Jump to content

Kyler Murray


LoganF89

Recommended Posts

I just can't agree with tanking. I coach football at a high school and doing anything to lose on purpose just doesn't make sense to me. I understand the logic to get a higher pick but it feels like cheating. Hard work and being prepared for an opponent is what carries the most weight in wins and losses. But in saying this, the Skins have put us in position as fans to start thinking in that logic. We've been outworked and underprepared for almost 30 years 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Bo Duke said:

I just can't agree with tanking. I coach football at a high school and doing anything to lose on purpose just doesn't make sense to me. I understand the logic to get a higher pick but it feels like cheating. Hard work and being prepared for an opponent is what carries the most weight in wins and losses. But in saying this, the Skins have put us in position as fans to start thinking in that logic. We've been outworked and underprepared for almost 30 years 

There is no reward for being bad at the level you're coaching. In the NFL, there is. Being mediocre is how you end up picking in the middle of the draft and never getting better. When the Giants surpass us in a year or two and are back in the playoffs every year we can act like tanking doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bo Duke said:

I just can't agree with tanking. I coach football at a high school and doing anything to lose on purpose just doesn't make sense to me. I understand the logic to get a higher pick but it feels like cheating. Hard work and being prepared for an opponent is what carries the most weight in wins and losses. But in saying this, the Skins have put us in position as fans to start thinking in that logic. We've been outworked and underprepared for almost 30 years 

As a coach, I would never endorse any coach or team or any of my players to tank. But @lavar703 is right. Think of this. If we had lost 2 more games in 2011, we would've been able to pick up Andrew Luck with the #1 pick. Instead we traded 3 firsts and a second to get RG3. 

I'm not suggesting the players tank either. I WANT them ALL to try to win. Every game. 

I'm just saying, as a fan, that maybe we don't trade a king's ransom for a QB this year and we trot out Colt McCoy and let nature take it's course. We gotta be higher than 15th pick next year. And IF we still need to trade up then, we'll have an easier time doing it. Trading up from 15 to Top 5 is gonna be brutal on how many potential players we get in the draft. And make no mistake, that is where smart teams are building nowadays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lavar703 said:

There is no reward for being bad at the level you're coaching. In the NFL, there is. Being mediocre is how you end up picking in the middle of the draft and never getting better. When the Giants surpass us in a year or two and are back in the playoffs every year we can act like tanking doesn't work.

Yup. Two seasons in a row of tanking and they get Barkley and then their QBOTF in Haskins (or whomever). Tanking does work in the NFL (*)

 

 

(*) Provided that your scouting department and Front Office know how to accurately assess players

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2019 at 5:38 PM, Thaiphoon said:

Yup. Two seasons in a row of tanking and they get Barkley and then their QBOTF in Haskins (or whomever). Tanking does work in the NFL (*)

 

 

(*) Provided that your scouting department and Front Office know how to accurately assess players

1. They didn’t tank on purpose. They still played Eli and their best players.

2. If Beckham hadn’t broken his leg/ankle 2 years ago, they’re probably not in position to draft Barkley. So, it wasn’t planned, injuries were a big reason they drafted that high.

3. Last year they didn’t try to tank either. They gave Nate Solder huge $ to be their starting LT. They drafted Will Hernandez in round 2 to be their starting LG after drafting Barkley #2 overall. On paper, before the season they looked like the team that would challenge Phila for the division crown but they extremely underperformed on both sides of the ball.

4. They’re going to lose their best defender in a month and an former and still All-Pro level safety currently in his prime bc Gettleman is stupid. That’s a huge loss on an already bad defense.

So, it’s still TBD. It’s TBD if Barkley, Beckham and Haskins or whoever their future QB is ever wins them a lot of playoff games and a championship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

1. They didn’t tank on purpose. They still played Eli and their best players.

It's arguable whether still rolling with Eli is playing their best players. Maybe the best of what they have had but he's pretty far past his sell-by date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Woz said:

It's arguable whether still rolling with Eli is playing their best players. Maybe the best of what they have had but he's pretty far past his sell-by date.

Look I get, but saying the Giants tanked the last two years just isn’t true at all. Yes, they ended up being bad, but they didn’t try to purposely be bad before the season.

Last time I checked, tanking is when you purposely don’t sign good free agents and cut your good players to play worse players.

The Giants didn't do that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, turtle28 said:

Look I get, but saying the Giants tanked the last two years just isn’t true at all. Yes, they ended up being bad, but they didn’t try to purposely be bad before the season.

Last time I checked, tanking is when you purposely don’t sign good free agents and cut your good players to play worse players.

The Giants didn't do that.

 

They didn't not do that? Solder sure, but you can have him anchor while you get better. Who else am I missing? Who would they have cut? They didn't have talent to cut lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, RSkinGM said:

Means diagramming plays on a white board, explaining what the QB should do once the ball is snapped based on how the defense reacts (given a play X, what are the progressions, or what should you do if the LB drifts into zone coverage versus blitzing, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Woz said:

Means diagramming plays on a white board, explaining what the QB should do once the ball is snapped based on how the defense reacts (given a play X, what are the progressions, or what should you do if the LB drifts into zone coverage versus blitzing, etc.).

Ahhh, I've heard of that but didn't know it was called "Board Work" makes sense ..Thanks !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RSkinGM said:

Ahhh, I've heard of that but didn't know it was called "Board Work" makes sense ..Thanks !

You're welcome :) (USELESS INFORMATION MAN to the rescue again!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...