Do you want the Redskins to lose to Vikings???

[HateYanksDukeCowboys]

I want them to lose in such a way that provides both maximum entertainment and satisfaction with certain players performing great, as well as severe exposure to certain players' flaws, thereby further compelling management to address the needs of this team. Specifically:

1. Running game: Would love to see Helu, Royster, and even Torrain have great games.
2. Passing/Receiving game: Would like to see Moss drop a few balls while Paul and Austin have big games.
3. O-Line: Would like to see Willie Smith and Palumbo take a few steps back.
4. D-Line: Would like to see the line get pushed around
5. LB: Would like to see missed coverages and tackles
6. DB: Would like to see Hall and Wilson fried for a handful of big plays

The overall theme here is exposing the mirage of goodwill from the past few weeks so that the front office is reminded just how poor our O-line is, how bad it is that Moss is our #1 WR, how overrated and thin our front seven are, and further exposing the need for a 1 and a 2 CB.

That said, I'd like to see the continued development of the two rookie RB's, as well as a reminder that Torrain is a good RB when given a chance, and one last chance for Austin, whom I fear may be an odd man out next season witjh the return of Hankerson and the inevitable draft pick or two of WR's.

[Crazy Levi]

I want them to lose in such a way that provides both maximum entertainment and satisfaction with certain players performing great, as well as severe exposure to certain players' flaws, thereby further compelling management to address the needs of this team. Specifically:

1. Running game: Would love to see Helu, Royster, and even Torrain have great games.
2. Passing/Receiving game: Would like to see Moss drop a few balls while Paul and Austin have big games.
3. O-Line: Would like to see Willie Smith and Palumbo take a few steps back.
4. D-Line: Would like to see the line get pushed around
5. LB: Would like to see missed coverages and tackles
6. DB: Would like to see Hall and Wilson fried for a handful of big plays

The overall theme here is exposing the mirage of goodwill from the past few weeks so that the front office is reminded just how poor our O-line is, how bad it is that Moss is our #1 WR, how overrated and thin our front seven are, and further exposing the need for a 1 and a 2 CB.

That said, I'd like to see the continued development of the two rookie RB's, as well as a reminder that Torrain is a good RB when given a chance, and one last chance for Austin, whom I fear may be an odd man out next season witjh the return of Hankerson and the inevitable draft pick or two of WR's.

I love this angle.

As if we could somehow lose to the 2nd worst team in the NFL and "look good."

It ain't gonna happen. We are going to win this game. 6-9 Hatas!!!!

[HateYanksDukeCowboys]

I love this angle.

As if we could somehow lose to the 2nd worst team in the NFL and "look good."

It ain't gonna happen. We are going to win this game. 6-9 Hatas!!!!

Show me where I said we would "look good."

This is what I said:

"I want them to lose in such a way that provides both maximum entertainment and satisfaction with certain players performing great, as well as severe exposure to certain players' flaws, thereby further compelling management to address the needs of this team."

And yes, it is possible for certain players to look good while others do not, and lose to an NFL team. In fact, I'd argue that in every single one of our games this year, certain guys looked good and others did not.

Also, I don't know how this constitutes me as a hater (err, sorry, Hata) as much as it does someone who's looking big picture here. It's becasue I don't hate that I want them to lose this game but have specific pros and cons as part of the loss.

[MLiverpool]

I'd like to see the Redskins finishing strong. Let's build through wins. Yes, it's at a detriment to our draft position, but I am not one to believe losing out and drafting well will bring an amazing future to a franchise. I'd like a more consistent QB, but Grossman is likely to be the man next season while a rookie watches. I don't believe we'll get one of the top three QB's. I don't believe all three will be amazing. I suspect we'll see some Alex Smith/Trent Dilfer and possibly Heath Shuler types lurking. Gotta be wary of the "sure thing". Injuries can upset that in a heartbeat, so depth and team work are necessary.

[Jethrodsp]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I [/YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

[polywog999]

I hope we lose our first round pick. If it were up to me I'd trade it in order to piss off our whiny fan base.





I'll never forget the Vinny Testaverty sweepstakes! That worked out pretty good, didn't it?

[Boss_Hogg]

I love this angle.

As if we could somehow lose to the 2nd worst team in the NFL and "look good."

It ain't gonna happen. We are going to win this game. 6-9 Hatas!!!!

for the first time on this board...

I agree with you.

F the haters, F these so called "fans" who prefer big names over Redskin wins.

Hail to the Redskins! Let's finish strong!

[mojo]

I want them to lose in such a way that provides both maximum entertainment and satisfaction with certain players performing great, as well as severe exposure to certain players' flaws, thereby further compelling management to address the needs of this team. Specifically:

1. Running game: Would love to see Helu, Royster, and even Torrain have great games.
2. Passing/Receiving game: Would like to see Moss drop a few balls while Paul and Austin have big games.
3. O-Line: Would like to see Willie Smith and Palumbo take a few steps back.
4. D-Line: Would like to see the line get pushed around
5. LB: Would like to see missed coverages and tackles
6. DB: Would like to see Hall and Wilson fried for a handful of big plays

The overall theme here is exposing the mirage of goodwill from the past few weeks so that the front office is reminded just how poor our O-line is, how bad it is that Moss is our #1 WR, how overrated and thin our front seven are, and further exposing the need for a 1 and a 2 CB.

That said, I'd like to see the continued development of the two rookie RB's, as well as a reminder that Torrain is a good RB when given a chance, and one last chance for Austin, whom I fear may be an odd man out next season witjh the return of Hankerson and the inevitable draft pick or two of WR's.

Wow..not only would you like a loss but you want to pick specific players to look bad/good. Save yourself some grief and go play Madden.

It's as if you're saying if the Redskins beat the miserable Vikings and look good doing it, Shanny and Allen will high-five at midfield knowing they have a championship quality team, no additions necessary....their work is done.

[elkabong82]

The record doesn't matter if the players are playing well and the ball just doesn't bounce their way. Were you embarrassed by the second Cowboys game? The Patriots game? Of course not, because we looked damned good even with our fifth-string waterboy.

For those of you who think that we can just "trade up" like it's no big deal and has no long-term ramifications, that's just as Vinny-like as Vinny. The top spots are going to cost more picks, and that cost increases with the distance between the top pick and your pick. If we want to go from say fourth overall to second, that'd cost around either a first next year or a second and fourth this year because the difference is nill and the player you wanted at two will probably be there at four.. To go from seventh overall to second would cost a LOT more. Drop out of the top ten and we won't have to argue about our first round pick for three years because we won't have one.

Will you honestly go back and look at this Vikings game and say, "Yeah, but, we beat the Vikings!" when we're kicking stones on Day One for the next couple of Aprils?

Look back at the Jaguars game last year. We won that, dropped us to tenth. No playoffs, no Super Bowl. If we lose that game, then we can be where the Browns were. Still no playoffs, still no Super Bowl, but having this conversation:



Yes, I'd like for that to have happened. I'd like for it to happen again this year. However, winning meaningless games doesn't help that at all.

I don't want to ever see us lose. It burns every time. I enjoyed the crap out of Sunday's beatdown of the Giants. However, in ten years I'll remember being in position to draft our quarterback, and I won't remember losing to the Vikings.

Did you ever play sports? If you did, then you understand that close losses eventually don't cut it and don't accomplish the same as winning does.

Those of you who prefer losses now for draft position don't realize you are sacrificing just as those in favor of winning and trading up realize there will be sacrifice. That's disengenous to postulate that people don't realize the cost of trading up. Let's also not ignore that since you all feel justified in rooting for a loss for draft position, sacrificing wins, others feel justified in sacrificing picks and bringing a QB to a good team that believes in itself.

Again, bringing a QB to a 7-9 is better than bringing one to a 4-12 team. Do you prefer Carolina, who has a worse record then us but got Cam, or do you prefer the Steelers, who traded up and brought a good QB to an already good team, and has won Superbowls with him.

A culture of winning is bred, not conjured up simply by sucking ass for a high draft pick and hoping you get a once-in-a-generation Peyton Manning, instead of Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf, Jamracus Russell, Tim Couch, Heath Schuler, etc. I'd rather have the Steelers method, with an entire good team, than the paper-thin Colts method that become the worst team in the NFL by losing 1 position.

[NewCliche21]

Did you ever play sports? If you did, then you understand that close losses eventually don't cut it and don't accomplish the same as winning does.

Those of you who prefer losses now for draft position don't realize you are sacrificing just as those in favor of winning and trading up realize there will be sacrifice. That's disengenous to postulate that people don't realize the cost of trading up. Let's also not ignore that since you all feel justified in rooting for a loss for draft position, sacrificing wins, others feel justified in sacrificing picks and bringing a QB to a good team that believes in itself.

Again, bringing a QB to a 7-9 is better than bringing one to a 4-12 team. Do you prefer Carolina, who has a worse record then us but got Cam, or do you prefer the Steelers, who traded up and brought a good QB to an already good team, and has won Superbowls with him.

A culture of winning is bred, not conjured up simply by sucking ass for a high draft pick and hoping you get a once-in-a-generation Peyton Manning, instead of Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf, Jamracus Russell, Tim Couch, Heath Schuler, etc. I'd rather have the Steelers method, with an entire good team, than the paper-thin Colts method that become the worst team in the NFL by losing 1 position.

First: Glad to see you on here more!

The Steelers example is poor because they had a crap season in 2003 (6-10 to get the rapist) to get their quarterback. If they were consistently good through that 2003 season, then they don't get him and they don't win those two titles. Picking as high as they did is what got them the rapist in an extremely deep 2004 draft. He was also the third quarterback taken and there was only one worth mentioning after him. Not a deep quarterback draft at all. Put the same guy in this draft and he won't be going 11th.

If you're asking if I'd rather be in the Panthers' position or our position, then it's no contest: Panthers win by a lightyear. I don't know where you're looking for stats, but Carolina has the same record as we do. Oh, and they beat us. Last year they were 2-14; this year they already have at least three more wins. We can eek out one more win if we win out. Hooray! Granted that the Panthers were not consistently as terrible as we have been, but 2-14 and getting that top quarterback is what let them improve as much as they have.

This team believes in itself. They believe in Shanahan. They believe in where they are headed. You're a smart guy, so you know that they are giving it their all out there even though they have nothing to play for. A team that doesn't believe in itself is down in Tampa Bay where the coach is all-but-fired and the team is only a "team" by being a collection of guys wearing the same uniforms. They have no faith, they have no future. We are not the Bucs.

If we were a good team, or if we even had a chance at the division, then I'd be on the opposite end. However, our season is over and those who are playing aren't those who started. They are playing for Coach, they are playing because it's their first shot to do so. Getting a win is nice, but to guys like Smith, Hurt, Paul, Riley, Helu, Royster, Westbrook, Barnes, Gomes, and others, just being on the field is huge. Those are the guys who will be here and flourish with a team that has a great quarterback. Their careers and next season will not be decided by the guys who are either suspended, hurt, or on their way out.

The pick matters next April. A win against the Vikings doesn't.

[MartinC]

We need a QB. I get that, we all get that. To get one of the top 3 rated guys we need a top 5 amd probably top 3 pick. I get that.

I don't get a fan wanting their team to lose, escpecially a team like the Redskins who have been losing consistently for 20 years. Losing is habit and it's a hard one to lose. Winning is also a habit and hard one to gain. As much as we need a QB we also need a culture change and an expectation change - if we can end the year with another couple of wins it would hurt our draft position and increase the cost of us trading up to get the QB we want (which we are going to have to try to do in any case IMO) but it would create confidence and a really positive atmosphere which we can build on into the start of next year.

Especially given the number of young guys who are starting.

[NewCliche21]

We need a QB. I get that, we all get that. To get one of the top 3 rated guys we need a top 5 amd probably top 3 pick. I get that.

I don't get a fan wanting their team to lose, escpecially a team like the Redskins who have been losing consistently for 20 years. Losing is habit and it's a hard one to lose. Winning is also a habit and hard one to gain. As much as we need a QB we also need a culture change and an expectation change - if we can end the year with another could of wins it would hurt our draft position and increase the cost of us trading up to get the QB we want (which we are going to have to try to do in any case IMO) but it would create confidence and a really positive atmosphere which we can build on into the start of next year.

Especially given the number of young guys who are starting.

Since when has a positive atmosphere with the current players, with many who won't be coming back, had an effect on the following year with players who have never been here?

Without trading with Jacksonville, we don't have: Hankerson, Helu, Gomes, Paul, or Hurt. That's assuming that everything else was picked the same way. Oh, and we traded three picks to move up to grab Helu.

How could we pull off such an amazing draft? We traded a high pick to Jacksonville so that they could get Gabbert. If we're sitting at 16 to begin with, then we're not getting that phone call, and we're not getting those players.

To bring it up again: Had we lost to Jacksonville last year, then we could have been the ones answering the phone for Atlanta's trade up instead of the Browns. Could you effing imagine what Shanahan could do with the bevy of picks that Cleveland got? It's mind-boggling. Ironically, had we lost that game and gotten even just the SAME trade, then we would have two firsts to trade to whoever to get whatever quarterback we want, and nobody would be cheering for a loss.

And that was with just eight picks, the extra ones being in the lower round. We entered with eight and left with twelve players. That's just insane, and I can't imagine what magic they could do with a substantially higher pick.

Anyway, I digress. Just answer this: What would you rather have? The above mentioned players or a "gee gosh darn dolly things are looking up" feeling after the Jacksonville game last year? I'll go with those players.

[elkabong82]

First: Glad to see you on here more!


The pick matters next April. A win against the Vikings doesn't.

First, thank you. Semester of grad school is over, so I have more time. ES beware, hahaha.

Steelers you are correct, I forgot they slid a year. However, they were still able to get their franchise guy going 6-10. The team was still a good team overall but had a slide IIRC due to Maddox either regressing or being figured out. But, had they been lower in the draft, trading up to get Ben wouldn't have cost that much, and some would argue that their team was already good, so giving up picks to get essentially that final piece would have been worth it.

My point is that the culture of winning is vitally important, and giving up picks to get the QB isn't terrible when you're bringing him to a good team. The more we win now, the more it means the young guys are excelling in the system and solidifying their spots. Carolina is 5-9, I was looking at a site which hadn't updated the results unfortunately. Still, they have a ways to go, and their main weapon, Steve Smith, is no spring chicken. There's also the concern of the team being abysmal should Cam get injured or have a sophomore slump next season. Instead of the Panthers, how about the rams? Bradford can't even stay healthy because he lacks support and spends most of the game on his back. Do we want a Ramsey repeat? Teams like the Pats and Steelers win games even when their starting QB goes out because the team overall is good, which is why I used the Colts as a contrast to them.

For the occasional Colts that get the very rare elite QB, there are teams like the Pats, Steelers, Packers, and Saints who get their franchise QB outside of the top 5, or even through free agency.

I agree that win or lose this team believes in itself, but I will never agree that losing out is the best route. If we have to rely on losing for draft position to get better, than our GM, coaches, and scouting department aren't very good.

Roethlisberger wasn't the top QB prospect of his class, nor was Brees, nor Rodgers. You have to have faith that this team can be good regardless of draft position. The Pats and Steelers find a way eventhough they pick later in most drafts. If we want a good team then our personnel has to be equally capable.

Not giving up, having the young guys win, is more important and beneficial to development then playing well and still losing. If you're losing, then problems persist, and it's no guarantee simply adding a QB will fix all that. But if you're winning, then you bring the QB into a good position.

The pick next April matters for one position, which does have a significant effect on the team. But, a win against the Vikings matters for the remaining 52 players on the active roster, and they typically collectively outweigh the QB position. You want a QB so badly that you're neglecting the intangible values of winning, which are much more significant than playing well and losing. Teams that do the same, that get desperate for a QB so much that they devalue all else, end up like the Chargers with Leaf and seemingly now the Jags with Gabbert. That's why I asked if you had played sports, because if you did then you should have first hand knowledge of the effect winning has on a team.

[MartinC]

Since when has a positive atmosphere with the current players, with many who won't be coming back, had an effect on the following year with players who have never been here?

We had a big clear out of dead wood and ageing players last year and a big infusion of youth many of whom are now making big constitutions - add in Hamk, Williams, Jenkins and Davis to those still out there contributing. Many of the players who are contributing are going to be the nucleus around which we build - them getting the habit and taste of winning is a good thing period IMO.

Without trading with Jacksonville, we don't have: Hankerson, Helu, Gomes, Paul, or Hurt. That's assuming that everything else was picked the same way. Oh, and we traded three picks to move up to grab

Right. These are the young guys who we want to build our future aound along with guys like Davis, Orakpo, Williams, Kerrigan etc. We have a good young nucleus (drug suspension aside for the moment).

How could we pull off such an amazing draft? We traded a high pick to Jacksonville so that they could get Gabbert. If we're sitting at 16 to begin with, then we're not getting that phone call, and we're not getting those players.

Nope. Different year, different situation and different stage of our teams development. This year we are the team making that call not taking it.

Anyway, I digress. Just answer this: What would you rather have? The above mentioned players or a "gee gosh darn dolly things are looking up" feeling after the Jacksonville game last year? I'll go with those players.

I'll take a win every time. Play the games, play to win and then when the dust settles you map our offseason strategy. Winning beats losing in just about any circumstance in my world.

[NewCliche21]

First, thank you. Semester of grad school is over, so I have more time. ES beware, hahaha.

Steelers you are correct, I forgot they slid a year. However, they were still able to get their franchise guy going 6-10. The team was still a good team overall but had a slide IIRC due to Maddox either regressing or being figured out. But, had they been lower in the draft, trading up to get Ben wouldn't have cost that much, and some would argue that their team was already good, so giving up picks to get essentially that final piece would have been worth it.

My point is that the culture of winning is vitally important, and giving up picks to get the QB isn't terrible when you're bringing him to a good team. The more we win now, the more it means the young guys are excelling in the system and solidifying their spots. Carolina is 5-9, I was looking at a site which hadn't updated the results unfortunately. Still, they have a ways to go, and their main weapon, Steve Smith, is no spring chicken. There's also the concern of the team being abysmal should Cam get injured or have a sophomore slump next season. Instead of the Panthers, how about the rams? Bradford can't even stay healthy because he lacks support and spends most of the game on his back. Do we want a Ramsey repeat? Teams like the Pats and Steelers win games even when their starting QB goes out because the team overall is good, which is why I used the Colts as a contrast to them.

For the occasional Colts that get the very rare elite QB, there are teams like the Pats, Steelers, Packers, and Saints who get their franchise QB outside of the top 5, or even through free agency.

I agree that win or lose this team believes in itself, but I will never agree that losing out is the best route. If we have to rely on losing for draft position to get better, than our GM, coaches, and scouting department aren't very good.

Roethlisberger wasn't the top QB prospect of his class, nor was Brees, nor Rodgers. You have to have faith that this team can be good regardless of draft position. The Pats and Steelers find a way eventhough they pick later in most drafts. If we want a good team then our personnel has to be equally capable.

Not giving up, having the young guys win, is more important and beneficial to development then playing well and still losing. If you're losing, then problems persist, and it's no guarantee simply adding a QB will fix all that. But if you're winning, then you bring the QB into a good position.

The pick next April matters for one position, which does have a significant effect on the team. But, a win against the Vikings matters for the remaining 52 players on the active roster, and they typically collectively outweigh the QB position. You want a QB so badly that you're neglecting the intangible values of winning, which are much more significant than playing well and losing. Teams that do the same, that get desperate for a QB so much that they devalue all else, end up like the Chargers with Leaf and seemingly now the Jags with Gabbert. That's why I asked if you had played sports, because if you did then you should have first hand knowledge of the effect winning has on a team.

Grad school is the worst. Have to give up everything for that!

The 2004 draft was very unique. Eight out of the first eleven picks were Pro Bowlers. There was so much talent up top that a SAFETY was taken that high. A friggin' SAFETY. Followed by a tight end! Sure, you can find safeties taken high now, but that was unheard of until Sean Taylor. Tight ends weren't taken with the sixth pick, either. In a 2012 draft, he doesn't last until the eleventh pick. As for being the top prospect, his trajectory was straight up from February through April, but everyone was just focused on Manning.

You can have a team that is really good that doesn't win. Look at the 49ers of 2011. That team seemed like crap, but with nearly the same team as 2010, they have the second seed pretty much locked up.

I think that you're reaching when you bring up "What if Newton has a sophomore slump", because that's not a real argument. Bradford doesn't have any weapons or a line in St. Louis, so him being flat on his back there has nothing to do with how he would perform here. In fact, if we hadn't done the McNabb trade, then we could've taken Bradford. Shanahan wanted him, but the price was too high when he only had four picks that year. Ramsey is irrelevant as well, as Shanahan is not Spurrier and has done a pretty fantastic job with quarterbacks.

More than a quarter of all Super Bowls were won by quarterbacks taken in the top five. That may not sound like much, but when there are 23-31 other teams who didn't get that top spot, your odds are much lower with a quarterback taken out of the top five. No player is ever a guarantee, but you go ahead and pick 199th overall and I'll pick first overall for the next ten drafts, and I'll be sure to tell your grandkids about the good guy you were while you're busy waiting and waiting for Tom Brady.

Having a real quarterback will be more beneficial to their development than winning some meaningless games. Real quarterbacks make their teams better.

You keep bringing up Ryan Leaf, and I'm not sure why. The Chargers didn't tank to get him and the Jaguars didn't do that for Gabbert. You're crossing argument streams here. Haven't you seen "Ghostbusters"? You can't cross streams!

However, if you talk to Bradshaw's Steelers, Unitas's Colts, Griese's Dolphins, Plunkett's Raiders, McMahon's Bears, Aikman's Cowboys, Elway's Broncos, Manning's Colts, or Manning's Giants, I'm sure that they'll tell you a hell of a lot more about their quarterbacks leading them to victory than trying so desperately to get out of the top five. A bunch of those first-overalls, by the way. I also left out any other Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks taken in the first round as well as any Super Bowl-winning teams that had an impact top-five pick at another position.

I'll take the championship brought to me by our star quarterback as opposed to the continuation of mediocrity and pointless wins that only prevent us from getting that quarterback.

Quarterbacks win Super Bowls. Week 16 of the year preceding those mentioned above does not.

---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 05:42 PM ----------

We had a big clear out of dead wood and ageing players last year and a big infusion of youth many of whom are now making big constitutions - add in Hamk, Williams, Jenkins and Davis to those still out there contributing. Many of the players who are contributing are going to be the nucleus around which we build - them getting the habit and taste of winning is a good thing period IMO.

Yes, it's a fantastic thing. And many of those players aren't here if we don't get that trade with Jacksonville, which we don't get without earning the tenth-overall pick. Your future isn't there if you don't have a crap 2010.

Right. These are the young guys who we want to build our future aound along with guys like Davis, Orakpo, Williams, Kerrigan etc. We have a good young nucleus (drug suspension aside for the moment).

See above.

Nope. Different year, different situation and different stage of our teams development. This year we are the team making that call not taking it.

That's not what I was talking about. I'm saying that if we had won some more meaningless games last year, like I and many others were so excited to have won, then we're not able to trade to get ANY of the above-mentioned. All because we sure showed them Giants in 17 in that scenario. Woohoo!

Also, if we're picking at 4, then making that call for 2 or even 1 isn't going to cost nearly as much as it would even at 7. To get to 2 from 4 would probably be a first and a fourth at the most. To get to 2 from 7 is a couple of firsts or a first and most of the rest of this draft. Then you're sacrificing our next Hankerson, Helu, Jenkins, etc. just to beat the Vikings in a game that will not matter this time next year.

I'll take a win every time. Play the games, play to win and then when the dust settles you map our offseason strategy. Winning beats losing in just about any circumstance in my world.

You'll take a win over the players that you have said are contributing and getting better that are only on the squad because we did NOT win more meaningless games last year? Winning a single game, unless it's the Super Bowl or the NFC Championship against Dallas, means absolutely nothing in the long run. Nothing. Having a top quarterback means EVERYTHING.