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.

[Rufus T Firefly]

If we did it while looking like a great team, then it would be A. I'd be pumped that Beck looked like an answer at QB, and wouldn't need to feel like another mediocre season just sets us farther back. It would take a few more games of Beck's great play for me to really buy into it, but I would. That's obviously the least complicated answer to the question "who will be our franchise QB??", and that's all I want answered.

Now, if we squeak by the Bills in typical Redskins fashion, aka we play up or down to our opponent, depending on if they bring their "A-Game" that day, we score mostly field goals, we "steal" a win that could have easily been a loss if the Bills played like they did against superior teams like the Patriots...then I'll have no reason to change how I feel about this team's composition. My inner fan won't be able to help feeling some joy at winning, as that's always the case. But I'll know that it doesn't mean anything is different, and that though we beat a "better" team in the Bills, we will no doubt lose to an "inferior" team we "should" beat in the future, because we have no QB. In that case, I'd mostly feel option B. But I wouldn't be able to help that part of me that just loves winning.

I hope you don't feel this answer was a cop-out, as this is my thought process.

What he said.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

....

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?

by winning the offseason do you mean vinny signing terrible free agents to massive contracts for players that dont fit our system and are divas? because nobody wants that.

however, id love to win the "team x had the best draft of the offseason" battle. we've never won that before, and usually teams that win this a few times ACTUALLY win real games in the regular season.

[Dan T.]

And answering A makes you any less, what was it, 'smug' than anyone answering B Dan; because you can't rationalise the thought of B and fandom going hand in hand as it totally fly's against the whole premise and ethos of sport?

Hail.

Your position isn't smug. It is misguided. Smugness comes through in a couple responses in this thread. I should know, because I am often a smug SOB on this board. There's no honor in it, and only a little shame.

I understand the premise that in the end, a worse record equates to a better draft position. What I don't understand is your detemination that the logical extension of that is to root for losses to guarantee future success. It just doesn't follow.

But back to the quiz. No smugness is implied by answering either A or B. I would honestly like to hear your anwer. You have said that you want the Redskins to lose out the rest of the season. So what's your primary reaction to a Redskins win in Toronto?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I just assumed he was talking about me. BTw Conn, I apologize for hurling the tanking accusation at you individually. You're right there are some it seems that are ok with that, but it's not you.

Yet I fall into your fallacious 'tanking' claim.

Interesting definition of the two alike thought processes you've got going on there Drew.

Hail.

[Goingforburgundy]

Here is a quiz.

The Washington Redskins defeat the Buffalo Bills on Sunday. Your reaction is:

A: Hooray for the Redskins!

B: Crap. We just dropped down another draft slot.

And no fair replying "C: All of the above." Pick either A or B to represent your predominant reaction.

Same question your way. Last game of the season we currently have the 6th pick and we win and drops us all the way to 13th pick? What is your reaction?

[Conn]

BTw Conn, I apologize for hurling the tanking accusation at you individually. You're right there are some it seems that are ok with that, but it's not you.

Its all good man. Sometimes that happens.

[Drew_Fl]

Yet I fall into your fallacious 'tanking' claim.

Interesting definition of the two alike thought processes you've got going on there Drew.

Hail.

Sorry man I can't let you off the hook personally:

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

I don't care how you rationalize that sentence, it doesn't sit well with me. If you say you don't want them to "tank" or someone else feels that after reading that, then that's fine with me.

Connskins never said anything remotely close to that. I just had him mistakenly grouped with whoever agrees with your statement. That's on me.

edit: i see that me using the word tank is causing confusion. forget about it and just go with the fact you said you wanted them to lose. to me it doesn't matter if it's on purpose or not, you WANT them to lose. your words, not mine. the reasons don't matter.

[Dan T.]

same question your way. Last game of the season we currently have the 6th pick and we win and drops us all the way to 13th pick? What is your reaction?

Beating Philly in Philly? Capital A.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

My reaction, Dan, is exactly what Conn answered.

For the record, I have little to no doubt it will be 'B' by games end if we somehow did win, because that's how we roll. If it was achieved with great play and leadership from Beck, and he took that on week by week I'd be screaming 'A' along with the loudest of you.

But the chances are, it won't be, even if we squeak out a few more wins. And that is totally detrimental to everything this year more than most,

Hail.

[pimpumd]

So it seems now that some of the crowd actively rooting for the team to lose all of the remaining games are also saying that there is a huge difference between rooting for losses from here on out (this season) vs. asking/wanting the team to intentionally tank games (others are not...but at least their position is clear). At least that's my interpretation of some of these posts.

IMO, that idea is crazy. Just my opinion though. It seems to me that if a person wants the team to lose, he/she wants them to lose regardless of the circumstances. If such a person (a person desirous of losing the remaining 10 games) could control the team's ability to lose games (in other words, to "tank" games), he/she certainly would do so. Afterall, the losses are what's important if you're looking to get the highest draft position. It makes no difference how you get those losses.

IMO, it's one thing to not get upset or be overly-disappointed when the Skins lose games because, at the end of the day, you know the team can't win the Super Bowl without a franchise QB and each loss might give us a few more options in the draft to get that QB. However, actively rooting for the team to lose is completely different and, IMO, ridiculous. That's where I'm at. During games I'm disappointed when we start losing and for a brief period after any loss. After that period, I tell myself, "at least we picked up a few more options in the draft to get our QB."

[Conn]

Sorry man I can't let you off the hook personally:

I don't care how you rationalize that sentence, it doesn't sit well with me. If you say you don't want them to "tank" or someone else feels that after reading that, then that's fine with me.

Connskins never said anything remotely close to that. I just had him mistakenly grouped with whoever agrees with your statement. That's on me.

To be fair, I mostly agree with his (GHH's) sentiments. I expect the team to try to win every game, and I expect them to fail most of the time. And I'm okay with that, because I'd like a higher draft pick to take our franchise QB. I'd still find it hard not to root for them during each actual game, or to NOT get pissed when something bad happens in the game. That's just too deeply ingrained within me, as a fan.

That's not advocating tanking, but then, I don't think GHH is advocating anything much different than I am. I think he's just wording it differently, and a little more gung-ho about the actual "hoping" part.

Still, not much difference. Neither of us want the team to tank.

[pimpumd]

To be fair, I mostly agree with his (GHH's) sentiments. I expect the team to try to win every game, and I expect them to fail most of the time. And I'm okay with that, because I'd like a higher draft pick to take our franchise QB.

That's not advocating tanking, but then, I don't think GHH is advocating anything much different than I am. I think he's just wording it differently, and a little more gung-ho about the actual "hoping" part.

Still, not much difference. Neither of us want the team to tank.

I guess I'm having a problem with the "rooting for losses" not being akin to "wanting to tank." Maybe it's semantics. I just picture a person watching the game rooting for the Skins to **** up and lose games and, somehow, it's not very difficult to imagine that same person wanting the team to tank games. Oh well.

[Conn]

I guess I'm having a problem with the "rooting for losses" not being akin to "wanting to tank." Maybe it's semantics. I just picture a person watching the game rooting for the Skins to **** up and lose games and, somehow, it's not very difficult to imagine that same person wanting the team to tank games. Oh well.

I'm more in line with you--even though I've decided, with my brain, that its "better" in the long run to lose out (to clarify, I'm not saying that's how you feel), more or less, I find it impossible mid-game to think about that. I'm rooting for a win, and pissed about poor plays. Its just too much a part of my fanhood to NOT do it. But after a loss lately, I've found that I'm not upset really. Because I've already decided that its for the best. Its just hard to keep sight of that during the game. Which I'm fine with--it would be downright weird during a game to be yelling out "Throw a pick Beck! Yes! You suck, awesome!"

[charles mannley]

Screw throwing in your fan card. I am asking you to turn in your MAN card.

I am one of those guys that believes in honor, integrity, respect of the game, and football is a team sport. Quite frankly I wish I could start a "**** Luck" thread and egg on our players to get as far as possible from drafting this guy. Only because I hate the absolute cowardice that is reflecting in these Suck for Luck campaigns. I am going to be rooting for his absolute failure in the NFL. If the NFL becomes anything like the NBA, and becomes a player driven league, I will quit watching

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

One things for sure, being open and honest in my frustrations and wanting what I perceive as the best possible long term result for this team has certainly lead to some very good, if heated debate.

It's been real interesting finding our peoples true views, and how they perceive the opposing view and at times totally struggle to comprehend it as it's so foreign and totally against the ethos of sport and following a sports thread.

I'm enjoying finding things out about people on this, as I honestly didn't think this would roll to this extent. Thanks guys.

---------- Post added October-26th-2011 at 12:31 PM ----------

Screw throwing in your fan card. I am asking you to turn in your MAN card.

I am one of those guys that believes in honor, integrity, respect of the game, and football is a team sport. Quite frankly I wish I could start a "**** Luck" thread and egg on our players to get as far as possible from drafting this guy. Only because I hate the absolute cowardice that is reflecting in these Suck for Luck campaigns. I am going to be rooting for his absolute failure in the NFL. If the NFL becomes anything like the NBA, and becomes a player driven league, I will quit watching

Each to their own, but I find it a sad that you'd openly want a young guys career to be a failure before it's even begone because you don't like the reaction his talent is bringing about in people. This wasn't a 'Suck for Luck' thread BTW FWIW.

Hail.

[Drew_Fl]

I guess I'm having a problem with the "rooting for losses" not being akin to "wanting to tank." Maybe it's semantics. I just picture a person watching the game rooting for the Skins to **** up and lose games and, somehow, it's not very difficult to imagine that same person wanting the team to tank games. Oh well.

This has been my problem as well. Just hard for me to understand b/c tanking would lead to more losses that would make said person happier. As it's been explained to me, they want the losses to happen as long as the team gives off the impression that it hasn't given up.

Does not compute.

---------- Post added October-26th-2011 at 11:32 AM ----------

One things for sure, being open and honest in my frustrations and wanting what I perceive as the best possible long term result for this team has certainly lead to some very good, if heated debate.

It's been real interesting finding our peoples true views, and how they perceive the opposing view and at times totally struggle to comprehend it as it's so foreign and totally against the ethos of sport and following a sports thread.

I'm enjoying finding things out about people on this, as I honestly didn't think this would roll to this extent. Thanks guys.

---------- Post added October-26th-2011 at 12:31 PM ----------

Each to their own, but I find it a sad that you'd openly want a young guys career to be a failure before it's even begone because you don't like the reaction his talent is bringing about in people. This wasn't a 'Suck for Luck' thread BTW FWIW.

Hail.

yea this is a good thread for sure and has led to good conversation.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

i remember when i mailed my fan card in to get rid of vinny cerrato.

guess what? im still here. vinny however, is not.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I'm more in line with you--even though I've decided, with my brain, that its "better" in the long run to lose out (to clarify, I'm not saying that's how you feel), more or less, I find it impossible mid-game to think about that. I'm rooting for a win, and pissed about poor plays. Its just too much a part of my fanhood to NOT do it. But after a loss lately, I've found that I'm not upset really. Because I've already decided that its for the best. Its just hard to keep sight of that during the game. Which I'm fine with--it would be downright weird during a game to be yelling out "Throw a pick Beck! Yes! You suck, awesome!"

Maybe I'm just a little longer in the tooth than you man having suffered through that almost constant mediocrity for the past two decades, after having grown up through our glory days and tasted success to be more, for want of a better expression, 'readily open' to admit I'm hoping for loses as things currently stand so we can put that vital piece in place to get back to those days of my youth.

Hail.

[KCClybun]

It's really nutty how people keep showing examples of teams that DIDN'T need to consistent lose and those are consistently ignored.

For anyone claiming the Lions had to lose that much to become a better football team, let's not ignore the fact that since 2000, before the full front office change over in 2009, the Lions had 6 picks in the top 10. Only TWO of those picks are currently on the roster. 6 years of consistently drafting in the top 10, and they've got 2 guys to show for it, with a combined total record of 48-120. This says much more about the need for a competent front office than it does about needing to lose football games all the time to rebuild your football team. So let's quit using the Lions as an example. They're not good now because they were losing. The team has picked two potential franchise quarterbacks in the last decade (and lord knows how many guys in the later rounds). One guy was the right guy, the other guy was the wrong guy, but it certainly doesn't guarantee you success.

The Bills have been consistently bad/medicore since, what, 2005? They only have three starters on either side of the ball who are first round draft picks. THREE. And their starting quarterback is a former sixth round pick. Their starting wide receiver is a 7th round pick, and their starting running back was an undrafted free agent.

It's not about WHERE you draft. It's about HOW you draft.

Between 2000 and 2010, there's been 16 quarterbacks drafted in the top 10. 9 out of those 16 are currently starting for teams. Carson Palmer was retired until a week ago, and Michael Vick was incarcerated. Neither Carson Palmer or Michael Vick were drafted by the teams who they play for now. (I'll give Eli Manning and Phillip Rivers a pass in that area). That puts your odds of scoring a franchise quarterback that sticks with his original football team at 50%. Coin flip, basically.

Between 2000 and 2010, there have been 13 quarterbacks drafted outside of the top 10 in the first round. 6 of them are currently starting. Jason Campbell was starting for the Oakland Raiders, but he was originally drafted by us. That puts the odds of finding your franchise quarterback quarterback outside the top to at about 46%. Again, basically, a coin flip. There's more risk, but not a LOT more risk.

Since 2000, only one quarterback drafted in the first 10 picks has made it to the Super Bowl. (Eli Manning.) Three quarterbacks picked in the first ten picks have made it to a conference championship game. (Eli, Vick and Rivers).

Since 2000, two quarterbacks picked outside the first 10 picks have made it to the Super Bowl and won. (Big Ben and Aaron Rodgers). Four of those quarterbacks have been in conference championship games. (Big Ben, Aaron Rodgers, Jay Cutler, Joe Flacco).

It's not about WHERE they are picked. It is about WHO you pick. Period. Losing and getting a top ten pick does not magically guarantee you will have more success than if you drafted someone outside the top 10.

[Dan T.]

It's really nutty how people keep showing examples of teams that DIDN'T need to consistent lose and those are consistently ignored.

...[A whole bunch of cold hard facts.]...

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[Bobbyst21]

I'm enjoying finding things out about people on this, as I honestly didn't think this would roll to this extent. Thanks guys.

Hail.

Man i knew yesterday when you created this thread the crap storm that would follow.lol At the time i expected it to be at least a 30 page debate. 2 very strong views on this.Maybe 3. Some want wins no matter what .They just wanna be happy after the game etc. Others hoping they lose all the games for the best pick available. And then, and i guess this is where i fall in, say that since we can not make the playoffs,my opinion, then let the rookies play and learn. and find out who fits and who doesent. That would in all probability equal more losses and a better pick though.

[Drew_Fl]

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

i really think people are just desperate at this point. I firmly agree with NLC's post and also with the fact that none of the recent super bowl winners I can remember consistently picked around the top. In fact, only consistently terrible teams come to mind. Weird.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Man i knew yesterday when you created this thread the crap storm that would follow.lol At the time i expected it to be at least a 30 page debate. 2 very strong views on this.Maybe 3. Some want wins no matter what .They just wanna be happy after the game etc. Others hoping they lose all the games for the best pick available. And then, and i guess this is where i fall in, say that since we can not make the playoffs,my opinion, then let the rookies play and learn. and find out who fits and who doesent. That would in all probability equal more losses and a better pick though.

I've been advocating all the youth playing since day one in a down season (I never saw it being anything but that given our QB situation, and overall lack of top quality talent whilst integrating that youth); and wish Mike would go all out youth now. But he won't whilst it's still mathematically possible to make the post season.

When I created this ' **** storm" (very apt) I figured I'd get ripped by the homers, have a few frustrated in agreement, and that would be that. It's pleasantly surprised me some of the good debate and view points, even if I don't agree with some, it's brought around.

---------- Post added October-26th-2011 at 12:59 PM ----------

i really think people are just desperate at this point. I firmly agree with NLC's post and also with the fact that none of the recent super bowl winners I can remember consistently picked around the top. In fact, only consistently terrible teams come to mind. Weird.

So by association I presume you don't rate the top end of this class coming out too highly then? For me, specifically Luck, then Griffin, Jones and Tannehill; as there's a good chance 3 of those will go real high for me.

Hail.

[London Kev]

GHH: You make some good points, and your sincerity is obvious for all to see.

In a league where there is only one ultimate winner, and a system designed to ensure parity, where the worst picks first, you could argue that for 31 teams, the statement "Why it's best for our team to lose out the rest of the 2011 season" holds true.

With respect, what you, me, or any other fan actually wants to happen is irrelevant. We will finish the season in the position that we deserve to finish, and our draft picks will reflect that position.

Unfortunately, we are a mid-table team at the moment, and IMO are no more likely to lose all of the remaining 10 games than we are to win them all, so I am resigned to a mid-table finish, and mid-round draft picks. Lets just hope that Shanny can do something with them. HTTR.

[Conn]

i really think people are just desperate at this point. I firmly agree with NLC's post and also with the fact that none of the recent super bowl winners I can remember consistently picked around the top. In fact, only consistently terrible teams come to mind. Weird.

I can't speak for others here, but I don't want to consistently pick around the top. I want to get a QB there and be done with it, one time.