Carolina Panthers vs Washington Redskins Gameday Thread

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Every move in football has risk, rewards and has a probability of success or failure. Folks then subjectively assign a probability to said players and then make their decisions based off that. Failures are UNAVOIDABLE in the NFL because the probability of players bombing is that high. But you can minimize that with scouting and the correct strategy to maximize returns on the players you acquire. And the best players are long-term players who provide returns for you.

You want T.O? You figure out what returns he'll give you and whether it's ****ing worth it over the other options you already. His short-term production is also going to be hindered because of his lack of practice in the offense. For the long-term here's T.O's ability to reach that "upper echelon" status and how many more years he's going to play. Well, he's never going to be what he was in his 20s anymore, so the chance of that is a big goose-egg. T.O is not likely to make it past 40; he might not even play this year.

Hankerson will probably provide less in the short-term, but at least he might become SOMETHING in the long-term. It's an absolute certainty that T.O will not be playing for long in the NFL and his injury. We're a rebuilding team and need all the LONG-TERM assets we can grab. That means we should look at as many guys as possible that might provide long-term value, Hankerson being one of them. This doesn't apply only to Hank, but every rookie we draft and pick up from UDFA. They ALL have a chance at providing more long-term upside than T.O.

Our strategy should about finding "franchise players", not quick fixes that don't stick for more than 3 years. If Hank bombs, fine, let's question the scouting. But I won't be scared of taking another potential WR in the 3rd round simply because Hank failed. It's a a strategy worth executing because "franchise" players are just that valuable.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned TO was a band-aid on a gaping wound. TO was never meant to be a long term option, he's meant to be a stop gap, so that next year we can focus on drafting or signing a young WR.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

I'm pretty sure I mentioned TO was a band-aid on a gaping wound. TO was never meant to be a long term option, he's meant to be a stop gap, so that next year we can focus on drafting or signing a young WR.

In that case, T.O's role is to play as badly as possible so he isn't re-signed and he gets us a higher draft pick.

Or, instead of T.O, we steal random PS'ers from various teams after cutting Moss, Gaffney, and Stallworthless. We also would get a higher pick and see what should stick.

Rubbing salt into the wound is what would help us land that next great WR, not trying to mend it.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

In that case, T.O's role is to play as badly as possible so he isn't re-signed and he gets us a higher draft pick.

Or, instead of T.O, we steal random PS'ers from various teams after cutting Moss, Gaffney, and Stallworthless. We also would get a higher pick and see what should stick.

Rubbing salt into the wound is what would help us land that next great WR, not trying to mend it.

That same logic could be used for QB. Since that's probably more of an issue than the WR spot.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

That same logic could be used for QB. Since that's probably more of an issue than the WR spot.

So, a guy who is a lock to be worthless in 2-3 years is more worth a roster spot than an unknown guy who might or might not be useful in 2-3 years. Hence, short-term gains is more valuable to you than the future. 1-2 wins this year thanks to T.O is more important than taking a look at PS'ers around the league to see if someone will help us long term or even provide depth. Well, those two wins aren't going to do us jack shit in the future exc and who fans wish they could have taken.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

So, a guy who is a lock to be worthless in 2-3 years is more worth a roster spot than an unknown guy who might or might not be useful in 2-3 years. Hence, short-term gains is more valuable to you than the future. 1-2 wins this year thanks to T.O is more important than taking a look at PS'ers around the league to see if someone will help us long term or even provide depth. Well, those two wins aren't going to do us jack shit in the future exc and who fans wish they could have taken.

Only Hankerson. The rest of the young guys, Royster, Helu, Austin, Paul... They've actually shown that they can be consistent if not decent. I've got no beef with the other rookies. I dunno why you're on the guy's jock so bad.

[Chief X_Phackter]

I would like someone to look at what is going on with the coaching of the receivers. Is that still McCardell? You can't coach catching the ball, but it seems like the receivers are not where they are supposed to be, or at least where the quarterback thinks they are going to be - a lot. If it was one guy all the time, ok...but it seems to be systemic.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

I would like someone to look at what is going on with the coaching of the receivers. Is that still McCardell? You can't coach catching the ball, but it seems like the receivers are not where they are supposed to be, or at least where the quarterback thinks they are going to be - a lot. If it was one guy all the time, ok...but it seems to be systemic.

Yes it is.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

Only Hankerson. The rest of the young guys, Royster, Helu, Austin, Paul... They've actually shown that they can be consistent if not decent. I've got no beef with the other rookies. I dunno why you're on the guy's jock so bad.

Indifference is the only feeling I have when I hear Leonard Hankerson's name.
I have not even said that he was good. I haven't even said that he was certain for success. You accusing me of being "all over his jock" is ****ing bullshit.
You have already deemed Hankerson to be doomed to failure. This is equivalent to having a 0% probability of providing value to us. Therefore, he will not provide any value. T.O will be guaranteed to provide value(100% certainty). Therefore, T.O should be picked up.

I don't believe Hankerson has a 0% probability of success, more like 5-7% ish of "making it", and something .03% of becoming a superstar. Well, Hankerson's low probability of success is still higher than T.O probability of even playing 2 years from now. And FA pickups are never 100% guaranteed either. T.O very well could pull a Randy Moss in Tennessee and not do much either.

I care about good personnel strategy just as much as good personnel execution. Hankerson might indeed fail and thus he becomes an example of failed execution in personnel acquistion. But I'm willing to take a chance on him over T.O because he might provide more than T.O.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Indifference is the only feeling I have when I hear Leonard Hankerson's name.
I have not even said that he was good. I haven't even said that he was certain for success. You accusing me of being "all over his jock" is ****ing bullshit.
You have already deemed Hankerson to be doomed to failure. This is equivalent to having a 0% probability of providing value to us. Therefore, he will not provide any value. T.O will be guaranteed to provide value(100% certainty). Therefore, T.O should be picked up.

I don't believe Hankerson has a 0% probability of success, more like 5-7% ish of "making it", and something .03% of becoming a superstar. Well, Hankerson's low probability of success is still higher than T.O probability of even playing 2 years from now. And FA pickups are never 100% guaranteed either. T.O very well could pull a Randy Moss in Tennessee and not do much either.

I care about good personnel strategy just as much as good personnel execution. Hankerson might indeed fail and thus he becomes an example of failed execution in personnel acquistion. But I'm willing to take a chance on him over T.O because he might provide more than T.O.

You seem to be under the delusion that I think TO is the second coming of Jesus. But if you'd like to twist things around like that, that's fine. All I said was TO could be a short term (read SHORT TERM) band-aid and Hankerson isn't going to be anything special from what I've seen from him in college and in the pre-season.

With Gaffney, Austin, and Paul, a guy from the practice squad who's had 6 weeks to study the playbook and still run around like a chicken with his head cut off it doesn't look very promising. The odds are against Hankerson is what I've been getting at. I get that everything is a risk, some guys actually show promise. To me seeing his college tape and his pre-season tape, Hankerson doesn't.

But if you wanna fill the team in your head with a bunch of what-if's, go right ahead. This argument is ridiculous because apparently I wanna take TO and make him play for 5+ years and think he's never/hasn't dropped off. Silly me.

But for the sake of you being right and the Skins getting better, I hope Hankerson ends up the second coming of Jerry Rice.

[Bushead]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

In that case, T.O's role is to play as badly as possible so he isn't re-signed and he gets us a higher draft pick.

Or, instead of T.O, we steal random PS'ers from various teams after cutting Moss, Gaffney, and Stallworthless. We also would get a higher pick and see what should stick.

Rubbing salt into the wound is what would help us land that next great WR, not trying to mend it.

I agree with you completely on this what to do with WR debate. Why bring in TO for any reason? We drafted a ton of WRs and I would much rather get them in the game.

I feel that Shanahan will make that shift if the playoffs become out of reach.