FAREWELL to the NFL Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, CrypticVillain said:

Good Morning to you too @stevemcqueen1 lol

 

That's a great point... Never thought about that. But, and believe me I'm not trying to change the topic at all, couldn't Giant fans use this same logic for Jones who will have very few, if any, players drafted?

 

That is actually part of the sell on him. No talent around him. 

[dballer]

1 hour ago, CrypticVillain said:

Good Morning to you too @stevemcqueen1 lol

 

That's a great point... Never thought about that. But, and believe me I'm not trying to change the topic at all, couldn't Giant fans use this same logic for Jones who will have very few, if any, players drafted?

 

Yeh, except on that side of the ACC he wasn’t facing tough competition either, and played in zero big games. The offensive talent around him was pretty comparable to the defensive talent he faced most Saturdays. 

 

[KDawg]

As far as starting/not starting Haskins...

 

I think everyone is over-complicating this...

 

If he's ready week one, meaning has a good grasp on the playbook, doesn't trip on himself in the huddle, and has earned enough respect: He starts.

 

If he doesn't have a good feel for the playbook, needs a few more weeks of learning, etc: He sits.

 

I don't think either way is bad.

[goskins10]

34 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

 

And that makes total sense, but again, just my spring fanassery talkin', the kid had a great year at Ohio State and then sits for a year+ before the next meaningful game action? I don't like that arc careerwise/ learningwise. Coming into the draft everyone, EVERYONE, including Guatemalan migrants and grandmas in Tanzania, had written this year off for the Skins, there was a scrum to see who could predict a worse record. Where is the downside? He's shown that he's smart, learns in the system, handles increasing game duties, why not see just  how well he does that? Yeah, I get it, this wouldn't just be another year against college competition, tough titty, you ****y? You bad? 'k, let's see it.................... As long as he doesn't end up on a cart, he'll get a lot more out of playing, even playing to a 6/10, then we would from watching guys play that don't have his skillset or do what he does. To me, the rationale behind sitting a rook for a year is to let him learn the system and get up to speed with adapting his game to what the coach wants. After watching him play, I feel like the burden is on Jay & Co. to build a gameplan around what he does well and running that.

 

For the sake of truth, justice and the American way, there is a very short halflife on my opinion here, I fully expect to have any ephemeral hopes dashed between now and August, and will make no effort to defend this post in months to come. Said it elsewhere, just don't want my buzz harshed................. yet

 

First, i totally get the argument for starting him. Let's get this thing going. We know Keenum, Colt, etc. is not the answer. Let's see what this kid can do. OTJ learning is the best! And I do not entirely disagree. 

 

Here is question for you - without looking it up, tell me which of these current NFL QBs started their first game in the NFL?  

Drew Brees

Tom Brady

Aaron Rogers

Philip Rivers

Eli Manning

Ben Rothlesberger

Jarod Goff

Patrick Mahomes

Kirk Cousins

 

[SWFLSkins]

 

[Art]

23 minutes ago, KDawg said:

As far as starting/not starting Haskins...

 

I think everyone is over-complicating this...

 

If he's ready week one, meaning has a good grasp on the playbook, doesn't trip on himself in the huddle, and has earned enough respect: He starts.

 

If he doesn't have a good feel for the playbook, needs a few more weeks of learning, etc: He sits.

 

I don't think either way is bad.

 

I don't think it's quite that simple though.   Haskins is a prospect with known negatives MOSTLY around his inexperience and around his inexperience picking up pressures and the like.   I've said even if he seems to walk on water in the preseason and appears to be the best player we've ever seen at the position while Keenum and Colt look like John Beck, you still won't start Haskins Week 1.   The primary reason for that is we're in Philly.   You don't throw a player with primary negatives being inexperience and pressure into a road game against a division opponent in their stadium and expect it not to be brutal.    You cater a young player's entry in a way that most lends itself to his success.

I COULD see him as early as the home opener against Dallas, if he's our best player in the preseason by far.   I can see no scenario barring Colt and Keenum both breaking legs in the final preseason game, where you throw him in against Philly at Philly.   And even then I suspect we'd bring Josh Johnson back and let him get eaten there.   I do think he'll get in during the year depending on general health of the offensive line.   I'm thinking more the Lions later in the year or perhaps as early as the Niners.   I do tend to agree he will get benefit playing some this year unless playing him is likely to set him back because the players around him can't keep him safe :).

[dballer]

14 minutes ago, Art said:

I don't think it's quite that simple though.   Haskins is a prospect with known negatives MOSTLY around his inexperience and around his inexperience picking up pressures and the like.   I've said even if he seems to walk on water in the preseason and appears to be the best player we've ever seen at the position while Keenum and Colt look like John Beck, you still won't start Haskins Week 1.   The primary reason for that is we're in Philly.   You don't throw a player with primary negatives being inexperience and pressure into a road game against a division opponent in their stadium and expect it not to be brutal.    You cater a young player's entry in a way that most lends itself to his success.

I COULD see him as early as the home opener against Dallas, if he's our best player in the preseason by far.   I can see no scenario barring Colt and Keenum both breaking legs in the final preseason game, where you throw him in against Philly at Philly.   And even then I suspect we'd bring Josh Johnson back and let him get eaten there.   I do think he'll get in during the year depending on general health of the offensive line.   I'm thinking more the Lions later in the year or perhaps as early as the Niners.   I do tend to agree he will get benefit playing some this year unless playing him is likely to set him back because the players around him can't keep him safe :).

 

Lol I am disagreeing with you on this in two threads 🤣. I definitely respect your opinion though!

 

But yeh, I don't think being @Philly matters. Whatever game it is, there's pros on the other side. And, at least we would be starting the year with everyone healthy. I would rather have him starting game 1 with a healthy O Line and WRs, then game 6 when our team is banged up. And we have performed better on the road lately (see Josh Norman 2018 comments). 

 

I think if he is even the slightly better QB he will start. The game plan will be heavy run and field position. I think what is being missed in all of this, is what the game plan next year will be. They are going to try to run it, punt it, and play defense. Regardless of the QB. I think they think that is the best chance to win. And if the D starts off the season like it did last year, they will be right. And having a guy that can chuck it down the field as the QB will help the run game. That will allow them to start Haskins without putting too much pressure on him. Similar to Dak for the Cowboys in 2016.

 

Heck, I am making such good points I have changed my own mind and I think Haskins WILL start 🤣😅.

 

[Llevron]

I do think timing is everything when it comes to starting the kid. Not just about when he is ready to start or when he is the best QB on the roster, but when timing is best. I would no **** manipulate his starting and our schedule to make him look like the hero. Get the fans and the team behind him and play some inspired football. Good for him and the team, I think. 

[KDawg]

29 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I do think timing is everything when it comes to starting the kid. Not just about when he is ready to start or when he is the best QB on the roster, but when timing is best. I would no **** manipulate his starting and our schedule to make him look like the hero. Get the fans and the team behind him and play some inspired football. Good for him and the team, I think. 

 

You know what's good for the team? Starting the best quarterback the entire season.

[Llevron]

4 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

You know what's good for the team? Starting the best quarterback the entire season.

 

I mean I dont disagree with you but what if the best quarterback isnt ready to start yet? I can very easily see a situation where he has all the tools and intangibles but still has things to learn. And lets not pretend that his growing pains will not be met with ire from the media and the fans in this city. Thats all im saying. Im not really disagreeing that we could start him day 1. Im just saying that if the Head Coach would was name Llevron yall wouldnt see him until I sure he was ready, not just the best guy we have. 

 

Im splitting a hair here just to make conversation, not to really disagree with you. 

 

edit: he can have the best arm and accuracy but still need time on the playbook, for instance. So you could put him out there cause hes the best. Or hold him 8 weeks and have him come out and dominate a game where he knows the entire book with a game plan tailored to the strengths you know he has from watching him for a few months. There are multiple ways to do this me thinks. 

[KDawg]

Just now, Llevron said:

I mean I dont disagree with you but what if the best quarterback isnt ready to start yet?

 

Then he's not the best quarterback at the time.

 

As I mentioned above, I'm not pro or anti starting day 1. I look at the quarterbacks we have, I play the best quarterback.

 

How I define best quarterback: Overall best packaged QB (grasp of playbook, physical play, fit to the roster at the time, respect of the locker room, etc.)

 

If Haskins is best, he should start.

 

If McCoy is best, he should start.

 

If Keenum is best, he should start.

 

And who the best is can change during the course of the season.

[goskins10]

@Llevron since you didn't want to answer 🙂  -  I will answer - none of them. Not a single one of the QBs listed below started the first game of their rookie year. I have filled in what game they started for reference. 

 

If he is ready, fine start him. But chances are he will not be ready. And that's no knock on him or the coaches. It's just part of being in the NFL. Now he does have an advantage in that at least IMO Keenum is much better than Colt, but like Haskins, this is his first season in the system. It will be interesting to see how they move forward. 

 

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

First, i totally get the argument for starting him. Let's get this thing going. We know Keenum, Colt, etc. is not the answer. Let's see what this kid can do. OTJ learning is the best! And I do not entirely disagree. 

 

Here is question for you - without looking it up, tell me which of these current NFL QBs started their first game in the NFL?  

Drew Brees - 17th

Tom Brady - 17th

Aaron Rogers - 43rd

Philip Rivers - 33rd

Eli Manning - 10th

Ben Rothlesberger - 3rd

Jarod Goff - 10th

Patrick Mahomes 17th

Kirk Cousins - 14th

 

[RandyHolt]

10 hours ago, clskinsfan said:

 

The problem with that is Murray could be a bust as well. Then you have just lost top ten talent in back to back years. Haskins at 15 is a steal IMO. If he busts. Big deal. Your hit rate at pick 15 in the NFL draft is only 53% anyways. And it is actually higher with QB's. You didnt mortgage the future to get the guy. But IF the opposite is true and Haskins becomes a top 15 QB in the league you have just struck gold and have the guy on the cheap for 5 seasons.

 

 

The problem with your angle is... Murray is a turn key instant offense QB that could lead them to the playoffs.  He will likely only bust if their OC is a stiff.

 

I don't see how you can scoff at the idea that Haskins busting is no big deal, but Murray busting is.  What's the difference really, as neither team made the playoffs and spent their top pick on a QB.  There was no mortgaging the future for neither them, or us.  It's one pick trying to solve decades of QB woes.  What do we have to show by not tanking last year, like Arizona? A ****tier draft position and.... ?  They got the top pick, and a 2nd rounder by aggressively trying to solve their QB woes.

 

The key to the Arizona model?  Sell before a QB busts. Just like they did with Rosen.  If after a year there are QB struggles that are only seen internally, say grasping the playbook, not doing the things asked, the rest of the dumb GMs don't know his.  Sell Mortimer, sell!

 

This is not a proven QB draft/developing model I am profiling. In fact, it's new and radical. I kind of like it, since GMs/Coaches are struggling with their old school approach to drafting a QB every 4 years, or whatever the hell we have been averaging. We have barely been trying to solve our QB woes, drafting  just 6 QBs in 20 years, and the 2 best in the same year?  Whats the point of Amerson, Trent murphy, Doctson, devin Thomas, Kevin Barnes, Jarvis Jenkins, Josh LeRib etc, if we don't even try to draft a QB but twice a decade?

 

The real problem with the Arizona model is that their coach may have been an old school stiff that refused to cater to Rosen to get him into a place to succeed. Sold on Rosen, too soon. 

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, goskins10 said:

@Llevron since you didn't want to answer 🙂  -  I will answer - none of them.

 

Its not that I didn't want to answer, I just didn't think you were talking to me lol. But I don't disagree with you on any of your points in that post. Im not rushing to start the kid anyway im totally ok with him not starting for a year honestly. 

[dballer]

3 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

@Llevron since you didn't want to answer 🙂  -  I will answer - none of them. Not a single one of the QBs listed below started the first game of their rookie year. I have filled in what game they started for reference. 

 

If he is ready, fine start him. But chances are he will not be ready. And that's no knock on him or the coaches. It's just part of being in the NFL. Now he does have an advantage in that at least IMO Keenum is much better than Colt, but like Haskins, this is his first season in the system. It will be interesting to see how they move forward. 

 

 

Russell Wilson, Andrew Luck, Cam Newton, Andy Dalton, Dak, Wentz, Marriota, Derek Carr, Newton, Stafford, Flacco, Matt Ryan, Winston...1st game starters.

 

All of these guys have varying success, but I don't think any of them benefited negatively from starting day 1. And not all of them started on good teams. It is possible that your list above could be described as a list of coaches making a mistake on the initial decision not to start the QBs that took over. I wouldn't make that argument, but you could. For example, Rivers, without a doubt, could have started day 1, but of course there was reason not to. 

 

I definitely don't buy into the "sit him 1st year no matter what". I think a couple of dynamics will play out...this staff is definitely in a win now state of mind...And Haskins only starting one year, how ready can he get. I definitely think the staff will go into with an open mind and have a true competition. 

 

 

 

 

[RandyHolt]

What do these QBs have in common?

Luck

Wilson

Dalton

Flacco

Ryan

Big Ben

Mayfield

RG3

 

None were injury replacements.

 

I'd would wager that most of the young future stud QBs that didn't get to start early in their careers, had OCs that were old school stiffs, that were born and raised in an era were NO young QBs were catered to out of common practice in the league during their era. Those same players and teams may well have lost out on a year of service from the best player on the roster, and with the most draft capital spent on them.

[clskinsfan]

3 hours ago, KDawg said:

 

Who?

 

I like Tua. But he has a few major weak spots in his game that will likely be corrected. He has a bright future if he continues his uptrend. But beyond Tua, I don't see a lot. Herbert is a guy I'm totally unsold on. Who's #3? Fromm? A guy who could prove capable but hasn't really gotten the job done at the collegiate level in an elite SEC program, and not just because Alabama is road blocking him.

 

Good post. And lets not forget if Haskins stayed in school and posted the same or better numbers than he did this season he most likely would have been taken ahead of some of those guys in next years draft.

[Llevron]

9 minutes ago, dballer said:

I definitely don't buy into the "sit him 1st year no matter what". I think a couple of dynamics will play out...this staff is definitely in a win now state of mind...And Haskins only starting one year, how ready can he get. I definitely think the staff will go into with an open mind and have a true competition. 

 

 Thats what they said. And as good as he is it would only help all of them to see them compete. 

 

I do wonder how much O'Connell will be able to merge what he did well in school with what we do well here. I think thats probably the biggest factor besides Haskins himself. It will be interesting to watch. 

[JaxJoe]

1 hour ago, Art said:

 You don't throw a player with primary negatives being inexperience and pressure into a road game against a division opponent in their stadium and expect it not to be brutal. 

All good points and I’m not in disagreement, but keep in mind that in 2017, thats exactly what happened to Haskins when he subbed for Bartlett at Michigan on a windy November day and led OSU from behind for the victory. Haskins, who at the time had never started a game, never got the prep and reps the starter got the week prior. The crowd was in a frenzy, there were two false starts due to crowd noise. One of OL got rolled up and had to leave the field. Nothing was going right except a holding call on a receiver gave OSU a 1st down. It’s 3rd and 13 at one point and Haskins delivers a perfect pass in a very tight window. 1st down. Later, under massive pocket pressure, Haskins uses his feet to slip out of a defender’s grasp and scamper for 21 yards to the two yard line. Soon, the RB takes it into the end zone. Haskins entry starts around 1:50. Enjoy. 

 

 

[Stadium-Armory]

Appearing "ready" during camp, and actually being ready to perform under live fire on Sunday are two different things. Best case scenario (i.e. he looks ready), I'd still like to see Case start a few games so that Haskins can get acclimated to the pro game day process. Get comfortable with the travel regimen, game prep and everything else that goes in to Sunday. So that when he gets in a game, all he has to think about is what happen on the field and nothing else.

[clskinsfan]

2 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

As for the "tough games " thing, for me that has nothing to do with it. You start him when you think it will help the team the most. Game 1, game 6, game whatever. It has nothing to do with the competition. If he is good he will have to play them eventually. The question is how ready is he?

 

I can only speak for myself but I would like them to sit him the entire year. My reasoning is that he has just one year starting experience. Letting him sit and see how it's done in the NFL for a season will get him better prepared and should provide long term benefits. He will not have the pressure of preparing and taking 1st team snaps. He can play scout team and get a lot of snaps against our D in practice and then have an entire off season to digest the offense and become the long term starter. 

 

I doubt that will happen. Bruce has already been strutting around crowing about his new toy, which means Dan is likely doing the same thing. It's unlikely Jay and the coaches can provide reason enough to sit him. Dan needs the attendance boost. 

 

Now, I do not think they drafted him specifically for that. They were clearly ready to take someone else at 15 since they did not trade up. But as someone else said, when you have a new shiny toy it's hard to put it on the shelf. 

 

 

 

Oh. You better believe this has a lot to do with it. In the end the NFL is a business. And Dan's business is suffering right now. They NEEDED to find someone to market. The irony of all of it is IF Haskins busts it goes right back to Sundays with 50% opposing fans in the stands. I think we stole Haskins where we picked him. And in general the front office has been very good the past couple of seasons. Once Haskins gets into camp and shows just how much better he is than the rest of the garbage QB's on the roster there will be no way they can sit him IMO. But make no mistake. Dan Snyder had to have a shiny new toy to push to the fans.

[goskins10]

1 minute ago, dballer said:

 

Russell Wilson, Andrew Luck, Cam Newton, Andy Dalton, Dak, Wentz, Marriota, Derek Carr, Newton, Stafford, Flacco, Matt Ryan, Winston...1st game starters.

 

All of these guys have varying success, but I don't think any of them benefited negatively from starting day 1. And not all of them started on good teams. It is possible that your list above could be described as a list of coaches making a mistake on the initial decision not to start the QBs that took over. I wouldn't make that argument, but you could. For example, Rivers, without a doubt, could have started day 1, but of course there was reason not to. 

 

I definitely don't buy into the "sit him 1st year no matter what". I think a couple of dynamics will play out...this staff is definitely in a win now state of mind...And Haskins only starting one year, how ready can he get. I definitely think the staff will go into with an open mind and have a true competition. 

 

 

 

 

 

I knew someone would go here. I almost stated in big letters 80 font  - Do not list the QBs that started day 1 and did OK. I am not saying that QBs have to sit to be successful. That would not make any sense. 

 

BTW: You listed Newton twice - there is no prize for volume... 🙂 Totally kidding. I am the worst at typos - I look back sometimes and wonder how people even get my meaning it's so bad until I fix it. 

 

But since it's here, let's talk though this just a little. First, I would take the first list over the second list every day. There are zero lock HOF QBs on the list of day 1 starters - vs 3 absolute locks in Brees, Brady, and Rogers on the other list. Big Ben is almost a lock. His off the field might hurt him. But he has to be close to a lock. Eli is on the bubble. I look at the second list and I am not sure I even see a bubble player for the HOF. In fairness several have chances depending on what they do from here and they have enough years to build the resume. Wilson and Flacco are probably closest. Luck could get there if he stays healthy and can win a SB or two. The rest? Doubtful but you never know. 

 

But more to your question, couldn't make the argument that the QBs that started day one made it through but could be even better had they waited? That the team in their urgency started them sooner than they should have? 

 

Again, the point of the list was NOT to say only good QBs come from sitting on the bench. Was never my intent nor did I even make that comment. In fact I said if he is ready, start him. My point was quite of a few of the very best QBs did not start their first game as a pro. In fact many of the very best playing right now did not start their first game. So sitting did not hurt their career at all. 

 

One part of this is also about circumstance. Rogers was beind Farve. Brady behind Bledsoe. Brees behind Flutie. So the real issue is how desperate the team is. Those three had very good QBs in front of them - Flutie was weakest. So when they start is more likely dependent on team need than if the player is ready or not...  🤪 

[Redskins Reparations]

2 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

Why would he be a hold out? Since the rookie wage scale, this is becoming very rare, especially for 1st rd picks. There are very few things to even discuss. The major parts of the contracts are:

 

Guaranteed Money - 1st rd picks are typically all fully guaranteed

Signing Bonus - There can be some discussion here but it's easily negotiated since they have a finite amount of money to work with. 

Offsets (allows teams to recover lost wages if the player is released before 4 yrs and signs elsewhere) - this was a concern when the rookie wage scale came out but it has become non-negotiable. The issue is players would getting paid by two teams without the offsets. Agents tried to get that language removed but teams have stood firm. If there is anything that may cause him to sit out, this would be it. But if so, he is an idiot or/and he has a bad agent. 

Splits - Contract language that allows players to be paid less if they his PUP or IR. This is not an issue for 1st and 2nd rd players. It's being pushed further down to 3rd - which is why the last few years 3rd picks are the last to sign - See Geron Christian last year. He was the last Redskins player to signed. The other ones signed pretty quickly. 

 

There are of course other much smaller parts of the contracts - well beyond my knowledge as I am not an attorney nor do I play one on TV. Just a casual fan with an odd fascination with the NFL contracts.  

 

Where is it being suggested he would hold out and for what? I would be interested to see what the concerns are. 

 

I will say this, if he does find a reason to hold out, it will be a bigger red flag than all the trumped up things people have brought up about him so far. But I just do not see anything that keeps him from being at OTAs and Camp. I believe OTAs for the Redskins start may 20th. 

 

Maybe I should have posted the holdout comment in the random thought thread?  I am certainly not trying to spread negative vibes directed towards Haskins because I am truly excited to see what he is capable of in Jay Grudens offense but for some odd reason I keep thinking of drafting Heath Shuler and the effects his holdout had on his career.  You have put my mind at ease regarding rookie contracts and for that I am grateful.  Hail!    

[clskinsfan]

36 minutes ago, RandyHolt said:

The problem with your angle is... Murray is a turn key instant offense QB that could lead them to the playoffs.  He will likely only bust if their OC is a stiff.

 

I don't see how you can scoff at the idea that Haskins busting is no big deal, but Murray busting is.  What's the difference really, as neither team made the playoffs and spent their top pick on a QB.  There was no mortgaging the future for neither them, or us.  It's one pick trying to solve decades of QB woes.  What do we have to show by not tanking last year, like Arizona? A ****tier draft position and.... ?  They got the top pick, and a 2nd rounder by aggressively trying to solve their QB woes.

 

The key to the Arizona model?  Sell before a QB busts. Just like they did with Rosen.  If after a year there are QB struggles that are only seen internally, say grasping the playbook, not doing the things asked, the rest of the dumb GMs don't know his.  Sell Mortimer, sell!

 

This is not a proven QB draft/developing model I am profiling. In fact, it's new and radical. I kind of like it, since GMs/Coaches are struggling with their old school approach to drafting a QB every 4 years, or whatever the hell we have been averaging. We have barely been trying to solve our QB woes, drafting  just 6 QBs in 20 years, and the 2 best in the same year?  Whats the point of Amerson, Trent murphy, Doctson, devin Thomas, Kevin Barnes, Jarvis Jenkins, Josh LeRib etc, if we don't even try to draft a QB but twice a decade?

 

The real problem with the Arizona model is that their coach may have been an old school stiff that refused to cater to Rosen to get him into a place to succeed. Sold on Rosen, too soon. 

 

The difference is the hit rate with top ten picks as opposed to anyone chosen outside of the top ten. Top 5 picks have a hit rate of 78% that they will be at least a long term productive starter. Pick 15 has a 53% hit rate. If Arizona had kept Rosen and drafted Bosa or Williams instead would they be a better football team? That remains to be seen. But what Arizona did is waste a top ten pick last year, a pick that has a very high hit rate, to draft another QB the next year. It is a horrible strategy IMO.

[KDawg]

8 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I knew someone would go here. I almost stated in big letters 80 font  - Do not list the QBs that started day 1 and did OK. I am not saying that QBs have to sit to be successful. That would not make any sense. 

 

 

But since it's here, let's talk though this just a little. First, I would take the first list over the second list every day. There are zero lock HOF QBs on the list of day 1 starters - vs 3 absolute locks in Brees, Brady, and Rogers on the other list. Big Ben is almost a lock. His off the field might hurt him. But he has to be close to a lock. Eli is on the bubble. I look at the second list and I am not sure I even see a bubble player for the HOF. In fairness several have chances depending on what they do from here and they have enough years to build the resume. Wilson and Flacco are probably closest. Luck could get there if he stays healthy and can win a SB or two. The rest? Doubtful but you never know. 

 

 

Brees, Brady and Rodgers have been playing longer than anyone else on the list. Same for Ben. Same for Eli.

 

But, to counter your point:

 

Aikman, Elway (played in his first game, didnt necessarily start it), Kelly, Moon, Bradshaw (played in first game).

 

I don't think it matters one way or the other. The situation just has to be right. And luck will always play into that decision.