GHH laid totally bare with his fanhood on the line: Why it's best for our team to lose out the rest of the 2011 season.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

As my friend James Doakes says--its a bunch of "woo woo ****". (reference:

)

Man I LOVE that show.

Any show that makes you empathise with a serial killer is onto a winner right there.

Back to the thread at hand .....

Hail.

[GibbsFactor]

Yeah, we've all rooted for 3-13 teams, 4-12 teams, 10-6 teams.

If I'm rebuilding, I'm going after the best possible tools to that with. And what I'm seeing from this team is encouraging. The team (LL56) is saying 2014 is when we will compete. 2014.

What the hell does 8-8 do for a team that isn't expected to compete until two years later?

Now, having that #16 pick in EACH round does what? We need that top 10 pick in each round. That's going to give us an advantage that 8-8 does not.

[Henry]

This is, overall, a nice post. Great insight into how you and many fans feel, and lots of truth. For some people. For many of us, its a bunch of idealized bull****.

As my friend James Doakes says--its a bunch of "woo woo ****". (reference:

)

Come on. In general, I agree with what you're saying. That's what being a fan is about, most of the time. But sometimes, enough is enough. You're basically advocating finding the silver lining while being okay with mediocrity--its okay to continue to go 6-10, or even 8-8, because there are EMOTIONAL victories along the way that you'll look back on and smile about.

Please. Stow that crap, or try to sell it to someone else.

If emotional victories are crap, what's the point? The whole reason to watch is based on emotion.

Seriously, you lost me there.

What I'm saying is that victories still matter, even while taking your lumps. Teams rise and fall, that's given in football life. Wins still matter. If they didn't we wouldn't remember them.

Many of us aren't advocating that a higher draft pick is more important than winning in general--we're specifically advocating that in this specific situation, this specific draft, there are specific QB's that we'll need specific draft picks to attain. QB's that can turn this franchise around, that are tailor fit to this scheme, and that we won't be getting if we have another horribly mediocre year. And I'm not talking about tanking for Luck. God am I sick of hearing about that guy.

Well, you THINK there are specific QBs that are this or that or the other thing. You don't KNOW. Nobody does.

You're rooting for losses on a maybe. I think that's silly. Sorry.

I respect your opinion Henry--hell, I think most of the time, you're right on this one. But I think you do OUR opinions disservice when you assume that we generally advocate for higher draft picks over wins. As if we don't have a specific goal in mind, specific prospects that fit our scheme and could finally raise this team from the ashes.

Eh. I think you do the team a disservice by rooting against them. What are ya gonna do?

Oh, and a side note: if Heath Shuler had not been a bust, and instead had turned into our franchise QB, you bet that a poor record resulting in the right to draft him would have been a better memory than going 6-10 and sweeping the Cowboys.

There's that pesky word again: IF. Good luck with that if.

Here's mine: IF we go 3-13 I hope the QB we pick turns out to be a great one.

[Drew_Fl]

So how many years exactly do we need to pick top 5 before we can "try" to compete for real under your guys' plan? This is a serious question. You guys say we need to tank, but if you think we can fill all our holes in one season you are out of your mind.

Here's where your logic fails: You do not want to attempt to win the SB until you are sure we can win the SB. However, no one is ever guaranteed a SB let alone a playoff spot.

Every year there are busts drafted high and diamonds drafted late 1st round. If your front office isn't good enough to get diamonds late in the first round, you will be picking early 1st round sooner rather than later. Even picking high first, the front office has just as much chance to screw it up. Peyton Mannings and Calvin Johnsons don't grow on trees.

There is no sure thing in the draft. There are no sure things in the NFL season.

Sure we could increase our chances of getting playmakers by drafting up high.

So now we've covered that, your stance is that we should tank for multiple years just so "we can increase our chances of drafting playmakers".

There is no data to suggest that drafting high for multiple years in a row leads to SB wins. You guys are just grasping as straws b/c you're getting desperate b/c our team sucks so bad for so long. There is no easy answer. That is reality. Losing on purpose? Sounds like a get rich quick scheme. How do those usually work out?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

We're on a 5 year plan here with Shanahan Drew.

Why would you think that time scale would be altered?

Hail.

*Edit* Oh, and Henry, it is an emotional involvement this is born out of. Love. The love for your team, and the pain (hey, I got two. I'ma rolling!) of seeing that love at the bottom end of the league season on season.

Call it tough love. Suffering through more pain to finally heal and become whole again. (Yeah, i lost me too. Just 'smile and wave' ).

[Henry]

this is where the disconnect is. the other side of the fence seems to think that those 2 extra wins somehow do something positive for the team. as if the team is somehow better off winning 7 instead of 5. both have the same result, but impact the talent available to the team.

....

Winning seven is better than five. That's why teams with seven wins are ahead of teams with five in the standings.

Aren't you guys sick of trying to win the offseason yet?

[GibbsFactor]

....

Winning seven is better than five. That's why teams with seven wins are ahead of teams with five in the standings.

Aren't you guys sick of trying to win the offseason yet?

Very sick of the offseason championships, even sicker of being the NFC East cellar dwellers.

[Drew_Fl]

We're on a 5 year plan here with Shanahan Drew.

Why would you think that time scale would be altered?

Hail.

.

Oh you're saying that Shanahan's plan *should* be to tank as much as he can in the first 4 years so he can *possibly* do better in the 5th? Please tell me I don't have this correct.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Oh you're saying that Shanahan's plan *should* be to tank as much as he can in the first 4 years so he can *possibly* do better in the 5th? Please tell me I don't have this correct.

You don't. But it's a HELL of an out there idea.

Tell me more .....

Hail.

[Drew_Fl]

You don't. But it's a HELL of an out there idea.

Tell me more .....

Hail.

No this is where you tell me more. I asked twice now how many years do we need to tank? I get no answer.

[Conn]

If emotional victories are crap, what's the point? The whole reason to watch is based on emotion.

Seriously, you lost me there.

What I'm saying is that victories still matter, even while taking your lumps. Teams rise and fall, that's given in football life. Wins still matter. If they didn't we wouldn't remember them.

By emotional victories, I didn't mean literal victories in games. I meant in a losing season, the feeling of "at least we beat the Cowboys, even though we're still mediocre!" Or "Our guys know how to WIN now, they won two more games than last year!"

Things that aren't literal victories, but emotional ones...the things that we use to make ourselves feel better about being perpetually average.

Well, you THINK there are specific QBs that are this or that or the other thing. You don't KNOW. Nobody does.

I'm comfortable with that. That's how it will always be.

You're rooting for losses on a maybe. I think that's silly. Sorry.

That's fine. I trust my eyes. More importantly, I trust our coaches to get the right guy. But looking at who will be available, we won't even have a shot if we're mediocre again.

Here's mine: IF we go 3-13 I hope the QB we pick turns out to be a great one.

Now that we can agree on.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

....

Winning seven is better than five. That's why teams with seven wins are ahead of teams with five in the standings.

Aren't you guys sick of trying to win the offseason yet?

Winning 7 is NOT better than winning 5 if it leads to another year of league bottom QB play because your extra two wins stopped you from getting the man you wanted.

Indirectly, your continuing to condone mediocrity and ask for more of the same.

Aren't YOU sick of doing that?

Hail.

[Conn]

No this is where you tell me more. I asked twice now how many years do we need to tank? I get no answer.

For me personally, I'm not talking about tanking. I expect our team to TRY to win as many games as possible. I just don't see many wins happening, and I'm okay with that.

So to kind of answer your question, even though it doesn't fit exactly, I'll say this: one. One single year, to be in position for an elite QB prospect. This year, that's going to take at the VERY least, a top-ten pick, depending on in certain guys declare.

[Henry]

Winning 7 is NOT better than winning 5 if it leads to another year of league bottom QB play because your extra two wins stopped you from getting the man you wanted.

Indirectly, your continuing to condone mediocrity and ask for more of the same.

Aren't YOU sick of doing that?

Hail.

This is where I think you've gone horribly wrong.

Winning 5 or 7 or 13 games does not LEAD to further bad seasons. A bad front office does. If your front office sucks it doesn't matter how many games you lose, or where you pick, you will suck. If your front office knows what it's doing it will figure it out.

I hope our front office knows what it's doing. You can hope we lose games.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

No this is where you tell me more. I asked twice now how many years do we need to tank? I get no answer.

I answered you. Shanahan's on a five year plan. Why would you think i ..... NM, this got us in that go-around to start with.

You probably got no answer because your playing around with what you don't like and turning it into something that isn't there.

If you want to address THIS team, and the premise of THIS thread regarding said team THIS year, then you'll probably find more joy.

Fictitiously put it out there that people want continuing rock bottom seasons to get number one picks, and you probably won't.

---------- Post added October-26th-2011 at 11:08 AM ----------

This is where I think you've gone horribly wrong.

Winning 5 or 7 or 13 games does not LEAD to further bad seasons. A bad front office does. If your front office sucks it doesn't matter how many games you lose, you will suck. If your front office knows what it's doing it will figure it out.

I hope our front office knows what it's doing. You can hope we lose games.

When you win 5 or 7 games despite, instead of because of, your biggest problem area; and those 5 or 7 or even 13 wins consistently prevent you from addressing that, then I'd wholeheartedly beg to differ that those extra few wins are more than worth it.

Hail.

[Drew_Fl]

For me personally, I'm not talking about tanking. I expect our team to TRY to win as many games as possible. I just don't see many wins happening, and I'm okay with that.

So to kind of answer your question, even though it doesn't fit exactly, I'll say this: one. One single year, to be in position for an elite QB prospect. This year, that's going to take at the VERY least, a top-ten pick, depending on in certain guys declare.

See, that's the thing. I don't think we have to "tank" this year to get top ten. It may be what we get regardless.

If you guys are already mortgaging future seasons by calling for us to tank them, you are working with terribly broken logic. Please never get in charge of anything to do with the Redskins and just keep your insanity confined to this thread.

Thanks.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Drew, if you've been reading the thread, very few think we need to intentionally 'tank' the season either to get a top 10 spot or higher. Our youth, inexperience, lack of top level talent in certain areas and now lengthy injury list will see to that.

Hail.

[Conn]

See, that's the thing. I don't think we have to "tank" this year to get top ten. It may be what we get regardless.

If you guys are already mortgaging future seasons by calling for us to tank them, you are working with terribly broken logic. Please never get in charge of anything to do with the Redskins and just keep your insanity confined to this thread.

Thanks.

Its like you can't even read. I specifically said I would never call for "tanking". That implies that the coach and team are in on it. That's ridiculous. That won't happen here, and I wouldn't want that. But that's what tanking is, so you're using the word incorrectly.

I'm simply saying that this team won't win many games, even though it will try its damnedest. And I'm okay with it. As we get closer to the end of the season and the draft order starts to solidify, I might even hope for it. That's not tanking.

[Drew_Fl]

Its like you can't even read. I specifically said I would never call for "tanking". .

You may not have said it, but that's what this thread is about so maybe you should go back and read the OP.

But that's exactly where I'm at with the 2011 Washington Redskins. Wanting them to lose out the rest of the season.

Explain to me how that is not the same as wanting them to "tank"?

[Conn]

Explain to me how that is not the same as wanting them to "tank"?

Because tanking explicitly deals with the TEAM purposefully losing. Not a FAN wanting them to lose. Its not even close to the same thing, at all. The OP doesn't say anything about wanting the team to tank the season. He says that for the future, he hopes they lose out.

If you can't see the difference, that's on you. Its huge.

[mr_neon]

While I'm always wanting my Redskins to win no matter what, I do understand what Gibbs Hog Heaven is saying. The Redskins have NOT had a good franchise QB for about as long as I can remember. Heck, even during Gibbs I, we never had a true franchise QB. Theismann would probably come close to being considered a franchise guy (during my time as a 'skins fan) but we have never had someone like a Marino, Montana, or Brady. Just think if the Redskins DID have someone like that throughout the 80's, the 'skins would have probably had about six SB trophies from that era. Nowadays, it's a QB league. You still have to have a good running game, but it's passing first, running second. I believe that is the one position we're just going to have to go out and take a chance on. I think our OL is good enough (when completely healthy of course) to give any QB protection enough to develop his skills and get used to the NFL speed. I hate the fact that we feel we need to lose out to get our version of Tom Brady, but whatever needs to be done to give this team the best chance at being an elite team season in and season out, I'm all for it. I've waited 20 years, I can wait another year or two for the transition to be complete.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Drew, maybe YOU should read the OP.

Maybe it was too long and laborious for you. I apologize for that. I aren't very laconic with my written word.

Then explain to me how wanting the end result to ultimately be a loss, but for the players to play hard and progress within that, particularly the youth, but ultimately come up short nine times out of ten; is implying they should outright 'tank' the year? And as it happen's, I don't think we'll have a problem putting up loses for all I mentioned a few posts above.

Or maybe you, like many it seems, can't comprehend a lose out season for anything BUT a 'tanking' year. You can't seem to separate the two. Nor rationalise that you can still have a horrid record season, but achieve a Hell of a lot within that on a team like ours.

Hail.

[Drew_Fl]

Because tanking explicitly deals with the TEAM purposefully losing. Not a FAN wanting them to lose. Its not even close to the same thing, at all.

You want the team to lose more than you want them to win. By definition doesn't that make you anything but a fan? More like a hater? I understand you mean it for the "greater good", but as we've discussed, that "greater good" is about as from a guarantee as you can get. So again, what's the point?

At this point if you want them to lose more than you want them to win, wouldn't they be making you happy by losing on purpose?

You guys are like hard to please girlfriends; saying you want one thing, but when it happens you claim that's not what you wanted at all.

[Rufus T Firefly]

You may not have said it, but that's what this thread is about so maybe you should go back and read the OP.

Someone needs to design an "irony alert" smile for use on posts like this.

[Drew_Fl]

Then explain to me how wanting the end result to ultimately be a loss, but for the players to play hard and progress within that, particularly the youth, but ultimately come up short nine times out of ten; is implying they should outright 'tank' the year?

Are you seriously reading what you are typing? Why do you care if they play hard if you want them to lose? Just so you don't feel guilty for being happy that they don't seem like they are doing it on purpose?

You sound like you should coach pee wee football nowadays b/c that's the attitude that a lot of lgs have.