deejaydana Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 If anything, ask why the Redskins felt the need to win two worthless games down the stretch to fall to the 6th pick, which required us to trade all the way back up? because the biggest myth is fans thinking that players and coaches actually plan to tank games. too many jobs and $$$ on the line for that to happen in the NFL. it's just an urban legend that fan boys hold on to.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesMadisonSkins Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 because the biggest myth is fans thinking that players and coaches actually plan to tank games. too many jobs and $$$ on the line for that to happen in the NFL. it's just an urban legend that fan boys hold on to.... Well, yeah. I'm not saying we should have lost out. Just saying, the Skins are just cursed ... had a legitimate shot at the #1 pick that year and "squandered" it away with a couple meaningless wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Well, yeah. I'm not saying we should have lost out. Just saying, the Skins are just cursed ... had a legitimate shot at the #1 pick that year and "squandered" it away with a couple meaningless wins. I think we find ourselves in an equally daunting place now. The Jags and Raiders just took QBs so most likely they don't take one again. We are not tracking to pick up many more wins and there are 3 legit first round QBs in this draft (Mariotta, that idiot from FSU and the UCLA guy). Do we take another QB? It would make the franchise look really foolish...but ain't that just what we do? Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 because the biggest myth is fans thinking that players and coaches actually plan to tank games. too many jobs and $$$ on the line for that to happen in the NFL. it's just an urban legend that fan boys hold on to.... No coach will "tank a game" or a season after training camp In order to truly tank a season you have to make those personnel and schematic decisions in March/April/May and put forth a young team with minimal high end talent and a scheme that may not properly put them in position to win. It was pretty clear the Colts had no plan in 2011 except to lose once Peyton Manning was injured. And to their credit they did a damn good job of executing that plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BatteredFanSyndrome Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 I don't think Luck would have been as pitiful here as Griffin has proven to be, but I highly doubt he'd have anywhere near the success he's having with the Colts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 I don't think Luck would have been as pitiful here as Griffin has proven to be, but I highly doubt he'd have anywhere near the success he's having with the Colts. I think lots of the "celebrity QB" issues would have gone away with Luck. I also think he really would have clicked well with the Shanahans and the system they wanted to run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 As i recall the feeling was that both of them were can't miss prospects, with Luck being more 'can't miss' due to his pro-style of play and pocket QB ncaa career. I believe the thinking was it didn't matter which one the Colts took, we wanted the other guy just as much. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 I think we find ourselves in an equally daunting place now. The Jags and Raiders just took QBs so most likely they don't take one again. We are not tracking to pick up many more wins and there are 3 legit first round QBs in this draft (Mariotta, that idiot from FSU and the UCLA guy). Do we take another QB? It would make the franchise look really foolish...but ain't that just what we do? Ugh. Hundley is not a first round pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowhunter Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Because Luck was goofy looking. It's hard to sell jerseys of goofy looking people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsWizCubsDukes Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 We had a great year in 2012 but let's face it we squeaked in the playoffs that year. Tannehill, Foles, Wilson, and Cousins were all acquired after RG3 and have thus far been arguably better, especially since 2013. Think of where the team had been had we not made this trade, we would have had multiple top 5 picks along with one of these other guys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick_sanchize Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 this thread reminds me of the Peyton/Ryan leaf debate,but I believe RG3 will do good once they improve the overall team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Luck would be perfectly successful here. Defenses would actually account for the pass and not stack the box every play. That with his ability to play the QB position (decision making, quick reads) would then result in the oline looking just fine as it appears with Kirk/Colt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 As i recall the feeling was that both of them were can't miss prospects, with Luck being more 'can't miss' due to his pro-style of play and pocket QB ncaa career. I believe the thinking was it didn't matter which one the Colts took, we wanted the other guy just as much. ~Bang ^ This exactly. Also, someone pointed out Luck's record vs teams with winning records is awful compared to teams with losing records. Could have been selective stay picking because I don't really care that much. Found it interesting though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balki1867 Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 No coach will "tank a game" or a season after training camp In order to truly tank a season you have to make those personnel and schematic decisions in March/April/May and put forth a young team with minimal high end talent and a scheme that may not properly put them in position to win. It was pretty clear the Colts had no plan in 2011 except to lose once Peyton Manning was injured. And to their credit they did a damn good job of executing that plan. This. I'd say only ~30% of players in the NFL can confidently say they'll be on a roster next season. The only way to tank a season would be to have the general manager put together a completely inferior roster, which needs to be planned well in advance. There's no way the guys on the team aren't working their hardest to succeed. Most of them have no idea if they'll have an NFL paycheck next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Acre Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 They wanted Luck, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Hundley is not a first round pick Hundley is likely not coming out this year, he may still be a first rounder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capsman Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 The Colts tanked to get Luck. They weren't going to deal away what they worked so hard to get. Yup, they completely tanked a la San Antonio to get Duncan. Sickening yet brilliant how they go from one great one to the next by being disgustingly bad. That is why I in no way want to win more games for pride or anything this season. It will not "give confidence for next season", nor will it "show us what we have in Cousins and McCoy. Keep Robert in there, and he either improves and we have hope or he stinks and we get a high draft pick. Don't care what the other players think, they can play hard from their end. With that high draft pick we pillage some team that really wants Winston or Mariota. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesMadisonSkins Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Our RGIII trade will prevent us from "pillaging" anything from anyone. Lesson learned on going crazy to get a franchise QB, particularly in a year where there aren't any Andrew Lucks. And if there were, we'd be targeting them ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooleyfan1993 Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 is this seriously a question? like...actually? you ACTUALLY think the colts would have let us have the first pick of the draft in exchange for 3 first round picks just so we could get the guy THEY wanted? woooowwwww. what is logic lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boobiemiles Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 is this seriously a question? like...actually? you ACTUALLY think the colts would have let us have the first pick of the draft in exchange for 3 first round picks just so we could get the guy THEY wanted? woooowwwww. what is logic lol Not what I am saying. Look at the time line. The Colts cut Peyton in March, Peyton signs with the Broncos March 20th, the draft is April 6. In that time the Skins could have talked to the Colts before the combine. We could have spoke to the Colts and package drafts picks, giving the Colts the option to either cut of keep Peyton. That would give the Colts the ability to evaluate what Peyton had left. They could have taken our picks and build a stronger team around him. That would in my opinion give them a better chance at winning the SB within the last 3 years. Let's be honest Luck's division sucks. Peyton would have carved it up like he does in Denver. You would give the Colts three first round picks. Use your logic...in 2012 alone they could have drafted RG3, or even Russel Wilson. What I am saying is the Colts were a good team before Peyton went down. They could have been in the SB that last few years. We would have our franchise QB, and them a few SB appearances. They only wanted Luck because they thought Peyton was washed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 We could have offered five 1sts and they wouldn't have taken it. Hindsight being 20/20 we should have stayed pat, drafted Tannehill, and used our other picks to shore up the lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Would it really have mattered. Why do I have the feeling that if we had somehow had drafted Luck we'd be in the same conversations about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hammer Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I have a hard time believing that. Especially with the way scouts and kiper and mcshay were touting him as being the best quarterback they've ever scouted. Luck was a pipedream, i think everyone knew he was a colt. Essentially yes. There's no way The Colts were passing on Luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 The colts werent going to trade. I was against the trade at the get go...BECAUSE...there was another option.... See -Its OUR fault this happened. We were all screaming about our owner, and how he plays fantasy football, and how the Redskins Org keeps signing has beens...so....Danny made a trade. To get RG3. The other option was Payton Manning. We were in the running, and he wanted to face his brother twice a year. I use to argue the RG3 was hit or miss -But Payton Manning was probably fully healed and wouldn't cost us draft pics and would give us 3 or 4 great years. In 2012 I told someone "I guess I was wrong". Now "I guess I was right" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILikeBilly Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Some of you all must seriously be kidding yourselves if you still can't acknowledge that Luck is a far better QB than RG3. All the criticisms that were there before that draft still stand today. Luck may have his struggles but good God, the guy is going to be delivering the goods for the Colts for at least the next 10 years.Where will RG3 be in that time? Maybe a bench player for another team? I see people citing his (Luck's) weak division and our weak O-line as reasons for him not really being any better than RG3. You must watch different games on a different planet than I do. Just admit that Luck will (most likely) always be the superior talent. (I'll still keep the fingers crossed that RG3 can very rapidly develop but it's not looking too promising lately). This is just a guess, but if Robert is still playing in 7 years, I would bet $100 that he has at least 1 SB victory and more SBs that Luck. Of course, with his injury history, 7 years is unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.