'd much rather see the team give it all with the players they have and fail, than squander a season just to land "top-notch" draft pick. Why? Because if you're relying on "top-notch" talent to make your program succeed, your program is weak in the first place. Sure, you can put together the 2000-2001 Baltimore Ravens, but where does that get you in three years ... and beyond? With respect to our beloved 'Skins, it's the difference between Gibbs and Turner. Turner was always trying to re-live the days when he had a superstar team built from the infamous Herschel Walker trade. He did have a brief period during the abyssmal 1998 season where he started to experiment with youth and speed, but otherwise he was always trying to make a square peg into a round peg. Gibbs, by comparison, won SuperBowls with three different QB's, three different RB's, and a steady stream of low-round draft picks and castaways from other teams. The name "Bobby Beatherd" alone is a reminder that "top-notch" collegiate talent is not a prerequisite towards building a dominant team. I have a feeling about Spurrier ... that he, like Gibbs, will find a way to win with whomever, whenever ... The old-school Redskin players, like Theismann, feel it too. Let us build an organization, a system, that will succeed over the long term, like San Francisco. Let the other 31 teams in the league break the bank to sign the "next best thing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoDrill Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 .. and by the way (I refuse to use the stupid acronym) I love this board:cheers: It's like the WP forum used to be in 1997, where could actually post your own topics, and much better: --The interface and information architecture are cool, and, --The people posting, while you might not agree with them, are quite intelligent compared to those on other forums. --Trolls get to be The Masochistic Clown. So .... Hail to the Redskins! Happy July 4th! America rules, terrorism is on the run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Win every game you can. They start winning games selectively ... I'll start watching them selectively (at best). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 The Redskins have already been at or near the head of the draft table in getting Bailey (#7), Arrington (#2), Samuels (#3). We then added Gardner (#15) and Ramsey (#32). That to me is enough time spent maneuvering with draft selections. This team has a good enough core of players to MAKE the playoffs this season with a modicum of luck with injuries and a competent season from Shane Matthews. As I have said before a season where Matthews completes 60% of his passes and throws more touchdowns than interceptions will probably be enough to get us in as one of the wildcards. Remember how much even a single key injury can hurt some of these other teams. Who do the Packers have behind Brett Favre? What about San Francisco with Jeff Garcia? What about Garrison Hearst's knees? What about McNabb's backup in Philly and their running game? In St. Louis will Warner rebound or have to have surgery on his hand? These are all factors that could play into how the season progresses. You never give up on a season unless you admit you have little talent as an expansion team or a team that is completely rebuilding as say the Lions are. Otherwise, the example of the Patriots from last year and the Giants from 2000, is just too strong to ignore. No one thought Tom Brady or Kerry Collins would ever get their teams to a Super Bowl berth. But it happened. No one thinks the Redskins can win the East merely with Davis and a solid defense. But what if Matthews DOES have a renaissance of sorts and becomes a steady producer at quarterback? On a lesser level, Jay Fiedler and Jim Miller, another two quarterbacks with limitations, were able to nurse 10+ wins out of their clubs in 2001. And neither team had dominant talent elsewhere. A productive Matthews changes the equation quite a bit because perceived instability on offense is what has caused many to grade the Redskins down for 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 And just remember this, with the new format, there really isn't going to be an easier schedule for one team over another within a division. Only two games will be different on the schedule for teams within the same division. That takes out a lot of the easier schedule factor. It also eliminates it from conference factor as well. It will just be a matter of which division we play from year to year. The Giants or Redskins can end up with a worse record than the any of the other NFC teams but if one of the other divisions is playing a weaker AFC division, doesn't matter. We end up with a tougher schedule anyway. Even with a worse record. Hmmmm, I tihink I said this correctly. If I didn't , I'm sure you know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 I think the premise of the question is wrong. It does not equate to what happened last year. We have a solid nucleus this year. But if we had a very low first and second round pick how much better would we be right now. If we had harrington and gurode or another top notch O lineman in the second round. We still don't know who our QB or our LG is going to be. Going into the season with a question mark at QB and O line could have been avoided. If Marty would have just coached the way he did the first 5 games we would be sitting really nice right now. And I would rather have Harrington and Gurode and suffer through a 1-15 season to get it then the same old crap we have been living thru the last 11 years. You guys seem to be happy with a team that underacheives and doesn't make the playoffs, but atleast we were 8-8. Hmmmmmmmmmm but you are very outspoken about saying goodbye to the man who symbolized the underachieving Skins. Kinda ironic isn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtandler Posted July 5, 2002 Author Share Posted July 5, 2002 No, the point is that you don't have to go 1-15 to pick up good draft picks. I seem to recall that, through some shrewd trading the 8-8 Redskins drafted Champ Bailey and Jon Jansen, improved to 10-6 and then snagged Lavar Arrington and Chris Samuels. That's the way to do it. Don't get me wrong, I like Harrington, but he may or may not pan out. I'm sure that Lions fans are just as pumped to have him as we were to have Heath Shuler about a half dozen years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 the other point to remember here is that while there is a 'hole' at left guard, teams have won 10+ games with some limitations on their offensive lines. not every team that goes to the playoffs has 5 solid to superior performers. just look at the Bucs and Dolphins last year. how many of their linemen were in the pro bowl? so, some things are overblown. will a weakness at LG cause some problems if we don't sign or trade for a veteran? Yes. Will that one spot be enough to keep us out of the post-season if the qb and wr candidates are productive? Probably not. ALL teams in the NFL are going to start the season with a weakness or at least question marks somewhere in their lineup. The 1995 Cowboys were really the last team I remember that entered a season with a complete roster. Everyone since it seems has been struggling to get an extra hole or two filled at the last moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtandler Posted July 5, 2002 Author Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by bulldog The 1995 Cowboys were really the last team I remember that entered a season with a complete roster. And they were, essentially, from the pre-cap and free agency era since most of their roster was assembled before that came into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerm Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 The best strategy is somewhere in the middle. You never throw a game, but the goal should always be to win a Super Bowl. It was brought up earlier in this thread that in 1988 Green Bay won their last game of the season to finish 2-14 rather than 1-15. It cost them Aikman and landed them Mandrich. One win in 88 cost them a ton of wins in the early 90s. Last year, when Dallas was playing out the stretch, they kept Mark Stepnowski as the starter at center. I thought this was a big mistake, even though it gave them a better chance at winning on Sunday, they had a rookie who needed playing time so he could get some experience and minimize his mistakes in the 2002-2003 season. If you start a rookie over a vetran who will retire after the season is that throwing a game or is it the smart thing to do? What if you have home field locked up going into the last game of the season. Do you sit your players with minor injuries and save them for the playoffs or shoud you go all out to win on Sunday and risk loosing them for the playoffs? Never throw a game, but always keep your eyes on the prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 somtimes, though, Nerm it comes down to your ability to draft The Packers could have selected Deion Sanders instead of Mandarich and ended up with another HOFer instead of a bust. In each draft there are star players that are available, the trick of course is to identify them as such. I am never going to shed a tear for a team that ONLY get the #2 pick in an NFL draft and can't seem to come up with a cornerstone player to help them build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerm Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 I agree Bulldog, It does come down to your ability to draft. Barry Sanders also went in the top 5 that year. However, when I look at last year, for the Boys, they lost their last game in Detroit. I was pissed at the time, but now Im glad they lost. In the draft they traded down from #6 to #8 and ended up with an extra 3rd round pick which they spent on Ross (a CB with off field issues who they think has 1st round talent). That loss allowed them to pick up a guy who may some day start for a Super Bowl team. An extra loss will still alow you to get the player you want and another guy. I think it is always a smart move to aim for a future Super Bowl rather than to go all out to get an extra win in a season that you cant make the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtandler Posted July 5, 2002 Author Share Posted July 5, 2002 You do get into a grey area when you're talking about decisions as to who to give playing time to. I was pissed when Robiskie, in an effort to save his own skin, started a lame-duck Brad Johnson in the last game of '00 rather than take a look and see what Husak could do. A Cowboy with off-the-field issues? He should fit right in.:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyskinsfan Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Not to overwrought this subject, but conceding to defeat, even when it's clear you're out of playoffs is the best way to lose your hope for the future games to be played. A disturbing trend develops (accepting losses and especially games you should win - See Norval). From the birds eye view, I take it, is what you mean by "tanking a season", in that the one positive is having a "chance" at a better pick. I say chance, because that could backfire in your face and having let up in games or getting used to losing is just unacceptable period. Losers always head home immediately and can't wait to go home to get ready for the next loss, another losing season. Something is to be said about playing your heart out against an overmatched opponent and still losing. I really feel the house cleaning is now complete by getting rid of those who needed 4-8 years to get their sh** together. That's bullsh*T and just an excuse that the player just doesn't measure up in the first place! A coach should know within the first few training camp sessions and couple of live games what he's got. Not 4-8 years!!!! That's just a sorry a** coach! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Neither. If we planned on tanking the season it had better be for a stud QB like Leftwich but we already have young QBs of the future on the roster or a bluechip O lineman but you dont need to be in the top 5 to get a guard as evidenced with this draft. I will never accept losing but certain fans need to understand that to build a team we dont need name vet players or top 5 picks at every spot. S Davis was a fourth fifth rounder, Jansen a second round ,Smoot a second rounder thanks to the :high: but was projected to us in the same spot where we took Gardner. Our future contributors A Pierce and Ohalete weren't even drafted but they give us depth and we saw last year they are capable of starting and making plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Please tell me the 4 people that voted for tanking the season were all Cowboy fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottb Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 You have to go for the wins. I wouldn't want players on the team that would be willing to tank a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 I'm with you rt. Couldn't agree more. Can you imagine, for just a moment, posing this question to coaches an players? Imagine the reaction from S.S. , Marvin Lewis, Martske, Holmgren, to Levar, Big Country, Chris Samuels, Emmit Smith, Eric Williams, Jerry Rice, and Tim Brown. all the way to the guy who in cold dreary days of December is doing exactly what he's been doing the rest of the season. Hoping to get in for just one play. Except he's wearing a coat. I think it would be best to ask that question in passing. Preferably in a fast moving car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 Winning is why they play the games and why we as fans watch and get ourselves worked into a frenzy over our team. I am tired of watching the Redskins lose, the 90's sucked. As far as I am concerned that entire decade was tanked compliments of that incompetent cow$hit Turner. WIN NOW, WIN OFTEN, JUST WIN BABY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 this team has been living on 'tomorrows' long enough. to get every win possible has to be the goal regardless of where in the season or standings we are. the core of talent to win is already here and if sucking it up and winning games with nothing but pride on the line than that will make those players that much the better for it down the road. don't tell me that Jim Haslett isn't going to have a more difficult time motivating his team this offseason after the Saints gave up on the season by Week 12 last year.......... when a team flat out quits on its coach at the end of the season that rarely produces a fast start the following year. teams on the other hand that win their last few games and build some momentum DO have a history of taking that and using it as motivation for the next campaign. I think for these players finishing 8-8 after starting 0-5 was a character builder. If the team had given up and finished 2-14 or 3-13 that would have been tough to overcome, even for a upbeat new head coach like Spurrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.