Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[skinster]

Woah Woah Woah. Let me reiterate. I never said throw any games, and I'm not complaining about anything. If any team threw any game, that would be a mockery of the sport. At the same time, it was in our best interest to lose more games in a MEANINGLESS year, and as a fan I don't think it is unreasonable to want the teams best interest.

I'm not complaining. Simply commenting on someone elses post who said they have no idea why fans would have wanted our team to lose more games last season. All is said is so we could have 3 extra picks. I guarantee each and every single one of you would feel the same now about a 2-14 season as you would a 5-11 season. Both are equal in that they are wasted seasons, but 2-14 would have saved us two firsts and a high second.

[los panda]

Originally Posted by skinster

it was in our best interest to lose more games in a MEANINGLESS year

how should they have done what was in their best interest?

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by skinster

Woah Woah Woah. Let me reiterate. I never said throw any games, and I'm not complaining about anything. If any team threw any game, that would be a mockery of the sport. At the same time, it was in our best interest to lose more games in a MEANINGLESS year, and as a fan I don't think it is unreasonable to want the teams best interest.

I'm not complaining. Simply commenting on someone elses post who said they have no idea why fans would have wanted our team to lose more games last season. All is said is so we could have 3 extra picks. I guarantee each and every single one of you would feel the same now about a 2-14 season as you would a 5-11 season. Both are equal in that they are wasted seasons, but 2-14 would have saved us two firsts and a high second.

Seriously though, it's just the nature of sports all the around. I think what you were TRYING to say is, "Sucks we were just good enough to have to give up picks to get our (hopefully) franchise QB."

[mooby]

Originally Posted by skinster

Woah Woah Woah. Let me reiterate. I never said throw any games, and I'm not complaining about anything. If any team threw any game, that would be a mockery of the sport. At the same time, it was in our best interest to lose more games in a MEANINGLESS year, and as a fan I don't think it is unreasonable to want the teams best interest.

I'm not complaining. Simply commenting on someone elses post who said they have no idea why fans would have wanted our team to lose more games last season. All is said is so we could have 3 extra picks. I guarantee each and every single one of you would feel the same now about a 2-14 season as you would a 5-11 season. Both are equal in that they are wasted seasons, but 2-14 would have saved us two firsts and a high second.

What if we went 2-14, but that still wasn't good enough for the 2nd overall pick, and we ended up with the third overall pick? So we decide we want RG3, but since a bunch of other teams want him too and one (Cleveland) tells the Rams they'll give them 3 first round picks, what do we do? Do we still give up 3 firsts and a 2nd just to move up one spot?

The whole point of that scenario is that we don't know what would've happened. And you can't teach an entire football team of players to lose, and you can't bench them and play your entire bench to lose either, because everybody would know what you're trying to do then, and it would be a pr disaster, probably costing your coach and gm their jobs, and so forth.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by mooby

What if we went 2-14, but that still wasn't good enough for the 2nd overall pick, and we ended up with the third overall pick? So we decide we want RG3, but since a bunch of other teams want him too and one (Cleveland) tells the Rams they'll give them 3 first round picks, what do we do? Do we still give up 3 firsts and a 2nd just to move up one spot?

The whole point of that scenario is that we don't know what would've happened. And you can't teach an entire football team of players to lose, and you can't bench them and play your entire bench to lose either, because everybody would know what you're trying to do then, and it would be a pr disaster, probably costing your coach and gm their jobs, and so forth.

First of all, 2-14 would have given us the first overall pick because of the tiebreaker.
Second of all, I want to say for a third time in this thread, I'm not saying that the coaches should coach to lose, or the players play to lose, I know that is impossible to pull off and if it wasn't, it would lessen the product of the NFL to have any team tank any game. I'm saying that from a fan perspective it would have been beneficial for us to lose 3 more games. Do you see the difference?

[SirClintonPortis]

It's ok to feel if you must win even the most meaningless of games due to "ethics", but don't complain one iota about the pain from the costs associated with it(like lost draft picks for a trade up), because that's a part of upholding said "ethics".
I will be waiting to see how people respond to the first round of the draft in the next couple of years. Someone will probably be moping about not being able to pick in the first round.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by skinster

First of all, 2-14 would have given us the first overall pick because of the tiebreaker.
Second of all, I want to say for a third time in this thread, I'm not saying that the coaches should coach to lose, or the players play to lose, I know that is impossible to pull off and if it wasn't, it would lessen the product of the NFL to have any team tank any game. I'm saying that from a fan perspective it would have been beneficial for us to lose 3 more games. Do you see the difference?

I understand you're getting a little defensive here because nobody agrees with your perspective, but I'm not trying to get into a serious discussion about this.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by skinster

First of all, 2-14 would have given us the first overall pick because of the tiebreaker.
Second of all, I want to say for a third time in this thread, I'm not saying that the coaches should coach to lose, or the players play to lose, I know that is impossible to pull off and if it wasn't, it would lessen the product of the NFL to have any team tank any game. I'm saying that from a fan perspective it would have been beneficial for us to lose 3 more games. Do you see the difference?

you do realize that if shanahan deliberately tanked any games, he'd lose all respect and credibility in the locker room and would lose the team, probably for good. in addition, if word ever got out that the skins deliberately tanked games to get a higher draft pick (and word would get out), i'm pretty sure the league would strip them of draft picks and/or salary cap space.

so no, it would not have been beneficial for us in the long run. everyone is entitled to an opinion, but yours is ridiculously stupid.