Redskins ready to $pend?

[skinster]

Originally Posted by Lotus

You said you were logical. I gave you logic. Please embrace my logic since you are so logical.

BTW you did not offer logic in return. Not only is your formula not a syllogism, but your formula breaks down with C. Luck may (or may not) be the best candidate, but since by your own admission there are other candidates, we not not HAVE TO suck for Luck. By your own attempt at logic, the Suck for Luck campaign is revealed as illogical.

I really hope your joking on so many levels.

And I hope your happy averaging 7-9 for the next decade, having two playoff appearances where nobody respects us as contenders and we get bounced in the first round.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by skinster

I really hope your joking on so many levels.

And I hope your happy averaging 7-9 for the next decade, having two playoff appearances where nobody respects us as contenders and we get bounced in the first round.

So if we don't get Luck, we're doomed to mediocrity? Luck is our only ticket to "contenderhood"? Sorry, I don't believe that.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

So if we don't get Luck, we're doomed to mediocrity? Luck is our only ticket to "contenderhood"? Sorry, I don't believe that.

1. A franchise qb is our only ticket to contederhood. Not just anybody is capable this status, you can't just developed anybody, these players have it the capability (intangibles included) or they don't.

2. Franchise qb's are very hard to find, and there are very true franchise qbs capable of producing a winning team year in and year out.

3. It is even more rare that a once in a generation talent is coming out of college. A guy that is almost guaranteed to be a true franchise qb is even more rare. Luck isn't just any qb we're gambling on, he's practically a shoe in to lead us to success as long as he is at the helm.

4. A few predictable franchise qb's get drafted late (aaron rodgers, drew brees), but that is a rarity and we can't wait around forever and hope for one of these guys to slip to us (look at 2nd round and late 1st round qbs drafted in the last 15 years, most of these guys slip for a reason, they have a very low hit rate)

5. Please don't mention Tom Brady, that is luck, it could happen to us that we get a franchise qb later, but it is unlikely and it is never good to rely on luck (please don't mention the pun).

6. Please don't mention Warner/favre/any other free agent vet that has had success and could have won a superbowl. It is better to have a shot every year for 10 years than have a window of 2 (look at where the cardinals and vikings are now). Plus it is rare to find one of these guys.

Luck is almost a sure thing. If you have a bank account of 10,000 dollars and there was a magic machine that you could give 10,000 dollars to today and you'd have a 90% chance of the machine giving you 50,000 dollars every year for 10 years, would you do it? I ****in would. Yea your year will suck, but your life will be much better for it. (I can't wait for people to make fun of this metaphor. Say what you want, as cheesy as it seems, it makes sense.)

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by skinster

4. A few predictable franchise qb's get drafted late (aaron rodgers, drew brees), but that is a rarity and we can't wait around forever and hope for one of these guys to slip to us (look at 2nd round and late 1st round qbs drafted in the last 15 years, most of these guys slip for a reason, they have a very low hit rate)

How were Rodgers and Brees predictable? Especially Brees...

[skinster]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

How were Rodgers and Brees predictable? Especially Brees...

If you draft a guy 33, there is enough talent to predict he will be good. Rodgers went 24. Like if Dalton pans out, that is predictable. Maybe not very predictable, but if the bengals didn't view it as a real possibility that he can be a franchise qb, they wouldn't have drafted him that high. And I know there are analysts and scouts that predict him to be a franchise qb, and go significantly higher than he did.

To clarify, I'm not saying that we should have seen Rodgers or Brees pan out as they did, but rather I'm saying that it was simply predictable by someone. The packers predicted Rodgers for sure, and I didn't follow football back in 2000 but I'm sure a percentage of scouts/analysts were able to predict Brees as a franchise qb with him going at 33.

Nobody predicted Brady being that good. If someone thought it was even a possibility there is no shot he escapes the third, or fourth, or fifth, or most of the 6th.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by skinster

If you draft a guy 33, there is enough talent to predict he will be good. Rodgers went 24. Like if Dalton pans out, that is predictable. Maybe not very predictable, but if the bengals didn't view it as a real possibility that he can be a franchise qb, they wouldn't have drafted him that high. And I know there are analysts and scouts that predict him to be a franchise qb, and go significantly higher than he did.

To clarify, I'm not saying that we should have seen Rodgers or Brees pan out as they did, but rather I'm saying that it was simply predictable by someone. The packers predicted Rodgers for sure, and I didn't follow football back in 2000 but I'm sure a percentage of scouts/analysts were able to predict Brees as a franchise qb with him going at 33.

Nobody predicted Brady being that good. If someone thought it was even a possibility there is no shot he escapes the third, or fourth, or fifth, or most of the 6th.

whats the excuse for all of the guys who didn't even become starters, much less winners?

[skinster]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

whats the excuse for all of the guys who didn't even become starters, much less winners?

I'm not sure your getting what I'm saying. I'm not even sure what you think I'm trying to justify.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by skinster

1. A franchise qb is our only ticket to contederhood. Not just anybody is capable this status, you can't just developed anybody, these players have it the capability (intangibles included) or they don't.

"Franchise QB" is an amorphous term. But I grant you that a top flite QB is a guarrantee of conterderhood. I disagree that you need a P. Manning to win it all. With a solid team, a B. Roethlisberger, Matt Schaub or a J. Flacco will do.

Originally Posted by skinster

2. Franchise qb's are very hard to find, and there are very true franchise qbs capable of producing a winning team year in and year out.

Okay, I am with you. QB's who lift mediocre teams and turn them, a' la P. Manning, into great teams are rare. However, very good QB's who can make super bowl contenders out of good teams, a' la Aaron Rogers or B. Rothlesburger, are less rare.

Originally Posted by skinster

3. It is even more rare that a once in a generation talent is coming out of college. A guy that is almost guaranteed to be a true franchise qb is even more rare. Luck isn't just any qb we're gambling on, he's practically a shoe in to lead us to success as long as he is at the helm.

The only two in that fit this, that I can think of, are Elway and Manning. Even Manning was not thought to be a "guarrantee" at the time - his arm strength and "upside" were questioned. Given the number of "sure things" who have failed to pan out, I disagree with your assumption that any QB can be "almost guarranteed". As I said, who, other than Elway do you consider an almost guarrantee? Remember, in the year Elway was drafted number 1, Dan Marino was drafted 27 and Jim Kelly at 14. (Look at that, Hall of Famers for teams that didn't tank.)

Originally Posted by skinster

4. A few predictable franchise qb's get drafted late (aaron rodgers, drew brees), but that is a rarity and we can't wait around forever and hope for one of these guys to slip to us (look at 2nd round and late 1st round qbs drafted in the last 15 years, most of these guys slip for a reason, they have a very low hit rate).

The hit rate on highly drafted QB's is not particurlary great either. In the last 10 years, QB's in the number 1 slot: Alex Smith, Tim Couch, David Carr, JaMarcus Russell misses. Palmer, Vick, E. Manning hits. With the jury out on Stafford and Bradford (both likely hits with the injuries being a question for Stafford). First pick QB's are simply not a given no matter how highly rated out of college.

Originally Posted by skinster

5. Please don't mention Tom Brady, that is luck, it could happen to us that we get a franchise qb later, but it is unlikely and it is never good to rely on luck (please don't mention the pun).).

How about I mention Carr, Couch, Russell, V. Young, Matt Lienhardt, Harrington as high pick/highly rated QB's who failed and Matt Ryan, Phillip Rivers, and Sanchez as non-first-pick QB's of contending teams.

Originally Posted by skinster

6. Please don't mention Warner/favre/any other free agent vet that has had success and could have won a superbowl. It is better to have a shot every year for 10 years than have a window of 2 (look at where the cardinals and vikings are now). Plus it is rare to find one of these guys).

So, in essence, please don't highlight anyone who might sabotage your "Suck for Luck" campaign or highlight how you have reached your conclusion and will only accept facts which agree with your hypothesis.

Originally Posted by skinster

Luck is almost a sure thing. If you have a bank account of 10,000 dollars and there was a magic machine that you could give 10,000 dollars to today and you'd have a 90% chance of the machine giving you 50,000 dollars every year for 10 years, would you do it? I ****in would. Yea your year will suck, but your life will be much better for it. (I can't wait for people to make fun of this metaphor. Say what you want, as cheesy as it seems, it makes sense.)

Your flaw is the 90%. It's at best 50%. Sorry, 10 years from now, and in hindsight - as people do with P. Manning - it may seem like a no brainer. but this belief that Luck is a sure thing is so ludicrous that it is laughable. The linchpin of your entire argument is the "near" surety that Luck is a generational franchise QB. An argument so speculative and counter to historicial precedent as to beyond belief that a reasonable person could accept it. Let me use your analogy - If you had a 60/40 shot that if you put up your last 50K you would get a 100k/year return for 10 years but, if you miss, you and your family would be homeless for the next five years, would you take that risk? Not me bud.

Your analogy doesn't make sense, not b/c it is cheesy, but b/c it fails to take into account any of risk of failure, is unrealistic in its projected success, and ignores that you can achieve a similar level of success risk with a substantially lower level of failure risk.

Bottom line, your being obtuse.

[skinster]

JoeRedskin;810911]"Franchise QB" is an amorphous term. But I grant you that a top flite QB is a guarrantee of conterderhood. I disagree that you need a P. Manning to win it all. With a solid team, a B. Roethlisberger, Matt Schaub or a J. Flacco will do.

I don't think you need a P. Manning, but a manning will ensure that you are great year in and year out. I do think that Flacco is close but on the wrong side of the line. Schaubs on my line (I can't decide where he is), and I think big ben doesn't get the credit he deserves. I don't think he's working with too many weapons and I think he produces well.

Okay, I am with you. QB's who lift mediocre teams and turn them, a' la P. Manning, into great teams are rare. However, very good QB's who can make super bowl contenders out of good teams, a' la Aaron Rogers or B. Rothlesburger, are less rare.

IMO less than a third of the league has a qb that can make them a superbowl contender. That's rare. But Aaron Rogers is elite IMO.

The only two in that fit this, that I can think of, are Elway and Manning. Even Manning was not thought to be a "guarrantee" at the time - his arm strength and "upside" were questioned. Given the number of "sure things" who have failed to pan out, I disagree with your assumption that any QB can be "almost guarranteed". As I said, who, other than Elway do you consider an almost guarrantee? Remember, in the year Elway was drafted number 1, Dan Marino was drafted 27 and Jim Kelly at 14. (Look at that, Hall of Famers for teams that didn't tank.)


The hit rate on highly drafted QB's is not particurlary great either. In the last 10 years, QB's in the number 1 slot: Alex Smith, Tim Couch, David Carr, JaMarcus Russell misses. Palmer, Vick, E. Manning hits. With the jury out on Stafford and Bradford (both likely hits with the injuries being a question for Stafford). First pick QB's are simply not a given no matter how highly rated out of college.

Bradford is a studdddddddd. Take away injury concerns and I thought he was a can't miss prospect as well....but then again, you can't do that in reality, he had those injury concerns and was not a can't miss coming out of college.

How about I mention Carr, Couch, Russell, V. Young, Matt Lienhardt, Harrington as high pick/highly rated QB's who failed and Matt Ryan, Phillip Rivers, and Sanchez as non-first-pick QB's of contending teams.

Teams reach for qbs all the time. Teams need one so they reach, and the qb ends up not good. I had no complaints with us not taking a qb high this draft. If you are not sold on him don't draft him because he's a qb. Also, most of those qb misses at 1 overall were taken in drafts with no good predictable prospects.

I think that depending on the year it is realistic to draft a franchise qb in the top third of the first round. But I believe this years draft will mirror 2004 when Eli was the "bar of gold." Unless we draft 1 overall, I believe we will have to get into a bidding war to get him. There very well might be another prospect that comes out this year's draft (landry, barkley) that has what it takes to be a franchise qb that we can get without having luck, but I doubt barkley will come out this year and I'm not sold on landry. I think landry is at best your average 50-50 success or flop first round talent while luck is a special once in a generation 90-10 guy.
P.S I don't believe in Sanchez either.

So, in essence, please don't highlight anyone who might sabotage your "Suck for Luck" campaign or highlight how you have reached your conclusion and will only accept facts which agree with your hypothesis.

My hypothesis isn't based on facts. Its based on my belief in luck. If someone believes he is a can't miss prospect like I do, then yea I do think it is short sighted to not be on board with the "Suck for Luck" campaign.

Your flaw is the 90%. It's at best 50%. Sorry, 10 years from now, and in hindsight - as people do with P. Manning - it may seem like a no brainer. but this belief that Luck is a sure thing is so ludicrous that it is laughable. The linchpin of your entire argument is the "near" surety that Luck is a generational franchise QB. An argument so speculative and counter to historicial precedent as to beyond belief that a reasonable person could accept it. Let me use your analogy - If you had a 60/40 shot that if you put up your last 50K you would get a 100k/year return for 10 years but, if you miss, you and your family would be homeless for the next five years, would you take that risk? Not me bud.

Here is the real discrepancy in out opinions. I think luck is Elway, a once in a generation can't miss prospect. You think its 50-50, I think this is a rare opportunity and Luck is a special can't miss prospect.

Your analogy doesn't make sense, not b/c it is cheesy, but b/c it fails to take into account any of risk of failure, is unrealistic in its projected success, and ignores that you can achieve a similar level of success risk with a substantially lower level of failure risk.

Like I said, I believe the risk of failure to be different than you do.

Bottom line, your being obtuse.

That's an acute statement!

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by skinster

I really hope your joking on so many levels.

And I hope your happy averaging 7-9 for the next decade, having two playoff appearances where nobody respects us as contenders and we get bounced in the first round.

I was not joking, I was logical.

It appears that you like logic until it makes your position look bad. When logic makes your position untenable, you ditch it.

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I was not joking, I was logical.

It appears that you like logic until it makes your position look bad. When logic makes your position untenable, you ditch it.

Or either you are oblivious to everyone else's comments except your own. Nothing is impossible in this league. You have no way of saying with absolute certainty that Beck could not take us to the super bowl. Football is a team sport. Yes the quarterback is important but how many teams have made it deep in the playoffs and even won the super bowl without a franchise QB, and by using a strong defense to get them there?

I guess in the end nothing anyone can say can sway you to your opinion, which you are legitimately entitled to have. However, you are outnumbered greatly in opinion, which most definitely counts for something. I know there is not a whole lot to talk about during the lockout, but this constant back and forth bickering is growing tiresome. Can we just agree to disagree and move on? Unless, of course, everyone else on here enjoys reading these parlays, then I yield of course.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

Or either you are oblivious to everyone else's comments except your own. Nothing is impossible in this league. You have no way of saying with absolute certainty that Beck could not take us to the super bowl. Football is a team sport. Yes the quarterback is important but how many teams have made it deep in the playoffs and even won the super bowl without a franchise QB, and by using a strong defense to get them there?

I guess in the end nothing anyone can say can sway you to your opinion, which you are legitimately entitled to have. However, you are outnumbered greatly in opinion, which most definitely counts for something. I know there is not a whole lot to talk about during the lockout, but this constant back and forth bickering is growing tiresome. Can we just agree to disagree and move on? Unless, of course, everyone else on here enjoys reading these parlays, then I yield of course.

Did you mean to quote me? I have unflinchingly argued against Suck for Luck. I think we are on the same side on this one.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

Or either you are oblivious to everyone else's comments except your own. Nothing is impossible in this league. You have no way of saying with absolute certainty that Beck could not take us to the super bowl. Football is a team sport. Yes the quarterback is important but how many teams have made it deep in the playoffs and even won the super bowl without a franchise QB, and by using a strong defense to get them there?

I guess in the end nothing anyone can say can sway you to your opinion, which you are legitimately entitled to have. However, you are outnumbered greatly in opinion, which most definitely counts for something. I know there is not a whole lot to talk about during the lockout, but this constant back and forth bickering is growing tiresome. Can we just agree to disagree and move on? Unless, of course, everyone else on here enjoys reading these parlays, then I yield of course.

I am 21 years old, and since the year I was born in 1989, there have been 22 superbowls. 3 have been won with teams that didn't have a franchise qb, the ravens (dilfer-barely made the playoffs in a weak year, beat a weak team in the sb, and had statistically the greatest defense of all time), bucs (johnson-who was a pro bowler, and had one of the best defenses of all time), and redskins (rypien in the strike year).

More importantly in the last few years, it has become increasingly important to have a qb. With rule changes (physical rules and emphasis of enforcement of rules) that make the game more offensive, as well as the advancement and development of the strategy of the game, within the last 5 years a franchise qb has become more relevant than ever before.

Warren Sapp, a member of one of the 3 outliers I mentioned, said on NFLN that offense is more important than defense, and that a qb is what wins a superbowl.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by skinster

I am 21 years old, and since the year I was born in 1989, there have been 22 superbowls. 3 have been won with teams that didn't have a franchise qb, the ravens (dilfer-barely made the playoffs in a weak year, beat a weak team in the sb, and had statistically the greatest defense of all time), bucs (johnson-who was a pro bowler, and had one of the best defenses of all time), and redskins (rypien in the strike year).

More importantly in the last few years, it has become increasingly important to have a qb. With rule changes (physical rules and emphasis of enforcement of rules) that make the game more offensive, as well as the advancement and development of the strategy of the game, within the last 5 years a franchise qb has become more relevant than ever before.

Warren Sapp, a member of one of the 3 outliers I mentioned, said on NFLN that offense is more important than defense, and that a qb is what wins a superbowl.

OF those franchise QB's...........how many were drafted as such?

[skinster]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I was not joking, I was logical.

It appears that you like logic until it makes your position look bad. When logic makes your position untenable, you ditch it.

I really don't know how to respond to that. I don't think your as familiar with logic as you think. Both of your examples had so many holes in them its ridiculous. Also logic isn't tied down to your middle/high school geometry teachings, it gets more complex than that.

For the record, I still think you were joking, there is no way anyone who knows what a syllogism is can fail so badly at their attempts at a modus ponen and a modus tollen.