Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Yesterday's loss set us ahead five years!


Burgold

Recommended Posts

Sorry, couldn't resist... but for all you draftniks crying in your beers because of last week's win almost all the teams you wanted to win won yesterday... including the Jets (garrumph)

but while you've been celebrating losses, I've been thinking about the options game and how many No. 1 overall qbs led their teams to glory and there just aren't that many. Here's the list in the most modern era:

Sam Bradford

QB

2009

Matthew Stafford

QB

Georgia

Detroit Lions

2007

JaMarcus Russell

QB

LSU

2005

Alex Smith

QB

Utah

San Francisco 49ers

2004

Eli Manning

QB

Mississippi

San Diego Chargers

2003

Carson Palmer

QB

Southern Cal.

Cincinnati Bengals

2002

David Carr

QB

Fresno State

Houston Texans

2001

Michael Vick

QB

Virginia Tech

Atlanta Falcons

1999

Tim Couch

QB

Kentucky

Cleveland Browns

1998

Peyton Manning

QB

Tennessee

Indianapolis Colts

You have to go back seven years to find a Superbowl winner amongst them (and that was Eli who hasn't turned out to be exactly a world beater) and then almost seven more years before that to find another. Now, there were some good qbs in that list... Mike Vick, Carson Palmer and both Bradford and Stafford luck good at the moment, but also some huge busts... Tim Couch, David Carr, Jemarcus Russell.

And that's the number one sure fire can't miss qbs of the most recent era. So, while we all recognize the need to upgrade qb remember that draft slotting isn't the answer.

Last week's win didn't set us back five years and this week's loss isn't something that moved us light years ahead. What I'm saying is that when you think of the best qbs playing today, right now, how many were number one overall? How many were picked in the top five?

Nontheless, it is cool how the Redskins have learned to bend time and space and keep doing things each week that so directly impacts the distant future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread was totally necessary and could not be in any way encapsulated within at least a half-dozen other threads (most of which are combinations of other disparate threads).

And yes, we have a TON of people looking for the first overall. There are MOUNTAINS of people talking about trading up for Luck. Yep.

Oh, wait, nope.

And your cherry-picking is terrible. Let's go back and look at all 45 Super Bowls and tell me how many weren't won by a top-five-pick quarterback.

If you're going to rehash a point, then at least make it a good one, Burgold. You're better than this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cherry picking? I went back thirteen years and included every qb picked. That's a long, long time in football and hardly cherry picked. The logic of this thread is sound. Afterall, the arugument you guys are making is that you want to lose because it maximizes your options. Well, who has more options than the guy holding the number one overall pick.

The thread is a friendly tweak, but it is a sound and a reasonable ironic counterpoint to last week and every week's thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cherry picking? I went back thirteen years and included every qb picked. That's a long, long time in football and hardly cherry picked. The logic of this thread is sound. Afterall, the arugument you guys are making is that you want to lose because it maximizes your options. Well, who has more options than the guy holding the number one overall pick.

The thread is a friendly tweak, but it is a sound and a reasonable ironic counterpoint to last week and every week's thread.

Of course it's cherry-picked. You admit that you only went back thirteen years, so that eliminates about a quarter of all Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks (first-overall picks). You are also arguing against a non-existent point, because, again, nobody is trying to get the first overall pick. Griffin isn't being taken first overall, it's been set in stone to be Luck since this time LAST year, so the "who has more options than the guy holding the number one overall pick" point is moot.

This thread is a post that could've gone into the other thread that you're openly stating that it is trying to tweak.

The best players have a high tendency to be the first ones taken at their position. That's indisputable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your cherry-picking is terrible. Let's go back and look at all 45 Super Bowls and tell me how many weren't won by a top-five-pick quarterback.

I dont think that would be relevant to the point being made here. The point being made is not how successful a top draft pick can be, it's what the probability is you pick a successful one. There's no doubt, if you get lucky and pick a successful one, you'll go far. But the chances of that aren't fantastic.

---------- Post added December-5th-2011 at 06:51 AM ----------

Griffin isn't being taken first overall, it's been set in stone to be Luck since this time LAST year, so the "who has more options than the guy holding the number one overall pick" point is moot.

Nevermind. I get your point.

---------- Post added December-5th-2011 at 06:52 AM ----------

Griffin isn't being taken first overall, it's been set in stone to be Luck since this time LAST year, so the "who has more options than the guy holding the number one overall pick" point is moot.

Nevermind. I get your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NC,

You're reaching. In the past when I've gone back further people have complained that those players don't relate to the modern era because drafting has become so much better. I'm using the standards this board has set... analyzing the most modern era of football.

Plus, the question your asking is one sided. Your asking how many top 5 picks had success. You also need to look at the flip side and see how many top five or top ten were total flops, but you can't even handle the ratio of flops to successes looking at the surest of all picks... the Number one overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. Awesome thread, Burgold. I'd just like to add on that I hope to hell our talent scouting is as good as it was last year. Although injuries took away Jenkins and Hankerson, the top four picks from last year are freaking solid. So, more of that please, and let's also hope that that talent scouting leads us to a QB worth picking when we draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couch and Carr were expansion team picks. One could argue that every non expansion qb picked 1 overall has had their team in the playoffs and some in the conference championship game.

Except Russell, but that was a bad pick and everyone knew it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather win out, than get a high draft pick. A team on the rise would be more to build on, than a few draft spots.

I'd rather have curly blonde hair than be bald but it ain't gonna happen.

The maximum amount of points I could see us scoring in a game the rest of the way out is 17. That's a maximum. Patriots, Giants, and Eagles can all score points. Minnesota is the only team that we stand a chance against but if they can put up 30+ against the Broncos defense without Peterson,..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's cherry-picked. You admit that you only went back thirteen years, so that eliminates about a quarter of all Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks (first-overall picks). You are also arguing against a non-existent point, because, again, nobody is trying to get the first overall pick. Griffin isn't being taken first overall, it's been set in stone to be Luck since this time LAST year, so the "who has more options than the guy holding the number one overall pick" point is moot.

This thread is a post that could've gone into the other thread that you're openly stating that it is trying to tweak.

The best players have a high tendency to be the first ones taken at their position. That's indisputable.

Exactly what I was thinking when I first started reading the thread. Were not drafting #1 overall let alone the #1 overall QB. So shouldnt your examples be like Roethlisberger and Aaaron Rodgers?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly what I was thinking when I first started reading the thread. Were not drafting #1 overall let alone the #1 overall QB. So shouldnt your examples be like Roethlisberger and Aaaron Rodgers?

Nope, because you wouldn't need to lose out to draft tenth or 25th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this thread. People were freaking last week after the win, but we're in exactly the same position we were BEFORE we won the game last weekend (4th or 5th) after only ONE more week. Like I said, 5 weeks to go, teams are gonna win more games.

We're gonna finish top 10 and it's going to be good enough to get the guy we want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, because you wouldn't need to lose out to draft tenth or 25th.
Right but I was going more so on drafting the Second or third Qb in the draft not where they were drafted. Plus this year is different theres so many teams that need a qb its rediculous. I guarantee if this season was the season Eli, Rivers and Roethlisberger came out with all the teams that need QB's they all would be top 5 picks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right but I was going more so on drafting the Second or third Qb in the draft not where they were drafted. Plus this year is different theres so many teams that need a qb its rediculous. I guarantee if this season was the season Eli, Rivers and Roethlisberger came out with all the teams that need QB's they all would be top 5 picks.

Is that really so? So many teams drafted a qb in the first round last year. It seems like a pretty normal qb year as far as the hunger goes. I mean look at how many first rounders went... from Locker to Ponder to Gabbert to Newton... and then in the second round you had Dalton... Chances are that none of those teams will be going qb.

You may be right, but in the end I just don't have the heart (or I have too much heart) to ever root for losses... now, results like yesterdays don't hurt as much as in previous years, but I'd still rather have won.

---------- Post added December-5th-2011 at 09:36 AM ----------

It set us ahead 5 years? Its 2016! How many Super Bowls did we win?

Only four... Gano only hit 11 out of 12 field goals and we lost by two points! :tantrum:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that really so? So many teams drafted a qb in the first round last year. It seems like a pretty normal qb year as far as the hunger goes. I mean look at how many first rounders went... from Locker to Ponder to Gabbert to Newton... and then in the second round you had Dalton... Chances are that none of those teams will be going qb.

You may be right, but in the end I just don't have the heart (or I have too much heart) to ever root for losses... now, results like yesterdays don't hurt as much as in previous years, but I'd still rather have won.

---------- Post added December-5th-2011 at 09:36 AM ----------

Only four... Gano only hit 11 out of 12 field goals and we lost by two points! :tantrum:

You got me all wrong here. Im not condoning rooting for losses at all. I agree if we lose it doesnt hurt as bad but it still hurts. These last three games have made me feel better about the team even though were 1-2 in the 3 games. It really does look to me like a franchise QB will make our offense leaps and bounds better. And the fact that it's looking like Helu could be a star is great. And the defense is still solid and they never give up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And exactly how many posters are suggesting we need the top overall pick?

*crickets*

This just in, the Skins have stunk for a long time. Another news flash, winning games in 2011 does not help the team AT ALL. if it does, please enlighten me, because the difference between 4 wins and 8 wins means exactly what? Does the team gain some sort of MOMENTUM that I have yet to experience from year to year? Do those four wins represent some puric victory that has yet to come to fruition... Is 2012 the magical year where all this suffering magically ends because we've "tried hard" over the last decade to get it right?

Is it just our turn?

I can't wait for April so all this can end. I think I speak for most of the board here: Hopefully the Skins are in position to get a very good player (QB) who can help us WIN for the next decade.

Beating the Jets, or Seahawks in a season that ends with 4 wins or 8 wins means exactly what in the grand scheme of things.... Looking back I wish we would have tanked EVERY YEAR WE DIDNT MAKE THE PLAYOFFS. Draft picks > temporary emotions received from a Sunday victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as we leave the 1st round with Luck, Barkley or Griffin III I think most fans will be good with that. Unless you seriously upgrade at least 2/5 of the OL, you can't start Luck or Barkley right away (ex. Patrick Ramsey getting killed behind a poor OL).

It was weird being at the game and really wanting a win....then knowing we'd lose after that lame pooch kickoff....and not being upset by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...