Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

(2020) We clinched the NFC East didn't we?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LD0506 said:

I get that but at the same time we've all seen (and experienced) teams making megadeals to trade up for that can't miss superstar only to have it turn out later to be not so much.

 

Trading up though is a different debate.  I agree its risky to give up picks to trade up.  I agree with most of what you say in the post you just made.  Though none of that really refutes my argument if anything you back it up some by saying you'd rather draft higher everything being equal.   

 

I was debating the post that said that where you pick really doesn't matter if you have a good GM.   The point wasn't about about the current context of our team but just a general point.  I responded by saying it indeed does matter, it helps to pick higher.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, LD0506 said:

 

I am a very black n white, you play the team in front of you and take care of your own business and success will follow kinda guy. Would I love a higher pick? Uh, sure, hit me, but at what price? I see value in a young team learning and growing and fighting to win even when it means you slip in the draft order. I always think that tanking for a pick has other costs, you tell players "well maybe next year" and they can get comfortable with "Oh well, 85% is enough...." 

 

 

Agree.  I don't think tanking exists. Why would players want better players coming next season who might take their jobs or for that matter put bad film on tape that could cost them their jobs or future money?

 

1 hour ago, LD0506 said:

 

To me, the organization doing their jobs well and thereby finding value anywhere means more to me than any draft slot. Burrow is a helluva player but he's only one guy. Lawrence is gonna command a kings ransom but still, is just one guy.

 

 

A QB alone can't win.  But having a franchise QB makes it a lot easier or more on point its hard to win with mediocre QB play.

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

So if we got Kyle Smith, and lets say for argument sake he's a top evaulator (which I believe he is) it makes no difference if he's picking Trevor Lawrence at the top or lets say he's picking 15 and deciding between Trey Lance and Mac Jones or whatever permutation.  We got Kyle Smith and he will end up with the better player regardless?

 

If you have all the things I mentioned, you build a strong team with a healthy, winning culture and when/if you identify a QB you think fits perfectly you go get him. Usually that happens when you're picking outside of the top 10. But you never sacrifice the stuff in bold for a higher draft spot. Ever. Can't think of a successful franchise that has needed to. If Smith is indeed good, we will find our Mahomes/Brees/Rodgers/Big Ben/Brady/Warner and will get him. For a fan base that was incredibly high on starting and keeping Cousins over RG3, we sure do fear having to actually find a franchise QB instead of being handed one. Being awarded a top 5 pick should be a consolation prize, not a goal.

 

 

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

Its all about increasing odds and the odds are better the higher you pick. If you're looking for guarantees you're in the wrong line of business.

 

The odds are better the more talented your scouting, GM, and coaching staff are. Work on that, work on the overall team, I guarantee you'll find what you're looking for in the draft each and every year.

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

If you have all the things I mentioned, you build a strong team with a healthy, winning culture and when/if you identify a QB you think fits perfectly you go get him. Usually that happens when you're picking outside of the top 10. But you never sacrifice the stuff in bold for a higher draft spot. Ever. Can't think of a successful franchise that has needed to. If Smith is indeed good, we will find our Mahomes/Brees/Rodgers/Big Ben/Brady/Warner and will get him. For a fan base that was incredibly high on starting and keeping Cousins over RG3, we sure do fear having to actually find a franchise QB instead of being handed one. Being awarded a top 5 pick should be a consolation prize, not a goal.

 

This all seems to be making a different point now at least in terms of how I took your original one.  

 

Is your point?

 

A.  A team can reach their draft goal including by trading up in the draft without having that high pick from the jump

 

B.  It doesn't matter how high your pick is in the draft because a good GM can find a similar caliber player regardless of where they pick?

 

Your point seemed to hover strongly around point B not A.   Point A is different discussion and even conflicts some with B.  But, if its point A I agree with most albeit not all of your post.  Yeah you can trade up or try to like the Chiefs and others did.  It's not ideal becuase it stinks to give up draft capital and if you get it wrong (and yes smart GMs can get it wrong, too) you pay a steeper price but if you get it right then you hit the jackpot. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

This all seems to be making a different point now at least in terms of how I took your original one.  

 

Is your point?

 

A.  A team can reach their draft goal including by trading up in the draft without having that high pick from the jump

 

B.  It doesn't matter how high your pick is in the draft because a good GM can find a similar caliber player regardless of where they pick?

 

 

 

 

Both. Because both are always possibilities. Packers sat where they were and picked Rodgers. Seahawks waited until the 3rd round with Wilson. Chiefs traded up to #10 and got Mahomes. Rams pulled Warner off his couch. Etc, Etc, on and on and on...none of them were hampered from finding their franchise QB.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

Both. Because both are always possibilities. Packers sat where they were and picked Rodgers. Seahawks waited until the 3rd round with Wilson. Chiefs traded up to #10 and got Mahomes. Rams pulled Warner off his couch. Etc, Etc, on and on and on...none of them were hampered from finding their franchise QB.

 

Possibilities?   I am talking about odds.   When you hear personnel guys interviewed they often talk about the odds.

 

It's possible that we can get our next stud MLB as an undrafted FA let alone needing a first round.  Ala London Fletcher and Pierce were undrafted FAs. 

 

It's possible that we already have the next Tom Brady in Kyle Allen.

 

I can play the lotto today and win 10 million dollars.

 

It's all possible.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nonsensical to think better draft position doesn't improve the odds of finding better players.

 

Also, as always happens in these debates, the Win-no-matter-what crowd is mischaracterizing the position of the Draft Pick Watchers.

 

Nobody is saying we want to go 0-16. Guess what, I want to beat the Steelers today. I understand the value in building a winning culture.

 

But I'd rather be in the division race until Week 17, end up losing out and picking in the top 10 rather than immediately losing Wild Card Weekend and picking #19.

 

Looking back, are you pissed we lost to the Giants last year and drafted Chase Young? Would you change the result if you could? I wouldn't.   

Edited by CapsSkins
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

It's nonsensical to think better draft position doesn't improve the odds of finding better players.

 

 

Agree and its proven.  The same examples get thrown year after year especially at QB because they are unusual and in turn memorable.  you aren't getting another Tom Brady in the 6th round every year or a Russell Wilson in the third.  They are the unicorns.  The exceptions are not the rule.

 

I get the philosophy of banking against the odds or just discarding the odds by thinking about the times the odds were beat.  it's that mindset that made Las Vegas what it is today.  They need people to believe that its no problem beating the house.  240 players beat 10 players of course.   It's a much bigger pool.  But the percentage of success for the higher drafted players is higher and the further down in the draft you go the bigger the discrepancy there is between high to low on that front. 

 

In the draft, its no where as extreme as Vegas as for placing bets.  There are things that are proven.  The higher you pick the better.  The more draft picks you have the better chance you got.   Yeah there are no guarantees but if you continue to play the odds smartly you are more likely albeit not guaranteed to win.

 

25 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

 

Also, as always happens in these debates, the Win-no-matter-what crowd is mischaracterizing the position of the Draft Pick Watchers.

 

Nobody is saying we want to go 0-16. Guess what, I want to beat the Steelers today. I understand the value in building a winning culture.

 

Same here.  I want to win.  My position on drafting/winning is pretty simple.  I don't care for random wins in a losing season.  If I can go 6-10 or 5-11 and miss the playoffs, i'd rather go 5-11.   if we can make the playoffs then go do it.   If they miss the playoffs but look good doing it and they get a better pick for it, that's cool.

 

And I got no problem with anyone who feels differently -- my only issue with some of the detractors on the point is at times being judged for feeling the way I do.  IMO we as fans can rock to whatever floats our boats.  There is no wrong or right answer.

 

I like this roster.  I actually am confident enough in it that I do think we'd benefit greatly from adding a stud player especially if its a QB.  I think we could be really good.  And the fact that the Seahawks found Wilson in the 3rd round 8 years ago doesn't change my mind that everything being equal I want one of these top 3 QBs in the 2021 draft. 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Agree and its proven.  The same examples get thrown year after year especially at QB because they are unusual and in turn memorable.  you aren't getting another Tom Brady in the 6th round every year or a Russell Wilson in the third.  They are the unicorns.  The exceptions are not the rule.

 

I get the philosophy of banking against the odds or just discarding the odds by thinking about the times the odds were beat.  it's that mindset that made Las Vegas what it is today.  They need people to believe that its no problem beating the house.  240 players beat 10 players of course.   It's a much bigger pool.  But the percentage of success for the higher drafted players is higher and the further down in the draft you go the bigger the discrepancy there is between high to low on that front. 

 

In the draft, its no where as extreme as Vegas as for placing bets.  There are things that are proven.  The higher you pick the better.  The more draft picks you have the better chance you got.   Yeah there are no guarantees but if you continue to play the odds smartly you are more likely albeit not guaranteed to win.

 

 

Same here.  I want to win.  My position on drafting/winning is pretty simple.  I don't care for random wins in a losing season.  If I can go 6-10 or 5-11 and miss the playoffs, i'd rather go 5-11.   if we can make the playoffs then go do it.   If they miss the playoffs but look good doing it and they get a better pick for it, that's cool.

 

And I got no problem with anyone who feels differently -- my only issue with some of them is being judged for feeling the way I do.  IMO people as fans can rock to whatever floats their boats.  There is no wrong or right answer.

 

I like this roster.  I actually am confident enough in it that I do think we'd benefit greatly from adding a stud player especially if its a QB.  I think we couild be really good.  And the fact that the Seahawks found Wilson in the 3rd round 8 years ago doesn't change my mind that everything being equal I want one of these top 3 QBs in the 2021 draft. 

 

 

Agreed. We get a franchise QB, another weapon or two on O, figure out LB and S and we're ready to play games in January and February. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

 

Agreed. We get a franchise QB, another weapon or two on O, figure out LB and S and we're ready to play games in January and February. 

 

You put Russell Wilson on this team now and we'd be a SB threat especially after an offseason adding a weapon on offense and a couple of players on defense.

 

You have mediocre QB play the team is very unlikely to hit a SB.  And our young D line is going to have to be paid at some point so the window of young cheap talent isn't going to last forever.  2 years from now Mclaurin could be 18 million against the cap.  Jonathan Allen 15-18 million.  Settle might be gone, etc.

 

There is nothing IMO that would super charge this team more than a young/cheap stud QB.    I like our talent in some places so much that it almost feels sad to me if we look back years from now and say hey with all that young talent all we did is match peak Dan again which is a 9-7, 10-6 season, early exit from the playoffs.     

 

We got enough good young players that if you super charge the offense at the same time, i think this team can be a threat to reach the SB.  I just don't see that happening with Alex or kyle Allen.   Every now and then a team gets lucky ala the Jags with Blake Bortles one season.  But that doesn't last.   With a franchise QB, we can become for once, a Seattle type team that's always in the hunt. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

You put Russell Wilson on this team now and we'd be a SB threat especially after an offseason adding a weapon on offense and a couple of players on defense.

 

You have mediocre QB play the team is very unlikely to hit a SB.  And our young D line is going to have to be paid at some point so the window of young cheap talent isn't going to last forever.  2 years from now Mclaurin could be 18 million against the cap.  Jonathan Allen 15-18 million.  Settle might be gone, etc.

 

There is nothing IMO that would super charge this team more than a young/cheap stud QB.    I like our talent in some places so much that it almost feels sad to me if we look back years from now and say hey with all that young talent all we did is match peak Dan again which is a 9-7, 10-6 season, early exit from the playoffs.     

 

We got enough good young players that if you super charge the offense at the same time, i think this team can be a threat to reach the SB.  I just don't see that happening with Alex or kyle Allen.   Every now and then a team gets lucky ala the Jags with Blake Bortles one season.  But that doesn't last.   With a franchise QB, we can become for once, a Seattle type team that's always in the hunt. 

 

Absolutely. Next season is the first year of a 3-year window. After that, the roster will change substantially, hopefully transitioning to another ~3 year window. But a real QB1 is the far and away most important element to make use of the upcoming window w/ most all our young talents on rookie contracts. I believe Ron and Kyle understand this and will approach the offseason accordingly. I am expecting next year to be our best season since 1991. More than 10 wins.

Edited by CapsSkins
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Possibilities?   I am talking about odds.   When you hear personnel guys interviewed they often talk about the odds.

 

It's possible that we can get our next stud MLB as an undrafted FA let alone needing a first round.  Ala London Fletcher and Pierce were undrafted FAs. 

 

It's possible that we already have the next Tom Brady in Kyle Allen.

 

I can play the lotto today and win 10 million dollars.

 

It's all possible.

 

Higher draft picks don't improve the odds if your FO is incompetent. A talented FO improves your odds no matter where you pick. The only real thing that improves your odds is having more picks, not having higher picks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the division is gone as of last night unless we pull a miracle and beat PItts. Personally I think Ptts is going to win by as much as they want to. Ben has always torched us, and badly. If Washington does lose as I expect they will, we will be 2 gms behind with 4 to play. The rest of the way after PItts" 

 

Wash:

@ SF 49ers

H for Sea

H for Panthers

@ Philly

 

Giants

H for AZ

H for Browns

@ Balt Ravens

H for Dallast

 

Schedules are close to even but if we lose tonight then we have to win 2 more than them. They should easily beat Dallast who will be mailing it by then. We should beat Philly. We we would need to win at least 2 other if not all 3. I see 6/10 in our future and on the outside looking in. Giants just abotu punched their ticket yesterday. If we do somehow beat Pitts, that changes everything. 

 

Either outcome is Ok by me. Either they at least get to the POs with a home game or we pick quite a few slots higher in the draft. I will take either 🙂  

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Higher draft picks don't improve the odds if your FO is incompetent. 

 

Yeah naturally. But that wasn't the point I debated.

 

46 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

A talented FO improves your odds no matter where you pick. 

 

Yep that's obvious.

 

46 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

The only real thing that improves your odds is having more picks, not having higher picks.

 

One point is right here, the other is wrong. And yes there are facts to back this up, it's not an opinion based discussion. You repeat my point that the more picks you have the better chance for success.  That's true.  Having a higher pick also increases your odds of success over a lower pick that's proven too. Both are well known facts and rarely debated for that reason. 

 

If I want to run with a point that IMO is more debatable.  Then I'd go with what's better a higher draft pick or trading down for multiple picks?  That's a more interesting one because it puts the two strong variables right against each other.  The power of a higher pick versus the power of multiple picks.  PFF would argue among others to trade down.  They really went to town on that point this off season pushing the WFT to trade down versus taking Chase. 

 

I am often but not always in favor of trading down.    But that's a different discussion -- different point.   And the discussion itself furthers the value of a higher pick considering it puts you in a much stronger position to trade down to add picks.  When Dallas wanted Demarcus Lawrence, they gave up picks to us because we had the higher pick.  Ditto when Seattle wanted Tyler Lockett and traded with us where we traded down, etc. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

Looks like the division is gone as of last night unless we pull a miracle and beat PItts. Personally I think Ptts is going to win by as much as they want to. Ben has always torched us, and badly. If Washington does lose as I expect they will, we will be 2 gms behind with 4 to play. The rest of the way after PItts" 

 

Wash:

@ SF 49ers

H for Sea

H for Panthers

@ Philly

 

Giants

H for AZ

H for Browns

@ Balt Ravens

H for Dallast

 

Schedules are close to even but if we lose tonight then we have to win 2 more than them. They should easily beat Dallast who will be mailing it by then. We should beat Philly. We we would need to win at least 2 other if not all 3. I see 6/10 in our future and on the outside looking in. Giants just abotu punched their ticket yesterday. If we do somehow beat Pitts, that changes everything. 

 

Either outcome is Ok by me. Either they at least get to the POs with a home game or we pick quite a few slots higher in the draft. I will take either 🙂  

 

I am feeling the same way, I made that point earlier in a different thread.  I am cool with either outcome for different reasons.  I think we got to win today to keep up.  If we do i think we likely win the division.  If we lose I think the Giants win it. 

 

IMO this is really stacked draft and not just at QB.  Even if we miss on the QBs, we have the potential to take IMO a borderline elite MLB, WR, TE.  Some would say LT, too.  If we pick 19, I think we miss out on them and again not that you can't find a good player at that spot but the ones in the top 12 give or take in this draft I think are potentially really special and I'd bet on them over the next crop.

 

Them beating the Steelers though would be one of the biggest wins in Dan's miserable 20 plus year era.  And it would feel like the tide is turning. 

 

I am cool for different reasons either thing to happen albeit I prefer to win today.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

One point is right here, the other is wrong. And yes there are facts to back this up, it's not an opinion based discussion. You repeat my point that the more picks you have the better chance for success.  That's true.  Having a higher pick also increases your odds of success over a lower pick that's proven too. Both are well known facts and rarely debated for that reason. 

 

If I want to run with a point that IMO is more debatable.  Then I'd go with what's better a higher draft pick or trading down for multiple picks?  That's a more interesting one because it puts the two strong variables right against each other.  The power of a higher pick versus the power of multiple picks.  PFF would argue among others to trade down.  They really went to town on that point this off season pushing the WFT to trade down versus taking Chase. 

 

I am often but not always in favor of trading down.    But that's a different discussion -- different point.   And the discussion itself furthers the value of a higher pick considering it puts you in a much stronger position to trade down to add picks.  When Dallas wanted Demarcus Lawrence, they gave up picks to us because we had the higher pick.  Ditto when Seattle wanted Tyler Lockett and traded with us where we traded down, etc. 

 

 

I think you're probably under the impression that the number of high draft picks succeeding compared to lower draft picks/lower round picks succeeding proves that the higher the pick, the better your chances. This is a bit like the argument that the more you run the ball the better your chances of winning the game because stats show that teams who win tend to run more than those who do not (or whatever the argument is lol). When this is discussed it's usually talked about in a chicken/egg fashion...did more running lead to more wins, or did having the lead cause the winning team to start running more.

 

For draft picks, there is no proven formula where the higher the pick the better the odds of drafting a blue chip player. Perhaps by round but not by slot. What that argument leaves out is:

 

- Could the player have been drafted at a lower slot?...If so, then the team didn't need a high draft pick. In fact, there are teams that trade back a bit and still get their guy. That's when a talented and smart GM/FO comes in. They don't reach, they're not afraid, they know how to read the room (so to speak) and can ascertain where different players in the 1st round are likely to go or fall.  I mentioned years ago that Allen did deserve credit for not panicking and trading up to get Jonathan Allen once he began to fall. Not that Allen was a talented GM lol...but that move (or purposeful non-move) was the right one to make. Shanahan did some trickery while coaching the Broncos when he wanted to draft Cutler...didn't even meet with him before the draft to throw people off lol...he wanted Cutler to fall so he could go get him once he was low enough. Right approach, wrong player.

 

- How much does constantly losing slow down the process that can "accelerate the development of a disciplined, resilient culture" (as Wright said above). As fans we tend to laugh off the idea of team culture or relegate it to little more than "nice guys vs punks and thugs" in the locker room. A lot of us were willing to say before the season started that we may lose but we are starting to rebuild the right kind of culture. Well, we may also have to say that the culture we're building might be leading to some wins which leads to a lower draft pick. So do we dismiss the gains made in establishing the right culture that sustains winning for years for a shot at a higher draft pick? Bringing a guy in to be your future franchise QB can be thwarted by instilling him into the wrong culture...because now you're needing his talent to overcome the issues that surround him, and they're not all on the field. Anyone think Goff would have succeeded here?

 

I will say this: if there is one specific player a team wants badly and are completely sold on him, and he's unlikely to make it out of the top 5, then as fans sure...root for losses during a losing season.

 

If the idea, though, is that the higher you draft the more quality players you have available to you, that doesn't mean much if your GM/Scouts/FO aren't talented enough to find great talent at #15 instead of #5. We had a shot at JJ Watt, but traded down for Kerrigan. Love the dude but he's not Watt. Did having a top 10 draft pick help us? No. Your FO plays a far larger role in picking successful players than draft slot does.

 

 

tl:dr - Your view is most definitely an opinion based on stats but not really on discussion. This team will become a successful, consistent winner if our coaching and FO possess the talent needed, regardless of where we draft. So it makes more sense as fans to hope we're seeing right now the evidence of that being true. That means, among other things, more wins than expected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points being made on both sides, I'm in the middle of this argument.  I think it would be great to tank two years in a row but its not that easy when you have the Jets and Jags competing with you.  We were lucky to get the #2 pick last year so to think that would happen two years in a row is wishful at best.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we hammer the piss out of them.  37- 17. Between the significance of the Giants winning and the fact that Pittsburgh needs to get the stress of an undefeated season out of the way to move forward this is our time. We got this. If Dallas can get them close why cant we beat them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I don't think tanking exists.

Well...did you watch this team last year?  Just sayin'!

If you did tank the previous year, you're not allowed to tank the next year without getting a 10 yr. VooDoo Curse or something...I'm 100% absolutely maybe possibly sure. :cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Good points being made on both sides, I'm in the middle of this argument.  I think it would be great to tank two years in a row but its not that easy when you have the Jets and Jags competing with you.  We were lucky to get the #2 pick last year so to think that would happen two years in a row is wishful at best.

 

Yeah, the Jets have this on ice.  Their remaining games are Seattle who's going to be out for blood after losing to the Giants.  Then the Rams, Browns and the last game is against the Patriots who are coming around and might have playoff implications on the line in week 17.

 

Anyway, the silver lining here for the Giants winning the division, if they do...for me, is Alfred Morris.  Love that guy, love seeing him playing well, even if it's for a division rival.  And to a lesser extent, Colt, too.  Both professional, likable guys.  And really, I root for anyone who's survived this dumpster fire of a franchise and has gone on to play well somewhere else.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Partag changed the title to (2020) We clinched the NFC East didn't we?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...