glongest Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 If you mean a drought like the last 20 years where we are just miserable for a Superbowl now, no way. I would much rather have competive teams that win divisions and make the playoffs on a consistent basis and have chances at going to the Super Bowl than a Super Bowl victory now. Just my opionion. These past 20 years have been miserable. I would add that the big problem with this team since Snyder is paying several players way to much money and none of them have ended up being worth it. Should have concentrated on the whole team rather than have several so call super stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Going all in pre flop with a seven deuce can sometimes pay off... but it's still a dumb bet that any rational person knows you are more likely to lose several dozens of times over before you win. Boneheaded gambles that set a franchise back 5-10 are unforgivable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 As a lifelong Boston Celtics fan, going all in to end a championship drought that started in 1986 was well worth it for another championship in 08 and being in the thick of things the last two seasons. The decisions made have to be decisive. You're either all in or your not. You can't start and then change your mind halfway through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD Riggo Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 @OP Dan .. is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildbill1952 Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 For a 19-0 season, where every opponent was thoroughly beaten by the Skins, where 11 players or more made the Pro Bowl, where 11 or more players on that team made the HOF, where the team is constantly rated the number one team of all time, where a good Dallas team is beat twice by the Skins by 30 or more and then again in the playoffs, I could probably sacrifice a decade of being the bottom feeders, where we squeak by anyone we beat, where the Cowgirls, Gints and Iggles beat us one or more times, where every team in the league looks to the Skins as a sure win or the only saving grace in a season of failure. Yeah, I could put up with it with that one glorious season, since basically the dismal years are currently upon us. It's what we have now. But I'd rather the Skins be thought of in terms of a dynasty, as the team of the decade, as the team of the century, even if none of us will live to see it. That would be worth more to me than a single Super Bowl, since the dynasty label only applies to team that win multiple Super Bowls. But to go through a decade of misery for one Super Bowl win? You sell your soul too cheaply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 You never turn down a championship because you never know if or when your team might make it back. Here we have been waiting since January 1992 to be in the discussion again as the NFL's top team.That's the answer to the pie in the sky question. The real truth is the Redskins are 12-15 players away from being a Super Bowl team. And moving back to a 4-3 might reduce that number by 3 or 4 players. I wouldn't count on that.....unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aszumilo Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 To win this year's Superbowl in Dallas, I say YES! If it was played anywhere else, i would have to think real hard about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squatch66 Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 i guess i am in the minority here. i would actually rather us have one or two years like the rams/lions/chiefs and build a long term winner. i understand that the goal every season is to win a superbowl but i want this team to be a contender every year, not just a team that wins one every 20 years. I'd hate to be the "fluky" SB winner. could you imagine hornets nest at espn? that is all they would ever say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 you are asking whether the gamble would even be worthwhile even if it paid off. that just goes to show what a terrible choice it is. imagine a bet where if you lose, you pay dearly, and if you win, you get something you're not entirely sure you want (one super bowl followed by years of painful failure).however, it's important to realize that the odds of achieving even this mediocre reward are extremely slim. here is the equation that the redskins have been executing for years: "reduce the chances of winning for multiple years to come in order to increase the chances of winning this year." and they have repeated this tactic over and over for ten years. needless to say, they have never won this bet. and unfortunately, each iteration has a cumulative negative effect that makes winning the bet more and more unlikely, because each successive year is feeling the burn of the previous x number of years of trying to "win right now" at the cost of the future. this is why we have so few draft picks, so little depth, and perennially one of the oldest rosters in the league. This. And question for the OP. Why "especially with McNabb"? What difference does that make? Because he has choked so much in his career that winning now is so highly unlikely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinzWILL Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Give me the championship! Take the Eagles for example. They have been a consistent contender for years and out of 5 NFC championship games they get to the superbowl 1 time and lose. My guess is every member of those teams would give up 4 of those playoff appearances for 1 championship. Now to knowingly destroy the future of your team for one shot is not something I would do as a GM, but would totally understand it from fans in cities that have never won a single one. Or a town that's in danger of losing it's team maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mzkp54 Posted September 30, 2010 Author Share Posted September 30, 2010 This. And question for the OP. Why "especially with McNabb"? What difference does that make? Because he has choked so much in his career that winning now is so highly unlikely? Because I live in Philly and I would just love to hear all the local sports going nuts if Mcnabb won a superbowl with the skins after they said he couldn't do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T.real,lights,out Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Hmmm, thats tough. I want nothing more to win a SB. But i would hate to suck for 5-10 years after that. But it might be worth it. IDK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 To win this year's Superbowl in Dallas, I say YES! If it was played anywhere else, i would have to think real hard about it. OOOO.....this is a good point. It could possibly change my opinion. Just to piss of Dallas fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Yes, because winning the Super Bowl trumps everything. People act like the Super Bowl just magically happens after you build a good team. There have been good teams that never win the Super Bowl. Also, considering that a complete rebuild only takes 2-3 maybe 5 at the longest there is nothing they could do to set us back more then 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff_K Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 no no no no ... a 1 and done would suck. I would rather spend the next 5 years building a decades long powerhouse than 1 superbowl then back to the suckage we have endured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustangSteve Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 I think we need to establish a running game too but yeah I agree Do we ever, I never expected Zorn's team to run better then Shanahan's team. Our O-line can finally protect the QB, but now can't open but 2 holes a game it seems. Your right mz, this can be a pretty good offense if we can get a good running game going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikie Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 you are asking whether the gamble would even be worthwhile even if it paid off. that just goes to show what a terrible choice it is. imagine a bet where if you lose, you pay dearly, and if you win, you get something you're not entirely sure you want (one super bowl followed by years of painful failure). that's all that needs to be said...it'd be like going all-in in poker but if you won, you'd still lose your stack... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddub52 Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 If it was a guarantee that we would win the SB, then sure. But NOTHING in this league is guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homercles82 Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 No I would not like to be a part of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsCrushCowboys Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 We have been mortgaging our future for years with no results. I would prefer to rebuild a dynasty that is a powerhouse every year. That cannot be done in one year regardless of what you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 I'd like to trade players for picks and stock up on future 2012-14 drafts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 We have been mortgaging our future for years with no results. I would prefer to rebild a dynasty that is a powerhouse every year. That cannot be done in one year regardless of what you do. That may be why Vinny was fired... he just didn't "get it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Every year the goal is the same: Win the Super Bowl. It would absolutely be worth it. You're not guaranteed anything in this league. I agree, If you told me we could win the Super Bowl this year or be very competitive and have a chance to compete for it down the road. I'd take the Super Bowl this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Yes, we've been starved for a winner for so long. Just to say for ONE year, we were the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Agree with SoulRebel on this. If we were to win the SB, I'd like it to be a case where we are also a dominant team at least either the season before and/or the season after we won the championship. I'd hate to go from a bad-to-mediocre team to immediately winning it and then immediately back into junk status. In short, I'd hate to be the "fluky" SB winner. We still get flack about the 82 and 87 SB's as being "flukey." What's the difference? A Lombardi, is a Lombardi and the last time I checked, the NFL didn't put an asterisk by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.