PDA

View Full Version : Colts will draft Andrew Luck


cal_junior
04-19-2012, 09:09 AM
It is now official. RGIII will be a Redskin. Per Schefter:

No great surprise, it's what most expected, but Colts have told Andrew Luck they will take him with the No. 1 overall pick, per NFL source.

CNYSkinFan
04-19-2012, 09:10 AM
and let the celebration begin!

Patrick
04-19-2012, 09:24 AM
and let the celebration begin! That was done once they got the second pick .... Skins were in a win/win situation at that point.

BIGREDSKINSFAN1963
04-19-2012, 09:26 AM
PFT just put it up.Honestly,I'd take RG3 over luck every time,but you can't lose with either guy.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/19/report-colts-tell-luck-hes-the-pick/

CNYSkinFan
04-19-2012, 09:27 AM
That was done once they got the second pick .... Skins were in a win/win situation at that point.
sure but now reality is setting in. We can give him the full playbook, hopefully the colts will get their contract done quickly and we can act as fast as we did when signing players after midnight on fa so RGIII is there for every camp.

CNYSkinFan
04-19-2012, 09:28 AM
PFT just put it up.Honestly,I'd take RG3 over luck every time,but you can't lose with either guy.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/19/report-colts-tell-luck-hes-the-pick/
I think RGIII suits the DC area and Luck Indy. Its like Bird going to Boston and Magic to LA, it just feels right

Patrick
04-19-2012, 09:33 AM
sure but now reality is setting in. We can give him the full playbook, hopefully the colts will get their contract done quickly and we can act as fast as we did when signing players after midnight on fa so RGIII is there for every camp. Understand what you're saying and agree .... the bolded area is somewhat of a concern .... who's playbook / offensive scheme. Have they (Kyle) really devised a system that will best utilized RGIII's skills or will it end up being a trail/error system. Could be a scary thought ........

cal_junior
04-19-2012, 09:42 AM
Have they (Kyle) really devised a system that will best utilized RGIII's skills or will it end up being a trail/error system. Could be a scary thought ........

I don't think you need to devise a system for talented guys as much as you do scrubs. Mike's philosophy about offensive football should mesh perfectly with what Griff does.

Skinz4lyfe
04-19-2012, 09:53 AM
I think RGIII suits the DC area and Luck Indy. Its like Bird going to Boston and Magic to LA, it just feels right

This is exactly how I feel too. Though I'd gladly take Luck if Griffin went first, I believe this was the best scenario for both us and the Colts. Now lets get some guys to protect him and we'll be alright.

CNYSkinFan
04-19-2012, 10:03 AM
I don't think you need to devise a system for talented guys as much as you do scrubs. Mike's philosophy about offensive football should mesh perfectly with what Griff does.
well talent is not always everything. IMO Good coaches have an overall philosophy, aquire talent to fit said philosophy, and then adjust scheme to take advantage of individual talents and shield individual weaknesses. So far Kyle has not shown he can do the latter part and the front office up until this year have not shown they can do the middle part, and I am not sure what the first part is, if it exists at all.

Perhaps this is the year where we will see that all come to fruition

cal_junior
04-19-2012, 10:06 AM
well talent is not always everything. IMO Good coaches have an overall philosophy, aquire talent to fit said philosophy, and then adjust scheme to take advantage of individual talents and shield individual weaknesses. So far Kyle has not shown he can do the latter part and the front office up until this year have not shown they can do the middle part, and I am not sure what the first part is, if it exists at all.

Perhaps this is the year where we will see that all come to fruition

Fortunately for us the kind of QB Mike covets is exactly who we appear to be drafting. Mobile, accurate, strong arm. No need for any significant adjustments, IMO.

CNYSkinFan
04-19-2012, 10:21 AM
Fortunately for us the kind of QB Mike covets is exactly who we appear to be drafting. Mobile, accurate, strong arm. No need for any significant adjustments, IMO.
not to start this whole debate again, but I wonder how much of Mike's system we are running and how much of kyle's system. The last two years I see little of Mike's run first philosophy that did well in denver

DaveKShape
04-19-2012, 10:22 AM
I would have been happy with Luck too, but if there's any other prospect in the past few years that I would have wanted in his place, RG3 is definitely the guy. Can't wait to see what he can do for us (provided we use him correctly).

cal_junior
04-19-2012, 10:27 AM
not to start this whole debate again, but I wonder how much of Mike's system we are running and how much of kyle's system. The last two years I see little of Mike's run first philosophy that did well in denver

I liked the way we ran the ball before the O-Line injuries last year. It's my opinion that Mike's is the strongest voice in the room in terms of overall gameplan and specific strategy as to how to attack defenses.

Without a complete dumpster fire under center I think you'll be happy with what you see this season.

Red Bear
04-19-2012, 10:35 AM
well talent is not always everything. IMO Good coaches have an overall philosophy, aquire talent to fit said philosophy, and then adjust scheme to take advantage of individual talents and shield individual weaknesses. So far Kyle has not shown he can do the latter part and the front office up until this year have not shown they can do the middle part, and I am not sure what the first part is, if it exists at all.

Perhaps this is the year where we will see that all come to fruition

So how is Kyle supposed to prevent McNabb from throwing balls in the dirt? you cant hide that weakness, its something that McNabb has done his entire career. Is Kyle supposed to call all deep routes just so the ball gets in the air?

How does kyle hide Grossmans decision making? Rex is going to be a turnover machine no matter what you do, he has had like 10 years to learn to read defenses and avoid mistakes and still hasnt learned...

but then again, i guess everything is Kyles fault in your world....

CNYSkinFan
04-19-2012, 10:40 AM
So how is Kyle supposed to prevent McNabb from throwing balls in the dirt? you cant hide that weakness, its something that McNabb has done his entire career. Is Kyle supposed to call all deep routes just so the ball gets in the air?

How does kyle hide Grossmans decision making? Rex is going to be a turnover machine no matter what you do, he has had like 10 years to learn to read defenses and avoid mistakes and still hasnt learned...

but then again, i guess everything is Kyles fault in your world....
Oh Red Bear...never change

I am not going to debate McNabb anymore except to point out for all his faults he would have set the Redskins passing record if he was allowed to start.

Kyle hand picked Grossman, it was his qb. He owns his mistakes. Kyle wanted Grossman to show off his offensive scheme...he got it, he owns that mistake.

If things change this year I will be happy, if things dont you will no doubt find a way to blame RGIII instead of the one constant that is keeping our offesnive system down, Kyle and his play calling

dj_stouty
04-19-2012, 10:46 AM
Indy is drafting Luck. And in other news; there are 24 hours in a day.

S.Taylor36
04-19-2012, 10:58 AM
Indy is drafting Luck. And in other news; there are 24 hours in a day.

24 hours in a day? That's why I get to work an hour before everyone else.

In other news...not that this means anything either

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports that Andrew Luck scored a 37 on his Wonderlic Test, while Robert Griffin III scored a 24.
24 is considered the league average by Wonderlic score historians. Luck's Wonderlic result was nine points higher than his predecessor, Peyton Manning's. Blaine Gabbert scored a 31 on the Wonderlic last year, and there has never been any indication that the test is an indicator of future NFL performance.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/as-good-as-it-gets-vn4vq54-148038285.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

cal_junior
04-19-2012, 11:08 AM
The MJS (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/draftcaps19-vn4vq55-148026515.html) has become a major source of RGIII news lately:

Yet at least two NFL scouts interviewed by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel aren't sold on RG3.

"He's got a little bit of a selfish streak," a scout told the Journal Sentinel's Bob McGinn. "Everybody was laying on Cam (Newton), but for some reason this guy has become gloves off. He doesn't treat anybody good."

Another scout interviewed by the newspaper questioned the hype around Griffin, referring to "a lot of bad tape."

"Everybody is just assuming because of the Heisman and the socks and all that BS... they are ignoring a lot of bad tape that he's had," the scout said. "I don't think he has vision or pocket feel, which to me are the two most important components of quarterbacking. He's just running around winging it. He's (Michael) Vick, but not as good a thrower."

nicefellow31
04-19-2012, 11:36 AM
Doesn't sound too selfish (http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2012/story/_/id/7820629/robert-griffin-iii-more-just-name-baylor-heisman-winner-espn-magazine)to me. I hadn't heard these new lyrics to HTTR.


Hail to the Redskins
Hail victory
Braves on the warpath
Block for RG3

lorimike
04-19-2012, 11:49 AM
So how is Kyle supposed to prevent McNabb from throwing balls in the dirt? you cant hide that weakness, its something that McNabb has done his entire career. Is Kyle supposed to call all deep routes just so the ball gets in the air?

How does kyle hide Grossmans decision making? Rex is going to be a turnover machine no matter what you do, he has had like 10 years to learn to read defenses and avoid mistakes and still hasnt learned...

but then again, i guess everything is Kyles fault in your world....

Or remember the play where Grossman was caught from behind by Anthony Spencer, then fumbled in our 16-18 loss to the Cowboys? I'm thinkinkg there is no chance Anthony Spencer catches RG3 from Behind

lorimike
04-19-2012, 11:52 AM
Would this play happen if RG3 were our QB ? http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d8229b6ae/Grossman-s-fumble-secures-Cowboys-win

GeneralDisorder
04-19-2012, 11:55 AM
Or remember the play where Grossman was caught from behind by Anthony Spencer, then fumbled in our 16-18 loss to the Cowboys? I'm thinkinkg there is no chance Anthony Spencer catches RG3 from Behind

I'm thinking that with RG3, there's no way we're only leading by a point against the Cowboys in the first place...

oldskinfan
04-19-2012, 12:01 PM
Would this play happen if RG3 were our QB ? http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d8229b6ae/Grossman-s-fumble-secures-Cowboys-win

RGIII would have scrambled for a 20 yd gain or to buy time and find a WR downfield.

cal_junior
04-19-2012, 12:06 PM
Would this play happen if RG3 were our QB ? http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d8229b6ae/Grossman-s-fumble-secures-Cowboys-win

I'm going to take your word for it. I just can't watch anymore Rex Grossman. He ruined my Aug-Dec months, he's not going to bring me down in April, lol.

dj_stouty
04-19-2012, 12:06 PM
The MJS (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/draftcaps19-vn4vq55-148026515.html) has become a major source of RGIII news lately:

Yeah, and those two scouts were probably on teams that let Aaron Rogers fall so far in his draft.

I take their anonymous feedback with a grain of salt...

cal_junior
04-19-2012, 12:08 PM
Yeah, and those two scouts were probably on teams that let Aaron Rogers fall so far in his draft.

I take their anonymous feedback with a grain of salt...

Agreed. This close to the draft I don't trust anything.

lorimike
04-19-2012, 01:28 PM
RGIII would have scrambled for a 20 yd gain or to buy time and find a WR downfield.

Agreed. And that's how a good player can make the Shanahans look like smart and players like Grossman make them look incompetent. I am thinking the Shanahans might be back to genious status before too long.

Red Bear
04-19-2012, 02:12 PM
Oh Red Bear...never change

I am not going to debate McNabb anymore except to point out for all his faults he would have set the Redskins passing record if he was allowed to start.

Kyle hand picked Grossman, it was his qb. He owns his mistakes. Kyle wanted Grossman to show off his offensive scheme...he got it, he owns that mistake.

If things change this year I will be happy, if things dont you will no doubt find a way to blame RGIII instead of the one constant that is keeping our offesnive system down, Kyle and his play calling

yeah mcnabb did that in Kyles offense, youre helping my argument more than hurting it by bringing that up. and still, its not kyles fault mcnabb was incompetent, wouldnt put in the work, study film, was first in first out everyday at the park, and refused to wear a wristband because he couldnt properly call plays in the huddle which slowed down the tempo of the offense. blame goes to the QB....

Kyle may have connections to Grossman, but Kyle wasnt the one throwing interceptions and fumbling the ball all season long...once again, blame goes to the QB...

and in fact, this isnt about blaming or praising anyone in specific, its about the fact that all of our offensive failures dont fall on kyle shanahan like you seem to think they do, there is blame to spread around, and kyle certainly gets some of it, but not all of it. your demeanor suggests that the players get no blame for not performing up to par, and that clearly goes back to your biased agenda against the shanahans...

Arkangiest
04-19-2012, 02:34 PM
The MJS (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/draftcaps19-vn4vq55-148026515.html) has become a major source of RGIII news lately:

These scouts can go to hell! I refuse to listen to the garbage being spewed from their mouths!

FunBunch5
04-19-2012, 02:36 PM
This just in an anonymous source says Dan Snyder and Shanahan fell in love with Tannenhill and they will draft him with their second pick.

Now that is funny right there.

CNYSkinFan
04-19-2012, 06:04 PM
yeah mcnabb did that in Kyles offense, youre helping my argument more than hurting it by bringing that up. and still, its not kyles fault mcnabb was incompetent, wouldnt put in the work, study film, was first in first out everyday at the park, and refused to wear a wristband because he couldnt properly call plays in the huddle which slowed down the tempo of the offense. blame goes to the QB....

Kyle may have connections to Grossman, but Kyle wasnt the one throwing interceptions and fumbling the ball all season long...once again, blame goes to the QB...

and in fact, this isnt about blaming or praising anyone in specific, its about the fact that all of our offensive failures dont fall on kyle shanahan like you seem to think they do, there is blame to spread around, and kyle certainly gets some of it, but not all of it. your demeanor suggests that the players get no blame for not performing up to par, and that clearly goes back to your biased agenda against the shanahans...
and your apologist ways are showing.

Your the one who keeps bringing up McNabb, not me. but I will pose this question to you.

If Mcnabb was the shanahans hand picked qb and the offense failed in 2010, and grossman was the shannys hand picked qb in 2011 and the offense failed, if the offense fails under RGIII, will you then blame the shannys, or will you come up with some other excuse?

I dont have an agenda, I have a theory, that Kyle is a horrible OC. So far that theory has proven true on the field

justinskins
04-19-2012, 06:19 PM
I dont have an agenda, I have a theory, that Kyle is a horrible OC. So far that theory has proven true on the field

I'm not in love with Kyle either but there is that whole Houston thing.

Red Bear
04-19-2012, 06:33 PM
and your apologist ways are showing.

Your the one who keeps bringing up McNabb, not me. but I will pose this question to you.

If Mcnabb was the shanahans hand picked qb and the offense failed in 2010, and grossman was the shannys hand picked qb in 2011 and the offense failed, if the offense fails under RGIII, will you then blame the shannys, or will you come up with some other excuse?

I dont have an agenda, I have a theory, that Kyle is a horrible OC. So far that theory has proven true on the field

once again youre missing my point. i said both players and coach were deserving of blame, how does that make me an apologist? just because i disagree with you or have a different viewpoint of something than you do? i will put it like this, lets throw all the names out. are you telling me the players are never the problem and only the coaches? because thats exactly what it seems like.

cal_junior
04-19-2012, 07:15 PM
I'm not in love with Kyle either but there is that whole Houston thing.

http://i41.tinypic.com/n3nnyf.jpg

smave
04-20-2012, 06:59 AM
I think with the Colts having a new GM that taking Luck is the safe way for him. If he were to take RGIII and say he is a bust, that is not a good look for a new GM. So, by taking Luck, if he fails then it would be considered a huge bust and the league won't think too much of it.

cal_junior
04-20-2012, 07:55 AM
These scouts can go to hell! I refuse to listen to the garbage being spewed from their mouths!

Peter King:

"Re RG3 bashing: When I asked him for his favorite play of '11, he talked for 5 minutes about his downfield block on RB TD in Alamo Bowl."

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 08:03 AM
I'm not in love with Kyle either but there is that whole Houston thing.



As Akh has pointed out on numerous occasions that the offense was not any better with Kyle then when he left. my theory includes the fact that Kubiak was the real genius behind the Shanny offense both Jr and Sr. And it seems to be correct so far. Neither Shanny has done much without Kubiak.

Hows them facts for ya Cal

cal_junior
04-20-2012, 08:10 AM
As Akh has pointed out on numerous occasions that the offense was not any better with Kyle then when he left. my theory includes the fact that Kubiak was the real genius behind the Shanny offense both Jr and Sr. And it seems to be correct so far. Neither Shanny has done much without Kubiak.

Hows them facts for ya Cal

I don't necessarily think Kyle is a good OC or play-caller, but I don't think the fact the Texans didn't forget how to play football when he left is evidence of anything.

The fact is they got better during his tenure there. Lots of it was talent and lots of it was Kub, but I think Kyle played some role.

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 08:11 AM
once again youre missing my point. i said both players and coach were deserving of blame, how does that make me an apologist? just because i disagree with you or have a different viewpoint of something than you do? i will put it like this, lets throw all the names out. are you telling me the players are never the problem and only the coaches? because thats exactly what it seems like.
I blame players all the time for bad play (see my numerous posts about Doughty). Your over generalization of my nuanced opinions aside in the case of offensive scheme that is usually a coach's fault. In the case of doing nothing to mask weaknesses in players and playing to their strengths, that is on a coach. Notice how I was not the one who brought McNabb up in this thread, you did.

I fervently hope my theory is wrong and Kshanny is a good oc, because that means my team is winning. But right now I dont see him much better then mediocre in terms of play calling and playing to player strengths.

and it is not just qbs I am talking about. Not playing Santana exclusively in the slot where he is best suited, continuing to call zone stretch plays for Ryan Torrain who is a north/south runner, not using roll out for Beck when he was in there but using them for Grossman who could not roll out unless it meant finding a taking whole bunch of dinner rolls out of the oven.

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 08:47 AM
I don't necessarily think Kyle is a good OC or play-caller, but I don't think the fact the Texans didn't forget how to play football when he left is evidence of anything.

The fact is they got better during his tenure there. Lots of it was talent and lots of it was Kub, but I think Kyle played some role.
Good coaches make bad talent play better then what they are. If a coach needs great talent to succeed, well they arent a very good coach.

I am not sure what your theory is other then Kyle is not a dumpster fire. That is fine, I actually all joking aside think he *COULD* be a good coach one day, but he was accelerated in the ranks of coaching because of his name and his arrogance has led him to believe in his system over the talent of players around him. That is why he wanted Grossman over McNabb, to arguably worse results. That is what I am worried about with RGIII, though not that much because the franchise has married RGIII. If the Shannys cant succeed with him, they will be gone.

cal_junior
04-20-2012, 08:59 AM
Good coaches make bad talent play better then what they are. If a coach needs great talent to succeed, well they arent a very good coach.

I am not sure what your theory is other then Kyle is not a dumpster fire. That is fine, I actually all joking aside think he *COULD* be a good coach one day, but he was accelerated in the ranks of coaching because of his name and his arrogance has led him to believe in his system over the talent of players around him. That is why he wanted Grossman over McNabb, to arguably worse results. That is what I am worried about with RGIII, though not that much because the franchise has married RGIII. If the Shannys cant succeed with him, they will be gone.

I don't think good coaches need great talent to succeed, but I do think they need quite a bit more than what the Skins have had the past two years. But again, I'm not prepared to say Kyle is a good coach. I just think the jury's stil out based on the past four years.

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 09:08 AM
I don't think good coaches need great talent to succeed, but I do think they need quite a bit more than what the Skins have had the past two years. But again, I'm not prepared to say Kyle is a good coach. I just think the jury's stil out based on the past four years.
well I am glad you are willing to make such a definitive statement lol. It will allow you in the future to argue both sides of the argument.

I do have to point out that I do not differentiate much between shanny sr and jr because I believe they are a package. I also believe as other sources have pointed out that Kyle has influence over talent acquisition and Shanny Sr definitely does. Thuus the talent levels that they have had are directly related to the decisions they have made as Redskin employees. This factors into my evaluation of both men. So will wins. I hope to change my mind soon

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 09:10 AM
As Akh has pointed out on numerous occasions that the offense was not any better with Kyle then when he left. my theory includes the fact that Kubiak was the real genius behind the Shanny offense both Jr and Sr. And it seems to be correct so far. Neither Shanny has done much without Kubiak.

Hows them facts for ya Cal

And Bill Belichick hasn't won a Super Bowl since Charlie Weis left......

So does your theory include the fact that Weis was the real genius behind those New England Super Bowl victories as well?

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 09:13 AM
And Bill Belichick hasn't won a Super Bowl since Charlie Weis left......

So does your theory include the fact that Weis was the real genius behind those New England Super Bowl victories as well?
where in my post did I say Super Bowl? Nowhere. I am making it a policy now not argue positions I did not take. If you care to actually discuss my position I will do that.

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 09:20 AM
where in my post did I say Super Bowl? Nowhere. I am making it a policy now not argue positions I did not take. If you care to actually discuss my position I will do that.

It's just as ridiculous as your point that Kubiak was the real genuis behind the Broncos offense.

cal_junior
04-20-2012, 09:22 AM
well I am glad you are willing to make such a definitive statement lol. It will allow you in the future to argue both sides of the argument.

Yikes. Take off the tin foil hat, hoss. My opinion on this issue has been consistent. I've never been a fan of Kyle's, I just think those who are 100 percent convinced he's a train wreck are far too knee-jerk.

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 09:23 AM
It's just as ridiculous as your point that Kubiak was the real genuis behind the Broncos offense.
so you say, however the NE offense did not suffer when Weiss left, they may not have won a superbowl but they were always efficient in offense , and talent aquisition, and win/loss records. Seems to me your false position bears no weight.

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 09:29 AM
Yikes. Take off the tin foil hat, hoss. My opinion on this issue has been consistent. I've never been a fan of Kyle's, I just think those who are 100 percent convinced he's a train wreck are far too knee-jerk.
I am not 100% certain of anything, I am willing to take a position until it is proven otherwise though. And that is the difference. I have goals and metrics by which to decide whether my theories (and that is all they are of course) are panning out.

I am willing, in fact I fervently hope, I am wrong about the Shannys, because that will mean wins and success on the field. I just don't believe that will come until after they are gone.

Of course I also don't believe in the MAyan apocalypse, but Snookie's pregnancy may be proving me wrong....

BTW for one person who so protests against personal attacks I find it funny you use the tin foil hat attack. I do not take offense, I just find it a bit hypocritical. The hoss term I kinda like....

cal_junior
04-20-2012, 09:30 AM
so you say, however the NE offense did not suffer when Weiss left, they may not have won a superbowl but they were always efficient in offense , and talent aquisition, and win/loss records. Seems to me your false position bears no weight.

We all know there are situations in football where a coach helps to develop a young player and brings them to a higher level. Because they continue to play well after that coach leaves doesn't mean they didn't accomplish anything while they were there.

cal_junior
04-20-2012, 09:33 AM
I am not 100% certain of anything, I am willing to take a position until it is proven otherwise though. And that is the difference. I have goals and metrics by which to decide whether my theories (and that is all they are of course) are panning out.

I am willing, in fact I fervently hope, I am wrong about the Shannys, because that will mean wins and success on the field. I just don't believe that will come until after they are gone.

Of course I also don't believe in the MAyan apocalypse, but Snookie's pregnancy may be proving me wrong....

BTW for one person who so protests against personal attacks I find it funny you use the tin foil hat attack. I do not take offense, I just find it a bit hypocritical. The hoss term I kinda like....

Your point seemed to be that my opinion wasn't genuine, but rather a tactic to allow myself an "out" down the road. That seems slightly conspiratorial to me: "Cal can't have an honest opinion there must be . . . more." And I was fooling around, obviously. It wasn't intended to be malicious.

Maybe I'm mistaking you for others re Kyle. If you're still open-minded about his future here I retract the 100 percent thing.

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 09:46 AM
Your point seemed to be that my opinion wasn't genuine, but rather a tactic to allow myself an "out" down the road. That seems slightly conspiratorial to me: "Cal can't have an honest opinion there must be . . . more." And I was fooling around, obviously. It wasn't intended to be malicious.

Maybe I'm mistaking you for others re Kyle. If you're still open-minded about his future here I retract the 100 percent thing.
Oh I doubt he is a good coahc, my position on that is clear. however if he proves me wrong with wins I will gladly say I am wrong.

And Cal, I don't find you having an honest opinion. Too often you take both sides of an argument. As you are on this one. You don't state whether you think Kyle is a good coach or not, and that's fine. But there is also nothign wrong with having a strong opinion on Kyle's coaching one way or the other as long as your willing to admit your wrong if proven wrong.

My proof comes this year IMO. No more excuses. If the offense makes remarkable strides forward then I will reconsider my position. If the offense seems to still not play to the strengths of their position. I don't need a superbowl, i need competence, something I have not seen the last two years.

cal_junior
04-20-2012, 09:51 AM
And Cal, I don't find you having an honest opinion. Too often you take both sides of an argument. As you are on this one. You don't state whether you think Kyle is a good coach or not, and that's fine. But there is also nothign wrong with having a strong opinion on Kyle's coaching one way or the other as long as your willing to admit your wrong if proven wrong. .

I guess I don't see feeling like the jury is still is taking both sides of an argument.

With every bit of sports analysis we as fans move from a point of gathering information to one where use said information to reach a conclusion. I havent' reached a conclusion yet on our OC.

Have their been other cases where I've taken both sides of an argument?

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 09:59 AM
I guess I don't see feeling like the jury is still is taking both sides of an argument.

With every bit of sports analysis we as fans move from a point of gathering information to one where use said information to reach a conclusion. I havent' reached a conclusion yet on our OC.

Have their been other cases where I've taken both sides of an argument?
i wont divert yet another thread on a debate on your posting style. On the position of Kyle Shanahan you have refused to take a position other then "I Don't KNo". And again, that is fine, but you must admit not a position worth debating. I have made my position clear and given ample evidence to back up why I have reached that conclusion, you choose to see it as inconclusive, and refuse to offer arguments other then you *think* kyle *may* be a good coach....maybe. Thats fine, but it is not a strong argument.

cal_junior
04-20-2012, 10:08 AM
i wont divert yet another thread on a debate on your posting style. On the position of Kyle Shanahan you have refused to take a position other then "I Don't KNo". And again, that is fine, but you must admit not a position worth debating. I have made my position clear and given ample evidence to back up why I have reached that conclusion, you choose to see it as inconclusive, and refuse to offer arguments other then you *think* kyle *may* be a good coach....maybe. Thats fine, but it is not a strong argument.

Well I haven't started threads titled "I'm not sure about Kyle Shanahan - Who is with me?" The debate has been whether or not I think those who have reached their conclusion are correct.

Kyle's offenses were great in Houston and mediocre in DC. "I'm not sure yet" seems like a pretty straight-forward opinion of his OC career.

bergiemoore
04-20-2012, 10:11 AM
http://ehmsnbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

Is there a thread that hasn't devolved into a discussion on Kyle Shanahan's capabilities?

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 10:15 AM
so you say, however the NE offense did not suffer when Weiss left, they may not have won a superbowl but they were always efficient in offense , and talent aquisition, and win/loss records. Seems to me your false position bears no weight.

Andre Johnson had a career year when Kyle Shanahan took over the receivers coach job for the Texans and Schaub had his best season over when Kyle Shanahan ran the Texans offense. I know that means absolutely nothing to you nor does the fact the Broncos had the #2 ranked offense in the NFL in 2008 long after Kubiak left.

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 10:27 AM
Andre Johnson had a career year when Kyle Shanahan took over the receivers coach job for the Texans and Schaub had his best season over when Kyle Shanahan ran the Texans offense. I know that means absolutely nothing to you nor does the fact the Broncos had the #2 ranked offense in the NFL in 2008 long after Kubiak left.
I seem to remember Shanny being fired after the 2008 season Lavar, fired for letting his arrogance get in the way of his success.

Andre Johnson was hampered by injuries the next two years after Kyle left. In 2010 if you extrapolaited his 13 game stats (86 catches 1216 yards) to 16 (106 1497 yards) it is comprable to hiws two seasons under Kyle (2008 115 1575, 2009 101 1569). So thankl you for probving my point, Andre Johnson did not miss a beat when Kyle left, until he got injured. Unless you are claiming something about Kyle kept him healthy.

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 10:29 AM
Well I haven't started threads titled "I'm not sure about Kyle Shanahan - Who is with me?" The debate has been whether or not I think those who have reached their conclusion are correct.

Kyle's offenses were great in Houston and mediocre in DC. "I'm not sure yet" seems like a pretty straight-forward opinion of his OC career.
we agree, on Kyle Shanahan you have refused to take a position one way or the other yet choose to question the posts of those who have taken a position that he is not a good coach and ignored the positions of those who think he is a good oc.

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 10:37 AM
I seem to remember Shanny being fired after the 2008 season Lavar, fired for letting his arrogance get in the way of his success.

Andre Johnson was hampered by injuries the next two years after Kyle left. In 2010 if you extrapolaited his 13 game stats (86 catches 1216 yards) to 16 (106 1497 yards) it is comprable to hiws two seasons under Kyle (2008 115 1575, 2009 101 1569). So thankl you for probving my point, Andre Johnson did not miss a beat when Kyle left, until he got injured. Unless you are claiming something about Kyle kept him healthy.

Unbelievable, You're now extrapolating stats. Being fired after the 2008 season doesn't change the fact that he finished with the second ranked offense WITHOUT Kubiak which was your point to begin with.

cal_junior
04-20-2012, 10:42 AM
we agree, on Kyle Shanahan you have refused to take a position one way or the other yet choose to question the posts of those who have taken a position that he is not a good coach and ignored the positions of those who think he is a good oc.

One doesn't have to think a coach is good to disagree with somebody who thinks he's bad. And the reverse is true.

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 10:45 AM
Unbelievable, You're now extrapolating stats. Being fired after the 2008 season doesn't change the fact that he finished with the second ranked offense WITHOUT Kubiak which was your point to begin with.
what is unbelievable about extrapolaiting stats when based on inujury. The fact is Johnson missed 3 games in 2010. His per game stats in 2010 were similar to 2008 & 2009. I am sorry your assertion does not actually fit your pre-conceived notion. Its not my fault, I did not bring it up, you did.

As for Shanny's last season, I judge Shanny Sr as a Head Coach, not an OC. He was 8-8 ion 2008 with a pourous defense and questionable talent choices which led to the Denver Broncos firing him. If you bring up 2008 as proof that Shanny is a good HC, then it is relavent to point ourt he was fired.

Red Bear
04-20-2012, 10:46 AM
I blame players all the time for bad play (see my numerous posts about Doughty). Your over generalization of my nuanced opinions aside in the case of offensive scheme that is usually a coach's fault. In the case of doing nothing to mask weaknesses in players and playing to their strengths, that is on a coach. Notice how I was not the one who brought McNabb up in this thread, you did.

I fervently hope my theory is wrong and Kshanny is a good oc, because that means my team is winning. But right now I dont see him much better then mediocre in terms of play calling and playing to player strengths.

and it is not just qbs I am talking about. Not playing Santana exclusively in the slot where he is best suited, continuing to call zone stretch plays for Ryan Torrain who is a north/south runner, not using roll out for Beck when he was in there but using them for Grossman who could not roll out unless it meant finding a taking whole bunch of dinner rolls out of the oven.

actually, i said take the names out of it, you brung them back up. as for the scheme, i believe the scheme is great, we just dont have the talent and personnel fully suited to it yet. of course we also changed defensive schemes and had to get personnel for that too. you cant make that kind of turnaround in two offseasons, one of which was lockedout, and in a third where the league raped our cap space....

so you want santana constantly in the slot every play he is on the field, thats a good way to have a totally predictable offense. and with Torain i saw a lot of inside runs and less stretch plays, dont know what games you watched. actually saw beck roll out substantially more a game when he did play, but youre trying to compare his 3.5 games to grossmans many more games. of course its going to seem grossman rolled out more when he was on the field 3 times as much as beck.

we get it, you hate kyle and only want to blame him for the teams failures on offense. truth is you havent given the shannys a fair chance from the get go, and thats evident by you saying that this year will be your proof, so your past complaints were based on.....nothing. on the years that ive been here youve always complained no matter who the coach was and have no patience for a coach to actually build a team suitable to win. my stance is ive wanted someone to have a fair chance to build something here, if they failed then so be it, atleast someone got a fair chance. its much better than changing coaches every other year who decide they dont like the last coaches players and start to bring in their guys, only to get fired a couple years later before they can complete a roster turnaround and entrench a system and its an ongoing cycle...

im done with this convo, its clear you have an agenda against all things shanahan...

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 10:53 AM
actually, i said take the names out of it, you brung them back up. as for the scheme, i believe the scheme is great, we just dont have the talent and personnel fully suited to it yet. of course we also changed defensive schemes and had to get personnel for that too. you cant make that kind of turnaround in two offseasons, one of which was lockedout, and in a third where the league raped our cap space....

so you want santana constantly in the slot every play he is on the field, thats a good way to have a totally predictable offense. and with Torain i saw a lot of inside runs and less stretch plays, dont know what games you watched. actually saw beck roll out substantially more a game when he did play, but youre trying to compare his 3.5 games to grossmans many more games. of course its going to seem grossman rolled out more when he was on the field 3 times as much as beck.

we get it, you hate kyle and only want to blame him for the teams failures on offense. truth is you havent given the shannys a fair chance from the get go, and thats evident by you saying that this year will be your proof, so your past complaints were based on.....nothing. on the years that ive been here youve always complained no matter who the coach was and have no patience for a coach to actually build a team suitable to win. my stance is ive wanted someone to have a fair chance to build something here, if they failed then so be it, atleast someone got a fair chance. its much better than changing coaches every other year who decide they dont like the last coaches players and start to bring in their guys, only to get fired a couple years later before they can complete a roster turnaround and entrench a system and its an ongoing cycle...

im done with this convo, its clear you have an agenda against all things shanahan...
that is patently not true. I defended Joe Gibbs the entire time he was here, I had serious problems with Gregg Williams and Dale Lindsey in their defenses as well as Greg Blatche. I was against the Zorn hire from day 1, and was right.

and since I have been on this board since 2005 we have had only two playoff seasons....I think it is only natural to have mostly negative feelings about the organization. And you just want people to post how great things are. And I will, when we start winning games.

As for your point about this year will be my proof, I don't get that. I have always said my opinion is just that, however if the shanny's fail to show progress 3 years in a row then even the most ardent supporters will have to have their faith shaken. If they show progress then I will have to reassess my position.

In either case you will make your posts about me (which is fine) other then the facts (which you cant defend).

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 11:34 AM
what is unbelievable about extrapolaiting stats when based on inujury. The fact is Johnson missed 3 games in 2010. His per game stats in 2010 were similar to 2008 & 2009. I am sorry your assertion does not actually fit your pre-conceived notion. Its not my fault, I did not bring it up, you did.

As for Shanny's last season, I judge Shanny Sr as a Head Coach, not an OC. He was 8-8 ion 2008 with a pourous defense and questionable talent choices which led to the Denver Broncos firing him. If you bring up 2008 as proof that Shanny is a good HC, then it is relavent to point ourt he was fired.

I'm done, you've gone completely off the deep end with this argument. Your hatred of Shanahan has blinded you of any facts that are contrary to your argument.

cal_junior
04-20-2012, 11:53 AM
I'm done, you've gone completely off the deep end with this argument. Your hatred of Shanahan has blinded you of any facts that are contrary to your argument.

In fairness to CNY, he did wait 13 games into Shanahan's Skins tenure before deciding he should be fired. A more knee-jerk fan would have wanted him gone after 11 or 12.

Keino
04-20-2012, 12:04 PM
If we were really interested in fairness to CNY, then we would examine, not the timing of his post to make the knee-jerk characterization, but the arguments he sets forth in his post. You will be hard-pressed to point out where he has been proven wrong two years after the fact.

And for the record, I disagreed with him at the time of his post. We also should acknowledge that it takes far more guts to take a position than to straddle the fence and not take a position. Of course that means that there is the chance that one may have to serve themselves a little crow down the road.

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 12:23 PM
If we were really interested in fairness to CNY, then we would examine, not the timing of his post to make the knee-jerk characterization, but the arguments he sets forth in his post. You will be hard-pressed to point out where he has been proven wrong two years after the fact.

And for the record, I disagreed with him at the time of his post. We also should acknowledge that it takes far more guts to take a position than to straddle the fence and not take a position. Of course that means that there is the chance that one may have to serve themselves a little crow down the road.

I've been completely against firing Shanahan. My main gripe is we've been down this road, firing a coach prematurely (Marty) and not giving him a real chance to build. I acknowledge the fact that Shanahan has made mistakes since taking over this team but I have stood by the fact that he will right the ship.

Keino
04-20-2012, 12:48 PM
I've been completely against firing Shanahan. My main gripe is we've been down this road, firing a coach prematurely (Marty) and not giving him a real chance to build. I acknowledge the fact that Shanahan has made mistakes since taking over this team but I have stood by the fact that he will right the ship.

That's pretty much my reasoning for saying he deserves at least 3 years. Where we depart is that I don't share your faith in his ability to get it turned around, and it is on that point where I think CNY makes some compelling argument.

For me this year is it. A double-digit loss season will put me on the fire shanny train. I can accept a 7-9 season. I won't like it, but I can accept that.

The other issue I have, and it is one that has been debated and hashed and re-hashed is that I don't think Shanny is building. I think each and every year he has tried to cobble a team together arrogantly believing his system will make a turd smell like roses. Some may disagree with that characterization, but I think telling the world that you are staking your rep on Rex/Beck is an example of what I mean.

Emmanouel8
04-20-2012, 12:59 PM
http://ehmsnbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

Is there a thread that hasn't devolved into a discussion on Kyle Shanahan's capabilities?

What better thread to continue the discussion than one about the Colts drafting Luck lol? :smash:

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 01:00 PM
That's pretty much my reasoning for saying he deserves at least 3 years. Where we depart is that I don't share your faith in his ability to get it turned around, and it is on that point where I think CNY makes some compelling argument.

For me this year is it. A double-digit loss season will put me on the fire shanny train. I can accept a 7-9 season. I won't like it, but I can accept that.

The other issue I have, and it is one that has been debated and hashed and re-hashed is that I don't think Shanny is building. I think each and every year he has tried to cobble a team together arrogantly believing his system will make a turd smell like roses. Some may disagree with that characterization, but I think telling the world that you are staking your rep on Rex/Beck is an example of what I mean.

Trust me if he fails after this season than CNY will have another follower. My issue with CNY has been the fact that he has wanted Shanny gone since before the completion of the first season.

skinfanjon
04-20-2012, 01:12 PM
Trust me if he fails after this season than CNY will have another follower. My issue with CNY has been the fact that he has wanted Shanny gone since before the completion of the first season.

Wouldn't another failure of a season prove him correct?

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 01:14 PM
Wouldn't another failure of a season prove him correct?

Isn't that what I said?

cal_junior
04-20-2012, 01:41 PM
Isn't that what I said?

Lol, I was literally going to type this exact same thing.

skinfanjon
04-20-2012, 02:48 PM
Isn't that what I said?

So, you'd be upset he foresaw the problems in advance and crafted a strong argument early on? I guess I don't understand.

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 02:57 PM
I'm done, you've gone completely off the deep end with this argument. Your hatred of Shanahan has blinded you of any facts that are contrary to your argument.
once you give me those facts I will be willing to look at them, the problem here is you don't like the messenger or the message, but the facts are still there.

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 02:58 PM
So, you'd be upset he foresaw the problems in advance and crafted a strong argument early on? I guess I don't understand.

Alright now you're confusing me lol. If it turns out CNY is correct I will eat crow.

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 02:59 PM
Alright now you're confusing me lol. If it turns out CNY is correct I will eat crow.
If it turns out I was correct I will still be pretty sad because that means another double loss season that I will watch every game of

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 02:59 PM
once you give me those facts I will be willing to look at them, the problem here is you don't like the messenger or the message, but the facts are still there.

That's not true at all, I've never had a problem with you that I'm aware of this is just a subject we do not see eye to eye on.

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 03:01 PM
That's not true at all, I've never had a problem with you that I'm aware of this is just a subject we do not see eye to eye on.
but in your posting of your Andre Johnson argument I pointed out a serious flaw with your argument and you said I lost touch with reality...sorry i just don't see how I am the one blinded by my position. Wouldn't per game stats be a better judge in how someone is doing in a system considering he missed 3 games due to injury when he missed no games to injury in heis previous 2 years under Kyle?

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 03:07 PM
And just for the record I have stopped calling for Shanny to be fired since his trade for RGIII. So Lavar for you to keep labelling me as just wanting Shanny fired is ridiculous. I even voted approve after week 4 last year when I had my doubts but the record demanded an approval.

And I don't even need a winning season this year to continue to have on hold my wish for his head. 7-9 with a true commitment to RGIII (no Rexy sub games, RGIII starts all 16 games, an offense that seems to be adapted to his skills) and improvement on defense will show progress. And that is all that can be hoped for with a rookie qb however gifted under center.

Still if that happens it would be a mistake to say Shanny did not waste his first two years and leveraged the future for a shot at RGIII and an ability to reclaim his genius title.

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 03:18 PM
but in your posting of your Andre Johnson argument I pointed out a serious flaw with your argument and you said I lost touch with reality...sorry i just don't see how I am the one blinded by my position. Wouldn't per game stats be a better judge in how someone is doing in a system considering he missed 3 games due to injury when he missed no games to injury in heis previous 2 years under Kyle?

Extrapolating stats is nothing more than guessing though. You can't refute the fact that before Kyle was his coach Andre never came close to 100 receptions or the fact that he had over 100 receptions in 2008 and 2009 both while Kyle was the OC and had his highest yardage output. Matt Schaub also saw a spike in production when Kyle took over and again these are facts.

cal_junior
04-20-2012, 03:19 PM
leveraged the future for a shot at RGIII and an ability to reclaim his genius title.

Since the genius title only returns if he wins, I'm more than happy for him to try and reclaim it.

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 03:20 PM
Since the genius title only returns if he wins, I'm more than happy for him to try and reclaim it.
well yeah duh

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 03:27 PM
And just for the record I have stopped calling for Shanny to be fired since his trade for RGIII. So Lavar for you to keep labelling me as just wanting Shanny fired is ridiculous. I even voted approve after week 4 last year when I had my doubts but the record demanded an approval.

And I don't even need a winning season this year to continue to have on hold my wish for his head. 7-9 with a true commitment to RGIII (no Rexy sub games, RGIII starts all 16 games, an offense that seems to be adapted to his skills) and improvement on defense will show progress. And that is all that can be hoped for with a rookie qb however gifted under center.

Still if that happens it would be a mistake to say Shanny did not waste his first two years and leveraged the future for a shot at RGIII and an ability to reclaim his genius title.

That's perfectly fine I just don't like the idea of wanting a coach fired midway through his first season when he has a history of winning.

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 03:31 PM
Extrapolating stats is nothing more than guessing though. You can't refute the fact that before Kyle was his coach Andre never came close to 100 receptions or the fact that he had over 100 receptions in 2008 and 2009 both while Kyle was the OC and had his highest yardage output. Matt Schaub also saw a spike in production when Kyle took over and again these are facts.
I know this does not matter to you but I will try again, Johnson was coming into the prime of his career when Kyle came on as WR coach in 2006, Kubiak was also on as HC that year. Andre Johnson continued to have great years under both Kubiak and Kyle. In 2010 with Kykle gone, Johnson had an incredible year cut short by injuries. The stats put up per game in 2010 with Kyle gone is the same as when Kyle was there. That may not prove Kyle is uselesss, but you are using it to prove Kyle is a good coach. I find no evidence that he helped Andre Johnsons more then Kubiak, Schaub, or Johnson himself.

Sorry you are the one who brought up one wrs numbers as evidence of someone's worht, not me.

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 03:31 PM
That's perfectly fine I just don't like the idea of wanting a coach fired midway through his first season when he has a history of winning.
history being the key word there, as in past tense....very past tense.

cal_junior
04-20-2012, 03:35 PM
That may not prove Kyle is uselesss, but you are using it to prove Kyle is a good coach.

A place where you and I agree. You cannot use stats from after a coach left to judge what he did while he was still there.

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 03:38 PM
A place where you and I agree. You cannot use stats from after a coach left to judge what he did while he was still there.

A.) that is not my point at all.

B.) when used in conjunction with what is he doing in his new place of employment it certainly paints a picture, and not a good one, an ugly diseased picture.

Given the evidence before us it si far more likely Kyle is a young coach promoted to coordinator too soon and out of his depths then a blossoming young OC taking the league by storm.

cal_junior
04-20-2012, 03:46 PM
A.) that is not my point at all.

B.) when used in conjunction with what is he doing in his new place of employment it certainly paints a picture, and not a good one, an ugly diseased picture.

Given the evidence before us it si far more likely Kyle is a young coach promoted to coordinator too soon and out of his depths then a blossoming young OC taking the league by storm.

The problem is that the team a coach leaves is different, with the benefit being that the players are a year more experienced and have another year working with each other. (This is particularly true for a team that a features a young core and an on-the-rise star - in this case at tailback.) Unless there was injury or a major overhaul in system or talent, I'd be surprised if the team didn't improve at least slightly each year.

What the Texans did after Kyle left is a flawed way to judge him as a coach.

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 03:50 PM
The problem is that the team a coach leaves is different, with the benefit being that the players are a year more experienced and have another year working with each other. (This is particularly true for a team that a features a young core and an on-the-rise star - in this case at tailback.) Unless there was injury or a major overhaul in system or talent, I'd be surprised if the team didn't improve at least slightly each year.

What the Texans did after Kyle left is a flawed way to judge him as a coach.
ok but I am not arguing that. I am arguing against Andre Johnson's numbers being used to prove he was a good coach when there was not a perceivable drop off after he left. I did not bring up texan numbers, that is Lavar, take up your grievance with nhim. I am happy to settly on Redskin numbers to prove my point that I believe Kyle is a bad coach

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 04:14 PM
I know this does not matter to you but I will try again, Johnson was coming into the prime of his career when Kyle came on as WR coach in 2006, Kubiak was also on as HC that year. Andre Johnson continued to have great years under both Kubiak and Kyle. In 2010 with Kykle gone, Johnson had an incredible year cut short by injuries. The stats put up per game in 2010 with Kyle gone is the same as when Kyle was there. That may not prove Kyle is uselesss, but you are using it to prove Kyle is a good coach. I find no evidence that he helped Andre Johnsons more then Kubiak, Schaub, or Johnson himself.

Sorry you are the one who brought up one wrs numbers as evidence of someone's worht, not me.

It still doesn't change the fact that what I posted was factual.

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 04:18 PM
ok but I am not arguing that. I am arguing against Andre Johnson's numbers being used to prove he was a good coach when there was not a perceivable drop off after he left. I did not bring up texan numbers, that is Lavar, take up your grievance with nhim. I am happy to settly on Redskin numbers to prove my point that I believe Kyle is a bad coach

But that example could be used in many other instances as well. Do you put a blackmark on what Bill Walsh accomplished because the teams Seifert coached didn't have a perceivable drop off?

Skinzmanforlife
04-20-2012, 04:23 PM
I am happy to settly on Redskin numbers to prove my point that I believe Kyle is a bad coach

This point has always bugged me. Bill Belichick wasnt a good coach at Cleveland if we go by wins and losses. One move to New England and a 6th rounder later, everyone is calling him one of the greats. And that 6th rounder plays the largest role in him being considered a good coach imo.

Even though the argument is that Donovan and Rex was hand picked, Do we really have a good judge under McNabb and Rex to call the system and the coach garbage?

Since the hand picked argument will come up. Rex and McNabb were hand picked among whom?

Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Donovan McNabb? And they chose McNabb?

Or was it more like McNabb (and/or Grossman), Joe Shcmuckatelli, Joe Isuckatelli, and possibly drafting Andy Dalton/Blaine Gabbert?

Not like they had a whole lot of options at QB to choose from. The best they could have gotten as a veteran was probably Hasselbeck. Drafting Andy Dalton or Blaine Gabbert means no RG3 (also means no Kerrigan if we draft Gabbert and possibly no Jarvis Jenkins if we move up to take Dalton). Given that we probably post a better record under Hasselbeck, we probably need to add more for the trade we made to pick RG3. We still dont win with Hasselbeck, why sign him?

Personally I think the upside with RG3 is more than Gabbert or Dalton and I like Kerrigan. Could the Shannys not tried to win now and gone for the first overall pick, sure... but you guys calling for his head would have still freaked out and called for his head. Nothing changes there. If RG3 turns out better than the guys who all of people wanted drafted the last 2 years, because playing 22 year olds is the only way to improve apparently, then we dont have the opportunity at RG3 or Luck.

You can talk about facts til your blue in the face. Stuck with Gabbert, no RG3, no Kerrigan...

It can very easily be argued that the facts point out that Shannys patience looks better (on paper) than peoples rushed judgement that the only way to rebuild was through a youth movement and to only play 22 year olds at all costs.

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 04:33 PM
But that example could be used in many other instances as well. Do you put a blackmark on what Bill Walsh accomplished because the teams Seifert coached didn't have a perceivable drop off?
did walsh also go on to coach elsewhere with pretty crappy results?

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 04:37 PM
did walsh also go on to coach elsewhere with pretty crappy results?

He had a good first season with Stanford but then retired after back-to-back losing seasons.

FunBunch5
04-20-2012, 04:44 PM
With RG's wonderlick score of 24 he now does not qualify for the 26/27/60 rule, does that concern anyone?

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 04:48 PM
With RG's wonderlick score of 24 he now does not qualify for the 26/27/60 rule, does that concern anyone?

Cam Newton did not qualify either because he did not have enough starts.

FunBunch5
04-20-2012, 04:57 PM
Cam Newton did not qualify either because he did not have enough starts.

I know it shouldn't but that does bug me, even though 24 is not a bad score it is the QB average. I just hope this guy is not an Akili Smith type bust.

Emmanouel8
04-20-2012, 05:20 PM
With RG's wonderlick score of 24 he now does not qualify for the 26/27/60 rule, does that concern anyone?

Concerns me a lot. Not saying he can't be a great QB but we just sold the farm and the odds are now stacked against that happening. Stunned.

Emmanouel8
04-20-2012, 05:31 PM
Luck scored a 37. RGIII could turn out to be the greatest smoke and mirror show yet. The concern is many accounts list his intelligence as very high and that is not supported by his wonderlic.

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 05:36 PM
Concerns me a lot. Not saying he can't be a great QB but we just sold the farm and the odds are now stacked against that happening. Stunned.

So we're going to throw out the window the fact that he graduated from high school and college early over a wonderlic test? And you're being serious?

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 05:42 PM
Luck scored a 37. RGIII could turn out to be the greatest smoke and mirror show yet. The concern is many accounts list his intelligence as very high and that is not supported by his wonderlic.

Cam Newton scored a 21, Blaine Gabbert a 42. The Wonderlic has been proven over and over again to be completely useless when determining success in the NFL. Peyton Manning scored a 28, Dan Marino a 16 so this test should have been done away with years ago.

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 05:45 PM
I know it shouldn't but that does bug me, even though 24 is not a bad score it is the QB average. I just hope this guy is not an Akili Smith type bust.

Why would he be an Akili Smith-type bust? They do not compare in any way as RGIII has three good seasons of work while Akili had just one exceptional year. Please do not allow this silly test to worry you.

Emmanouel8
04-20-2012, 05:47 PM
Cam Newton scored a 21, Blaine Gabbert a 42. The Wonderlic has been proven over and over again to be completely useless when determining success in the NFL. Peyton Manning scored a 28, Dan Marino a 16 so this test should have been done away with years ago.

Yes I get all that already. I also understand he has a good academic background. Still his wonderlic is a concern for me.

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 05:52 PM
Yes I get all that already. I also understand he has a good academic background. Still his wonderlic is a concern for me.

Why? He scored average, not below average but average. I have no idea how this test can concern anyone when great players have consistently scored average?

cal_junior
04-20-2012, 05:57 PM
ok but I am not arguing that. I am arguing against Andre Johnson's numbers being used to prove he was a good coach when there was not a perceivable drop off after he left. I did not bring up texan numbers, that is Lavar, take up your grievance with nhim. I am happy to settly on Redskin numbers to prove my point that I believe Kyle is a bad coach

So you don't think Houston's numbers after Kyle left indicate anything about him as a coach?

Emmanouel8
04-20-2012, 05:58 PM
Why? He scored average, not below average but average. I have no idea how this test can concern anyone when great players have consistently scored average?

Because the score does not correlate with everything else that is above average as far as intelligence. That is a concern, not a suicide watch alert.

Red Bear
04-20-2012, 06:03 PM
This point has always bugged me. Bill Belichick wasnt a good coach at Cleveland if we go by wins and losses. One move to New England and a 6th rounder later, everyone is calling him one of the greats. And that 6th rounder plays the largest role in him being considered a good coach imo.

Even though the argument is that Donovan and Rex was hand picked, Do we really have a good judge under McNabb and Rex to call the system and the coach garbage?

Since the hand picked argument will come up. Rex and McNabb were hand picked among whom?

Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Donovan McNabb? And they chose McNabb?

Or was it more like McNabb (and/or Grossman), Joe Shcmuckatelli, Joe Isuckatelli, and possibly drafting Andy Dalton/Blaine Gabbert?

Not like they had a whole lot of options at QB to choose from. The best they could have gotten as a veteran was probably Hasselbeck. Drafting Andy Dalton or Blaine Gabbert means no RG3 (also means no Kerrigan if we draft Gabbert and possibly no Jarvis Jenkins if we move up to take Dalton). Given that we probably post a better record under Hasselbeck, we probably need to add more for the trade we made to pick RG3. We still dont win with Hasselbeck, why sign him?

Personally I think the upside with RG3 is more than Gabbert or Dalton and I like Kerrigan. Could the Shannys not tried to win now and gone for the first overall pick, sure... but you guys calling for his head would have still freaked out and called for his head. Nothing changes there. If RG3 turns out better than the guys who all of people wanted drafted the last 2 years, because playing 22 year olds is the only way to improve apparently, then we dont have the opportunity at RG3 or Luck.

You can talk about facts til your blue in the face. Stuck with Gabbert, no RG3, no Kerrigan...

It can very easily be argued that the facts point out that Shannys patience looks better (on paper) than peoples rushed judgement that the only way to rebuild was through a youth movement and to only play 22 year olds at all costs.

excellent post. i really like the bolded part too. ive been preaching patience myself...

silverspring
04-20-2012, 06:29 PM
This point has always bugged me. Bill Belichick wasnt a good coach at Cleveland if we go by wins and losses. One move to New England and a 6th rounder later, everyone is calling him one of the greats. And that 6th rounder plays the largest role in him being considered a good coach imo.

Even though the argument is that Donovan and Rex was hand picked, Do we really have a good judge under McNabb and Rex to call the system and the coach garbage?

Since the hand picked argument will come up. Rex and McNabb were hand picked among whom?

Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Donovan McNabb? And they chose McNabb?

Or was it more like McNabb (and/or Grossman), Joe Shcmuckatelli, Joe Isuckatelli, and possibly drafting Andy Dalton/Blaine Gabbert?

Not like they had a whole lot of options at QB to choose from. The best they could have gotten as a veteran was probably Hasselbeck. Drafting Andy Dalton or Blaine Gabbert means no RG3 (also means no Kerrigan if we draft Gabbert and possibly no Jarvis Jenkins if we move up to take Dalton). Given that we probably post a better record under Hasselbeck, we probably need to add more for the trade we made to pick RG3. We still dont win with Hasselbeck, why sign him?

Personally I think the upside with RG3 is more than Gabbert or Dalton and I like Kerrigan. Could the Shannys not tried to win now and gone for the first overall pick, sure... but you guys calling for his head would have still freaked out and called for his head. Nothing changes there. If RG3 turns out better than the guys who all of people wanted drafted the last 2 years, because playing 22 year olds is the only way to improve apparently, then we dont have the opportunity at RG3 or Luck.

You can talk about facts til your blue in the face. Stuck with Gabbert, no RG3, no Kerrigan...

It can very easily be argued that the facts point out that Shannys patience looks better (on paper) than peoples rushed judgement that the only way to rebuild was through a youth movement and to only play 22 year olds at all costs.

So patience is throwing 3 1st round draft picks and a 2nd to get a qb who was barely known until this season?

Is patience immediately throwing away draft picks to sign up a stop gap in mcnabb? It doesn't matter what the options are, anytime you trade draft picks and give out a ginormous contract you better be sure about the move.

The latest RG3 trade looks a lot more like desperation to me or at least shanahan avoiding being thrown out of town by a fan base that was about to stone him for sticking us with Rex and Beck last year. The notion that Shanahan has had a plan for years is absurdity.

It is amazing how shanahan essentially makes the riskiest trade in nfl history and the fans suddenly think he is a genius. It may work out, I hope it works out, hell it better work out, but it isn't because shanahan is being super smart.

cal_junior
04-20-2012, 06:48 PM
A cross-section of notables to compare with RGIII's 24. I don't think it's anything to worry about:

Ryan Fitzpatrick - 48
Drew Henson - 42
Alex Smith - 40

Eli Manning - 39
Brian Griese - 39
Matt Flynn - 38
Tony Romo - 37
Sam Bradford - 36
Drew Bledsoe - 36
Matt Leinart - 35
Aaron Rodgers - 35
Tom Brady - 33
Steve Young - 33
Matt Ryan - 32
Patrick Ramsey - 32
Matt Schaub - 31
Philip Rivers - 30
David Klingler - 30

Rex Grossman - 29
Troy Aikman - 29
John Elway - 29
Peyton Manning - 28
Joe Flacco - 27
Rich Gannon - 27
Akili Smith - 26
Carson Palmer - 26
Colt McCoy - 25
Ben Roethlisberger - 25
Chad Pennington - 24
Jamarcus Russel - 24
Jason Campbell - 23
Tim Tebow - 22
Tim Couch - 22
Mark Brunel - 22
Brett Favre - 22
Cam Newton - 22
Mike Vick - 20

Daunte Culpepper - 18
Heath Shuler - 16
Donovan Mcnabb - 14

FunBunch5
04-20-2012, 07:38 PM
Why would he be an Akili Smith-type bust? They do not compare in any way as RGIII has three good seasons of work while Akili had just one exceptional year. Please do not allow this silly test to worry you.

Like another poster said it is a concern, but a concern like when you left your house and you feel you forgot something. However, what I do like is his accuracy and quick release which IMO is a better indicator of his skill transferring over to the NFL.

tribeinca
04-20-2012, 09:50 PM
So we're going to throw out the window the fact that he graduated from high school and college early over a wonderlic test? And you're being serious?

By this logic, someone is considered "smart" if he graduated early from college with a 2.0 GPA?

BSMKF
04-20-2012, 10:11 PM
This point has always bugged me. Bill Belichick wasnt a good coach at Cleveland if we go by wins and losses. One move to New England and a 6th rounder later, everyone is calling him one of the greats. And that 6th rounder plays the largest role in him being considered a good coach imo.

Even though the argument is that Donovan and Rex was hand picked, Do we really have a good judge under McNabb and Rex to call the system and the coach garbage?

Since the hand picked argument will come up. Rex and McNabb were hand picked among whom?

Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Donovan McNabb? And they chose McNabb?

Or was it more like McNabb (and/or Grossman), Joe Shcmuckatelli, Joe Isuckatelli, and possibly drafting Andy Dalton/Blaine Gabbert?

Not like they had a whole lot of options at QB to choose from. The best they could have gotten as a veteran was probably Hasselbeck. Drafting Andy Dalton or Blaine Gabbert means no RG3 (also means no Kerrigan if we draft Gabbert and possibly no Jarvis Jenkins if we move up to take Dalton). Given that we probably post a better record under Hasselbeck, we probably need to add more for the trade we made to pick RG3. We still dont win with Hasselbeck, why sign him?

Personally I think the upside with RG3 is more than Gabbert or Dalton and I like Kerrigan. Could the Shannys not tried to win now and gone for the first overall pick, sure... but you guys calling for his head would have still freaked out and called for his head. Nothing changes there. If RG3 turns out better than the guys who all of people wanted drafted the last 2 years, because playing 22 year olds is the only way to improve apparently, then we dont have the opportunity at RG3 or Luck.

You can talk about facts til your blue in the face. Stuck with Gabbert, no RG3, no Kerrigan...

It can very easily be argued that the facts point out that Shannys patience looks better (on paper) than peoples rushed judgement that the only way to rebuild was through a youth movement and to only play 22 year olds at all costs.

^ This

wide_awake
04-20-2012, 11:00 PM
^ This

+1

redskin_rich
04-20-2012, 11:19 PM
So patience is throwing 3 1st round draft picks and a 2nd to get a qb who was barely known until this season?

Is patience immediately throwing away draft picks to sign up a stop gap in mcnabb? It doesn't matter what the options are, anytime you trade draft picks and give out a ginormous contract you better be sure about the move.

The latest RG3 trade looks a lot more like desperation to me or at least shanahan avoiding being thrown out of town by a fan base that was about to stone him for sticking us with Rex and Beck last year. The notion that Shanahan has had a plan for years is absurdity.

It is amazing how shanahan essentially makes the riskiest trade in nfl history and the fans suddenly think he is a genius. It may work out, I hope it works out, hell it better work out, but it isn't because shanahan is being super smart.

This is the only post, of the last bundle, I see that makes sense.

Year 1, throw away valuable draft picks for a washed-up never-was.
Year 2, make good use of the available draft picks but completely blow it at the QB position again, whilst staking your reputation, no less.
Year 3, go all in on a leap of faith....

Sounds more like desperation than a plan to me. It may work out for the future but to trumpet this as some kind of master plan is going full retard as a follower of this team.
Yeah, we meant to do this...lol

CNYSkinFan
04-20-2012, 11:30 PM
So you don't think Houston's numbers after Kyle left indicate anything about him as a coach?
alone, maybe not. together with piss poor results here, maybe so.

But since this is an argument your creating have at it, its not one I am using in my unfair biased agenda against Kyle

Lavar703
04-20-2012, 11:39 PM
By this logic, someone is considered "smart" if he graduated early from college with a 2.0 GPA?

The odds of anyone graduating early with a 2.0 GPA are pretty remote. And just so you know, he graduated early with a 3.67 GPA and his high school GPA was over 3.5.

Skinzmanforlife
04-20-2012, 11:59 PM
This is the only post, of the last bundle, I see that makes sense.

Year 1, throw away valuable draft picks for a washed-up never-was.
Year 2, make good use of the available draft picks but completely blow it at the QB position again, whilst staking your reputation, no less.
Year 3, go all in on a leap of faith....

Sounds more like desperation than a plan to me. It may work out for the future but to trumpet this as some kind of master plan is going full retard as a follower of this team.
Yeah, we meant to do this...lol

Funny how the future changes everyones minds. Ive been in an argument with this board that McNabb has always sucked and I was consistently told that McNabb was one of this generations greats. That it was all the Shannys fault for his failure. One year in Minn. and now he is commonly referred to as a washed-up never-was.

Year 1 - Have always agreed. McNabb should never have been brought here.

Year 2 - He blew it at the QB position, but again... What was the better options? No one worth a damn was available. You cant just make a franchise QB become available when you want. The best option for the first two years was drafting Gabbert. And I personally am glad they said no, traded down, grabbed Kerrigan, and waited one more year.

The staking of the reputation does not matter at all, and everyone knows that. Whats he going to say "We suck... Just deal with it". Fact is, if RG3 does well, his reputation is intact regardless of what he said about Beck/Rex...

Year 3 - A leap of faith it may be, but had he drafted Gabbert last year and Gabbert turns out to not be that good. And RG3 does turn out to be that good. Every last one of you 5 years from now will say Shanny was stupid for drafting Gabbert and that "He should have shown some patience" because then we could have gotten into the race for RG3.

Personally, seeing Gabbert and Dalton as the two best options, and knowing that the chance for several franchise QBs being available the next year. Saying no to drafting Gabbert and trying your luck (excuse the pun) in the next draft is actually part of a plan.

redskin_rich
04-21-2012, 12:15 AM
Funny how the future changes everyones minds. Ive been in an argument with this board that McNabb has always sucked and I was consistently told that McNabb was one of this generations greats. That it was all the Shannys fault for his failure. One year in Minn. and now he is commonly referred to as a washed-up never-was.

Year 1 - Have always agreed. McNabb should never have been brought here.

Year 2 - He blew it at the QB position, but again... What was the better options? No one worth a damn was available. You cant just make a franchise QB become available when you want. The best option for the first two years was drafting Gabbert. And I personally am glad they said no, traded down, grabbed Kerrigan, and waited one more year.

The staking of the reputation does not matter at all, and everyone knows that. Whats he going to say "We suck... Just deal with it". Fact is, if RG3 does well, his reputation is intact regardless of what he said about Beck/Rex...

Year 3 - A leap of faith it may be, but had he drafted Gabbert last year and Gabbert turns out to not be that good. And RG3 does turn out to be that good. Every last one of you 5 years from now will say Shanny was stupid for drafting Gabbert and that "He should have shown some patience" because then we could have gotten into the race for RG3.

Personally, seeing Gabbert and Dalton as the two best options, and knowing that the chance for several franchise QBs being available the next year. Saying no to drafting Gabbert and trying your luck (excuse the pun) in the next draft is actually part of a plan.

Spin it any way you want but going into year 3 and having to give up a chunk of future high draft picks to finally (hopefully) fill the most important position is not a plan any coach would map out from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong either, I think this could end up for the better. But, again, to say it was the plan all along is just ridiculous.

syphy
04-21-2012, 12:32 AM
Even though the argument is that Donovan and Rex was hand picked, Do we really have a good judge under McNabb and Rex to call the system and the coach garbage?



An excellent point and I wholeheartedly agree.

justinskins
04-21-2012, 01:47 AM
Spin it any way you want but going into year 3 and having to give up a chunk of future high draft picks to finally (hopefully) fill the most important position is not a plan any coach would map out from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong either, I think this could end up for the better. But, again, to say it was the plan all along is just ridiculous.

Disagree. Shanahan and Fisher had the trade in the workers going back to at least 2007.

Skinzmanforlife
04-21-2012, 02:30 AM
Spin it any way you want but going into year 3 and having to give up a chunk of future high draft picks to finally (hopefully) fill the most important position is not a plan any coach would map out from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong either, I think this could end up for the better. But, again, to say it was the plan all along is just ridiculous.

Fill? With what is the point? Who cares if we filled the position with that young guy that can eek out 1 more win a year than Rex?

To be honest, I would love to follow the Belichick plan over the Shanny plan. Try and draft the best available, then one day go "hey look, this guy that we drafted in the 6th round can lead us to superbowls... Lets put him in" but that plan rarely presents itself. That plan revolves more around Tom Brady than some brilliant plan if you really want the truth.

A lot of GM's run by the plan that if "that guy" isnt available this year, the plan is to wait til next year and evaluate again. Some of the best GM's did just that, and got the best player they could have albeit a year or two later than what the fans wanted.

Gabbert...

No RG3...

No Kerrigan...

The plan sounds brilliant about now. Granted the plan only works if RG3 is "that guy". But thats the NFL and we all already knew that.

FunBunch5
04-21-2012, 10:08 AM
Spin it any way you want but going into year 3 and having to give up a chunk of future high draft picks to finally (hopefully) fill the most important position is not a plan any coach would map out from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong either, I think this could end up for the better. But, again, to say it was the plan all along is just ridiculous.

Yes there probably was never a "plan" to sell the farm this year to get a QB. Where I think the poster that you responded to has a good point is Shanny did purposely avoid any of the QBs in the draft last year, which is beginning to look like a good move. From my understanding this was done because this years draft was a lot deeper at QB. Shanny's plan IMO was to get a QB this year, what wasn't in his plan was 2 of the QBs he was targeting decided to stay in school, so he had to sell the farm to get a QB he wanted.

Red Bear
04-21-2012, 11:05 AM
Spin it any way you want but going into year 3 and having to give up a chunk of future high draft picks to finally (hopefully) fill the most important position is not a plan any coach would map out from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong either, I think this could end up for the better. But, again, to say it was the plan all along is just ridiculous.

ok, i will agree that maybe this wasnt the plan, most likely it wasnt. but in the NFL can you really plan and count on those plans not changing based on a multitude of things that can happen around the league? i think the plan was for mcnabb to work out, get a lower level QB prospect than an RG3 and groom him for the future. but that didnt work out, last year there really wasnt much better available than what we already had. no one is saying the shannys havent made mistakes, and personnel mistakes will certainly hurt a team.

Locker may have been our guy last year, but the titans surprised everyone. the plan changes. We could have been stuck with Gabbert who looks horrible and seemed like more of a media creation than anything last year, and perhaps Shanny didnt feel Dalton fit what they want in a QB.

Having a plan doesnt mean its going to work out that way, teams around the league constantly have to change their plans or adjust because they couldnt acquire the player(s) they coveted.

But I will agree that we couldnt have planned for something like the RG3 trade over a longterm period, it was a brash decision that we really need to pay off for us, and i almost feel its something we had to do in an attempt to get a franchise QB. but what really gets me, and im not saying youre doing this right now, but it gets me when people constantly say and insist that we never have a plan of any sorts and act like the team just wings everything on the fly, i think thats pretty ridiculous as well...

wide_awake
04-21-2012, 05:35 PM
ok, i will agree that maybe this wasnt the plan, most likely it wasnt. but in the NFL can you really plan and count on those plans not changing based on a multitude of things that can happen around the league? i think the plan was for mcnabb to work out, get a lower level QB prospect than an RG3 and groom him for the future. but that didnt work out, last year there really wasnt much better available than what we already had. no one is saying the shannys havent made mistakes, and personnel mistakes will certainly hurt a team.

Locker may have been our guy last year, but the titans surprised everyone. the plan changes. We could have been stuck with Gabbert who looks horrible and seemed like more of a media creation than anything last year, and perhaps Shanny didnt feel Dalton fit what they want in a QB.

Having a plan doesnt mean its going to work out that way, teams around the league constantly have to change their plans or adjust because they couldnt acquire the player(s) they coveted.

But I will agree that we couldnt have planned for something like the RG3 trade over a longterm period, it was a brash decision that we really need to pay off for us, and i almost feel its something we had to do in an attempt to get a franchise QB. but what really gets me, and im not saying youre doing this right now, but it gets me when people constantly say and insist that we never have a plan of any sorts and act like the team just wings everything on the fly, i think thats pretty ridiculous as well...

Spot on, great post. We've had plans along the way but they haven't panned out so they adjusted.

HanburgerBum
04-22-2012, 01:31 PM
Spin it any way you want but going into year 3 and having to give up a chunk of future high draft picks to finally (hopefully) fill the most important position is not a plan any coach would map out from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong either, I think this could end up for the better. But, again, to say it was the plan all along is just ridiculous.


You are way off base on this one.

Shanahan does deserve criticism for the McNabb trade, but blaming him for lacking a "plan" to address the QB position borders on the absurd. Any "plan" can be carried out only if reality meets opportunity. What QB would you have Shanahan go after last season as part of his "plan"? The consensus QB pick last year once Newton was gone was Gabbert--and I was one of those who wanted the Skins to draft Gabbert. How would that have worked out? Gabbert looks to be a total bust at this point. The Skins would now be stuck with Gabbert and be without Kerrigan as well as the extra picks received in the trade-down. You should be applauding Shanahan for having the smarts to avoid that pitfall.

Further, you should be applauding Shanahan for having the guts to go "all in" for RG. Shanahan saw an opportunity to acquire a franchise QB, and he went after it. And, had it not because the Rams couldn't trade Bradford due to their salary cap situation and the Browns trying to go "cheap" in their bid for RG, Shanahan would not have been able to get RG. So, luck plays a part too.

And, did Belichick have a "plan" to draft Brady in round 6 after flipping a coin between Brady and Tim Rattay? The point is that no one can predict with certainty what players would or would not be available from year to year. You can adopt a "plan", but you had better be very nimble on your feet and change on the fly as circumstances unfold.

culpeper
04-22-2012, 03:23 PM
You are way off base on this one.

Shanahan does deserve criticism for the McNabb trade, but blaming him for lacking a "plan" to address the QB position borders on the absurd. Any "plan" can be carried out only if reality meets opportunity. What QB would you have Shanahan go after last season as part of his "plan"? The consensus QB pick last year once Newton was gone was Gabbert--and I was one of those who wanted the Skins to draft Gabbert. How would that have worked out? Gabbert looks to be a total bust at this point. The Skins would now be stuck with Gabbert and be without Kerrigan as well as the extra picks received in the trade-down. You should be applauding Shanahan for having the smarts to avoid that pitfall.

Further, you should be applauding Shanahan for having the guts to go "all in" for RG. Shanahan saw an opportunity to acquire a franchise QB, and he went after it. And, had it not because the Rams couldn't trade Bradford due to their salary cap situation and the Browns trying to go "cheap" in their bid for RG, Shanahan would not have been able to get RG. So, luck plays a part too.

And, did Belichick have a "plan" to draft Brady in round 6 after flipping a coin between Brady and Tim Rattay? The point is that no one can predict with certainty what players would or would not be available from year to year. You can adopt a "plan", but you had better be very nimble on your feet and change on the fly as circumstances unfold.

Great point (bold)

JPPT1974
04-22-2012, 03:25 PM
Well that should not come off as to nobody's surprise at all. It was meant to be!

HanburgerBum
04-23-2012, 02:33 PM
Great point (bold)


I don't always agree with Shanahan. In fact, I was a severe critic of his for acquiring McNabb and for bringing in a ton of old farts the first year. But, I don't believe in unfair criticism.

Shanhan did make a mistake in his first Redskins move (McNabb) so far as QB is concerned, but what Shanahan has done since then for a QB has actually worked out pretty well. Going with Rex/Beck was a losing proposition, but the alternative of drafting Gabbert would have been far, far worse.

I can't prove it, but I think Shanahan's "plan" in 2011 was going with a stopgap and hoping to be able to draft Luck in 2012. Unfortunately, the Skins won too many games to have a shot at Luck, but Shanahan got lucky that a similar prospect (RG) developed and circumstances allowd him to trade for that similar prospect.

cal_junior
04-23-2012, 02:38 PM
I can't prove it, but I think Shanahan's "plan" in 2011 was going with a stopgap and hoping to be able to draft Luck in 2012. Unfortunately, the Skins won too many games to have a shot at Luck, but Shanahan got lucky that a similar prospect (RG) developed and circumstances allowd him to trade for that similar prospect.

One of the scouting service guys mentioned this the other day on Twitter in reference to the Browns. Basically that since Cleveland doesn't love any of the QBs they can realistically draft, they should "do what the Skins did in 2011." i.e. Try and address other needs and plan to get the guy you want the following year.

hail2skins
04-23-2012, 02:42 PM
I can't prove it, but I think Shanahan's "plan" in 2011 was going with a stopgap and hoping to be able to draft Luck in 2012. Unfortunately, the Skins won too many games to have a shot at Luck, but Shanahan got lucky that a similar prospect (RG) developed and circumstances allowd him to trade for that similar prospect.Sounds a lot like tanking a season to me. I don't believe Shanny would do that.

culpeper
04-23-2012, 02:51 PM
Sounds a lot like tanking a season to me. I don't believe Shanny would do that.

Or anyone else for that matter.

Skinzmanforlife
04-23-2012, 03:55 PM
Sounds a lot like tanking a season to me. I don't believe Shanny would do that.

Drafting Gabbert sounds a lot like tanking a decade to me. Thankfully Shanny didnt do that.

CNYSkinFan
04-23-2012, 04:09 PM
look i will give credit, and have, for Shanny's move for RGIII. But to call it a plan is monstrous revisionist history. The fact of the matter is that Shanny and Son truly believed RGIII and Beck could propel them to playoff victories in year two just as they thought McNabb could do it in year 1.

If tyhey truly were lanning to tank the season they would have left Beck in there, or never switched from RGIII in the first place. If they were truly rebuilding they would not have resigned older wrs like Moss and Stallworth, or even Mike Sellers.

The only time we ever rebuilt was schotty's year one where we let sooooo mnany over priced vets go and brought in 20 udfas to camp giving 10 of them roster spots.

It is worth noting that Schotty's true rebuild marked a better record then eiother of Shanny's crappy retooling years.

akhhorus
04-23-2012, 04:12 PM
look i will give credit, and have, for Shanny's move for RGIII. But to call it a plan is monstrous revisionist history. The fact of the matter is that Shanny and Son truly believed RGIII and Beck could propel them to playoff victories in year two just as they thought McNabb could do it in year 1.

Before this past college season, the word among draftniks was that rg3 would have to move to WR in the pros.

And as every. single. NFL pundits said before last season: there's no coach or GM who would tank a season for any player. Most coaches don't survive 1-15/2-14/3-13 seasons.

colkurtz
04-23-2012, 04:14 PM
I think ppl here don't realize how bad a team we had when Shanahan came in. Zorn had played none of the young players - holding with the vets to the last game. We knew that much of the team was over-age, over-the-hill, overpaid but what was not known in Year 1 was how good the second and third string guys were.

I think I would have liked a more burn-down-the-barn and start over plan in the first season. But then you take the chance of losing some of the diamonds-in-the-rough backups. Unfortunately we didn't have too many of them. I also think it takes some courage for Shanahan to go all in for a QB that will define the rest of his tenure here.

akhhorus
04-23-2012, 04:19 PM
I think ppl here don't realize how bad a team we had when Shanahan came in.

Can we stop this meme? By the start of the 2011 season, Shanny had replaced all but 7 starters from the previous regime(6 if you don't count Montgomery who wasn't a starter under Zorn): orakpo, Hall(but Shanny resigned him), Fletcher, Moss, davis or Cooley, Landry or doughty and Monty. Shanny picked the team that failed last year, not that Shanny was stuck with a crappy team.

culpeper
04-23-2012, 04:39 PM
look i will give credit, and have, for Shanny's move for RGIII. But to call it a plan is monstrous revisionist history. The fact of the matter is that Shanny and Son truly believed RGIII and Beck could propel them to playoff victories in year two just as they thought McNabb could do it in year 1.

That person would just be making up stuff, I agree. The "plan" is ever changing as opportunities present themselves. The FO did nothing other than "seize the carp" *see movie OUT COLD http://youtu.be/2PzqUjrr3aI

If tyhey truly were lanning to tank the season they would have left Beck in there, or never switched from RGIII in the first place. If they were truly rebuilding they would not have resigned older wrs like Moss and Stallworth, or even Mike Sellers.


The only time we ever rebuilt was schotty's year one where we let sooooo mnany over priced vets go and brought in 20 udfas to camp giving 10 of them roster spots.

It is worth noting that Schotty's true rebuild marked a better record then eiother of Shanny's crappy retooling years.

I really dont get the fine line between rebuilding and re-tooling. We're doing both IMO. And definitely not tanking, thats just silly. Too many jobs, lives, careers on the line for that NBA nonsense.

cal_junior
04-23-2012, 05:35 PM
Can we stop this meme? By the start of the 2011 season, Shanny had replaced all but 7 starters from the previous regime(6 if you don't count Montgomery who wasn't a starter under Zorn): orakpo, Hall(but Shanny resigned him), Fletcher, Moss, davis or Cooley, Landry or doughty and Monty. Shanny picked the team that failed last year, not that Shanny was stuck with a crappy team.

What does this have to do with the quality of the roster following the 2009 season? Shanny replacing most of the guys would seem to validate his point about the team being crappy when he took over, no?

akhhorus
04-23-2012, 05:40 PM
What does this have to do with the quality of the roster following the 2009 season? Shanny replacing most of the guys would seem to validate his point about the team being crappy when he took over, no?

That wasn't his point. His point was that Shanny was handed a crappy team and he's struggled because of it. No one argues that he was handed a crappy team, but that "team" is largely gone now.

cal_junior
04-23-2012, 05:41 PM
That wasn't his point. His point was that Shanny was handed a crappy team and he's struggled because of it. No one argues that he was handed a crappy team, but that "team" is largely gone now.

Admittedly I'm coming in to this late. But if his point was that Shanny inherited a bad roster than needed to be completely overhauled, I would agree with him.

Skinzmanforlife
04-23-2012, 05:44 PM
But to call it a plan is monstrous revisionist history.

Why do you people keep referring to a "plan". The fact is, long term plans dont exist in the NFL when it comes to drafting and player acquisition. How can you make a long term plan about these things when you have no clue who will be available?

Plans come about for short term things. Such as once you know who the free agents are for that specific year, you can plan who you want to sign.

For drafting, you can have a feel about this years juniors for next years draft class. But without knowing who is coming out early, you still cant make a legitimate plan that wont change by the day.

Lets make this simple...

Every last one of you who has already concocted the plan to take Walter Jarofjelly in the year 3467 as our 1st round pick and he will lead us to 15 superbowl victories (because we all know that he will be available that year... right? I mean you guys with your long term plans clearly know who is available then). I would love to hear your plan for the last two years when it comes to acquiring a franchise QB. You have the power of hindsight, which was not available two years ago.

Let us hear your brilliant plan to get a franchise QB here (again, you have the power of hindsight, this should be very easy for you)

Just to set some guidelines to the stating of your plan:

1) No you cant say that you could convince Green Bay to trade Aaron Rodgers to the skins for a 2057 7th round pick. Then claim your greatness would make them do the trade.

2) No you cant say that you would have traded a 2057 7th round pick to Carolina last year for their number 1 and then drafted Cam Newton. Then claim your greatness would make them do the trade.

State your brilliant plans now. GO!!!

akhhorus
04-23-2012, 05:49 PM
Admittedly I'm coming in to this late. But if his point was that Shanny inherited a bad roster than needed to be completely overhauled, I would agree with him.

2/3s of the starters were replaced by the start of 2011. By right now in 2012, only 4 starters are secure in their starting gigs(Fletcher, Davis, Orakpo and Montgomery) and most of the rest are gone or will be. There's only 11 redskins on the roster that Shanny didn't acquire. This is why I commented: its very hard to claim that Shanny hasn't cycled out that "bad roster."

akhhorus
04-23-2012, 05:52 PM
Why do you people keep referring to a "plan". The fact is, long term plans dont exist in the NFL when it comes to drafting and player acquisition. How can you make a long term plan about these things when you have no clue who will be available?

Plans come about for short term things. Such as once you know who the free agents are for that specific year, you can plan who you want to sign.

For drafting, you can have a feel about this years juniors for next years draft class. But without knowing who is coming out early, you still cant make a legitimate plan that wont change by the day.

Lets make this simple...

Every last one of you who has already concocted the plan to take Walter Jarofjelly in the year 3467 as our 1st round pick and he will lead us to 15 superbowl victories (because we all know that he will be available that year... right? I mean you guys with your long term plans clearly know who is available then). I would love to hear your plan for the last two years when it comes to acquiring a franchise QB. You have the power of hindsight, which was not available two years ago.

Let us hear your brilliant plan to get a franchise QB here (again, you have the power of hindsight, this should be very easy for you)

Just to set some guidelines to the stating of your plan:

1) No you cant say that you could convince Green Bay to trade Aaron Rodgers to the skins for a 2057 7th round pick. Then claim your greatness would make them do the trade.

2) No you cant say that you would have traded a 2057 7th round pick to Carolina last year for their number 1 and then drafted Cam Newton. Then claim your greatness would make them do the trade.

State your brilliant plans now. GO!!!

So, if CNY can't come up with a plan that you find acceptable and plausible(and I would state that no matter what you'll reject any plan that CNY could up with), CNY has no right to complain? CNY isn't criticizing some plan that Shanny publicly or privately laid out for the future, he's criticizing the cohort of the fans who-no matter what move is made-claim that its part of some master plan that Shanny has been working on.

cal_junior
04-23-2012, 05:52 PM
2/3s of the starters were replaced by the start of 2011. By right now in 2012, only 4 starters are secure in their starting gigs(Fletcher, Davis, Orakpo and Montgomery) and most of the rest are gone or will be. There's only 11 redskins on the roster that Shanny didn't acquire. This is why I commented: its very hard to claim that Shanny hasn't cycled out that "bad roster."

Yeah I'd never claim that.

I think he's done an efficient job of clearing out the mess and putting his stamp on the team. Now the question is whether or not it will translate into wins.

hail2skins
04-23-2012, 05:53 PM
Why do you people keep referring to a "plan". The fact is, long term plans dont exist in the NFL when it comes to drafting and player acquisition. How can you make a long term plan about these things when you have no clue who will be available?

Plans come about for short term things. Such as once you know who the free agents are for that specific year, you can plan who you want to sign.

For drafting, you can have a feel about this years juniors for next years draft class. But without knowing who is coming out early, you still cant make a legitimate plan that wont change by the day.

Lets make this simple...

Every last one of you who has already concocted the plan to take Walter Jarofjelly in the year 3467 as our 1st round pick and he will lead us to 15 superbowl victories (because we all know that he will be available that year... right? I mean you guys with your long term plans clearly know who is available then). I would love to hear your plan for the last two years when it comes to acquiring a franchise QB. You have the power of hindsight, which was not available two years ago.

Let us hear your brilliant plan to get a franchise QB here (again, you have the power of hindsight, this should be very easy for you)

Just to set some guidelines to the stating of your plan:

1) No you cant say that you could convince Green Bay to trade Aaron Rodgers to the skins for a 2057 7th round pick. Then claim your greatness would make them do the trade.

2) No you cant say that you would have traded a 2057 7th round pick to Carolina last year for their number 1 and then drafted Cam Newton. Then claim your greatness would make them do the trade.

State your brilliant plans now. GO!!!Your logic is wromg. Teams don't create long or short-term plans for specific players. They plan by position and hope to put a good talent in that position. That's the planning folks are talking about.

akhhorus
04-23-2012, 06:00 PM
Yeah I'd never claim that.

I think he's done an efficient job of clearing out the mess and putting his stamp on the team. Now the question is whether or not it will translate into wins.

Probably not, at least not for awhile. What I don't get about Shanny's "cleaning out of the mess" is why he didn't take the opportunity to do so in the uncapped year. No one would have faulted Shanny if he leaked all sorts of stories about the Snyderatto regime while he gutted the roster. They only did win 6 games in 2010 with his non-rebuild rebuild, whoopie sh*t if he only won 3 because he totally gutted the roster.

Skinzmanforlife
04-23-2012, 06:53 PM
Your logic is wromg. Teams don't create long or short-term plans for specific players. They plan by position and hope to put a good talent in that position. That's the planning folks are talking about.

No... My logic isnt wrong. My logic through this thread is that the exact same thing that you are talking about. That the plan that you are describing worked, we passed on Gabbert and waited for better talent to be available.

Most other people are talking about the Shannys not having a master plan. Thats what im challenging, the concept of a failed master plan...

akhhorus
04-23-2012, 06:57 PM
That the plan that you are describing worked, we passed on Gabbert and waited for better talent to be available.


If this was the "plan," then Shanny and Kyyle wouldn't have been running their mouths post 2011 draft about how great they thought Rex and Beck could be as the starter.

Skinzmanforlife
04-23-2012, 06:58 PM
So, if CNY can't come up with a plan that you find acceptable and plausible(and I would state that no matter what you'll reject any plan that CNY could up with), CNY has no right to complain? CNY isn't criticizing some plan that Shanny publicly or privately laid out for the future, he's criticizing the cohort of the fans who-no matter what move is made-claim that its part of some master plan that Shanny has been working on.

If CNY cant come up with the QB that he claims that the Shannys should have came up with, then he already realizes his complaints have no foundation.

Again with the master plan stuff. Since im on this side, we have been fighting against a master plan concept from the beginning. Just that the one year plans for a good QB that last 2 years would have not panned out is my (our) opinion. That the best the Shannys could have done for the QB position is exactly whats happening. Waiting for the perceived franchise QB then go all in to put him in the burgandy and gold.

You can already tell by when I said that passing on Gabbert and Dalton and waiting one more year could very well have been "the plan".

akhhorus
04-23-2012, 07:01 PM
If CNY cant come up with the QB that he claims that the Shannys should have came up with, then he already realizes his complaints have no foundation.

Its a pretty simple retort: take Dalton at 16 last year. And again: CNy isn't criticizing Shanny, he's criticizing people saying that every move-no matter how bad-is part of some master plan. I dont see what was so difficult to understand about that part...

Again with the master plan stuff. Since im on this side, we have been fighting against a master plan concept from the beginning. Just that the one year plans for a good QB that last 2 years would have not panned out is my (our) opinion. That the best the Shannys could have done for the QB position is exactly whats happening. Waiting for the perceived franchise QB then go all in to put him in the burgandy and gold.


Wouldn't that be a master plan then?

You can already tell by when I said that passing on Gabbert and Dalton and waiting one more year could very well have been "the plan".

See my previous post.

Skinzmanforlife
04-23-2012, 07:02 PM
If this was the "plan," then Shanny and Kyyle wouldn't have been running their mouths post 2011 draft about how great they thought Rex and Beck could be as the starter.

Knowing that a HC will NEVER come out before a season and say "Our QB position sucks, dont expect more than 4 or 5 wins this season" I call BS to that statement.

"How great they thought Rex and Beck could be a starter"

Compared to Gabbert?

Compared to who ever else they could have acquired?

Compared to those two points, Rex and Beck were damn good starters. Just compared to the rest of the NFL is where they suck.

akhhorus
04-23-2012, 07:08 PM
Knowing that a HC will NEVER come out before a season and say "Our QB position sucks, dont expect more than 4 or 5 wins this season" I call BS to that statement.

How about not claiming that you wanted to take Beck with a top 10 pick(which Kyyle did and the Texans' GM called BS on)? Or saying that you "stake my reputation on Rex and Beck"? Which Mike said.

"How great they thought Rex and Beck could be a starter"

Compared to Gabbert?

Compared to who ever else they could have acquired?

Compared to those two points, Rex and Beck were damn good starters. Just compared to the rest of the NFL is where they suck.

Gabbert wasn't that good last year, but his stats, well you can see for yourself:

Gabbert(14 starts) 2214 yards 12 tds/11 ints, 40 sacks, 65.4 ratings
Rex(13 starts): 3151 yards, 16 tds/20 ints, 25 sacks 72.4 rating.

I don't think anyone can say that Grossman was "damn good" compared to Gabbert.

Dalton's stats(and especially his wins) were much better then Rex and Beck.

Skinzmanforlife
04-23-2012, 07:14 PM
Still if that happens it would be a mistake to say Shanny did not waste his first two years and leveraged the future for a shot at RGIII and an ability to reclaim his genius title.

Waste his first two years on what QB?

He has done nothing but criticize the Shannys except on the RG3 trade. Take a look at his sig and follow the link if you think otherwise. CNY's complaint is that the Shannys had no master plan and thats why we dont have a franchise QB now.

When the fact is, had we drafted Gabbert last year, CNY would of had his QB. But the Redskins would be worse off in the long run. Which is where people like me come along and ask how the drafting of Gabbert or Dalton puts us in a better position in the future than how things played out.

And to just say draft Dalton... No I said franchise QB, not some guy thats going to win a couple more games a year than Rex.

hail2skins
04-23-2012, 07:15 PM
No... My logic isnt wrong. My logic through this thread is that the exact same thing that you are talking about. That the plan that you are describing worked, we passed on Gabbert and waited for better talent to be available.

Most other people are talking about the Shannys not having a master plan. Thats what im challenging, the concept of a failed master plan...A master plan is basically a long-term plan. You said they can't have long-term plans and you gave an arbitrary example about some player in year 3000 something.

My comment is that teams don't plan for named players specifically as you gave in your example. They plan by position no matter who they choose for it.

akhhorus
04-23-2012, 07:19 PM
And to just say draft Dalton... No I said franchise QB, not some guy thats going to win a couple more games a year than Rex.

Grossman won 5 last year. Dalton won 9. Little more then "a couple" and the Bengals didn't have to trade 3 firsts and a 2nd for him.

Skinzmanforlife
04-23-2012, 07:21 PM
A master plan is basically a long-term plan. You said they can't have long-term plans and you gave an arbitrary example about some player in year 3000 something.

My comment is that teams don't plan for named players specifically as you gave in your example. They plan by position no matter who they choose for it.

But my point is, most people just wanted them to draft Gabbert. Or use their first rounder then trade up to get Dalton in the second.

Part of "the plan" in my opinion is when you see someone that the NFL is overestimating, you pass on him even though he is in the position you need. I still say that the Shannys made a good move on passing on a QB last year and waiting one more year. Just like I still criticize the Shannys for ever bringing McNabb here.

The people who I am arguing with are the ones who claim that we very easily could have and should have had a franchise QB in year one or two of Shannys tenure. My question is, and always will be, who?

Skinzmanforlife
04-23-2012, 07:22 PM
Grossman won 5 last year. Dalton won 9. Little more then "a couple" and the Bengals didn't have to trade 3 firsts and a 2nd for him.

According to you, we didint have a single WR who deserved to be in the NFL except a couple of young ones who were buried on the bench. His stats had better be better.

Edit: Dalton also has an offensive line...

hail2skins
04-23-2012, 07:23 PM
Waste his first two years on what QB?

He has done nothing but criticize the Shannys except on the RG3 trade. Take a look at his sig and follow the link if you think otherwise. CNY's complaint is that the Shannys had no master plan and thats why we dont have a franchise QB now.

When the fact is, had we drafted Gabbert last year, CNY would of had his QB. But the Redskins would be worse off in the long run. Which is where people like me come along and ask how the drafting of Gabbert or Dalton puts us in a better position in the future than how things played out.

And to just say draft Dalton... No I said franchise QB, not some guy thats going to win a couple more games a year than Rex.CNY criticizes more than just the QB position. He criticizes the rebuild, if that's what you want to call it, that isn't taking place as he sees it. The Redskins drafted a lot of young talent and then bought in a bunch of old vets on top of it. There are members here who would support a down year or two if they felt the team was being rebuilt with young talent. They don't see that, so the criticize.

akhhorus
04-23-2012, 07:25 PM
According to you, we didint have a single WR who deserved to be in the NFL except a couple of young ones who were buried on the bench. His stats had better be better.

Thats not really a response to what I wrote.

And rg3 will have the same crappy WR corps plus Garcon/Morgan and minus Moss/Gaffney. If the skins want to see immediate results ala Dalton and Cincy, they need to improve the team around RG3...and they really haven't yet.


Edit: Dalton also has an offensive line...

So the lesson here is that you need an oline and good WRs around any potential franchise Qb. Maybe Shanahan should get started on building that for Rg3, no?

hail2skins
04-23-2012, 07:28 PM
But my point is, most people just wanted them to draft Gabbert. Or use their first rounder then trade up to get Dalton in the second.

Part of "the plan" in my opinion is when you see someone that the NFL is overestimating, you pass on him even though he is in the position you need. I still say that the Shannys made a good move on passing on a QB last year and waiting one more year. Just like I still criticize the Shannys for ever bringing McNabb here.

The people who I am arguing with are the ones who claim that we very easily could have and should have had a franchise QB in year one or two of Shannys tenure. My question is, and always will be, who?
I don't think most people wanted them to take Gabbert as you suggest. As for this "overestimating" thing, teams do their work and that's why you see a player project high going low. If a team likes a player after doing their work, they shouldn't care whether that player is overestimated or not.

I read an article that talked about all the hype surrounding RG III and the lack of hype surrounding Luck who will be the #1 pick in the draft. I found it interesting. Is the NFL overestimating RG III?

hail2skins
04-23-2012, 07:30 PM
According to you, we didint have a single WR who deserved to be in the NFL except a couple of young ones who were buried on the bench. His stats had better be better.

Edit: Dalton also has an offensive line...Are you saying offensive linemen wasn't in the Redskins plan? Did they pass on some guys who were overestimated? Shouldn't the offensive line be part of the plan? You know, like planning to have depth at the positions on the line?

cal_junior
04-23-2012, 07:30 PM
Grossman won 5 last year. Dalton won 9. Little more then "a couple" and the Bengals didn't have to trade 3 firsts and a 2nd for him.

I want one more good season before I'm convinced about Dalton.

hail2skins
04-23-2012, 07:31 PM
So the lesson here is that you need an oline and good WRs around any potential franchise Qb. Maybe Shanahan should get started on building that for Rg3, no?LMAO, close to how I responded.

Red Bear
04-23-2012, 07:35 PM
2/3s of the starters were replaced by the start of 2011. By right now in 2012, only 4 starters are secure in their starting gigs(Fletcher, Davis, Orakpo and Montgomery) and most of the rest are gone or will be. There's only 11 redskins on the roster that Shanny didn't acquire. This is why I commented: its very hard to claim that Shanny hasn't cycled out that "bad roster."

but what about giving this team time to develop together? especially at the rapid pace of the roster turnover since Shanny took over. Some of the younger guys need time to develop too. Its a tall order to expect a team to replace that many players in two offseasons while also transitioning from a 4-3 to a 3-4. Youre talking replacing starters and also having to build depth, and some even wanted all that done in less than a season...

Skinzmanforlife
04-23-2012, 07:37 PM
CNY criticizes more than just the QB position. He criticizes the rebuild, if that's what you want to call it, that isn't taking place as he sees it. The Redskins drafted a lot of young talent and then bought in a bunch of old vets on top of it. There are members here who would support a down year or two if they felt the team was being rebuilt with young talent. They don't see that, so the criticize.

So he criticizes the way Gibbs did things. Thats fine and all, but its not out of the realm to have the attitude that its preferable for rookies to not start or receive significant playing time their first year (personally Ive always believed in playing the best at the position regardless of age or salary). I fail to see how that is somehow refusing to become younger. We have become younger at a lot of positions since the change from Snyderatto to Shanallen.

I still say that the main thing that stopped the Redskins from posting a decent to good record last year was the QB position. But if there was no legitimate QB to take us to the playoffs year after year, then we should realize that and be glad he did not make a long term move at that position and waited for a better option.

Skinzmanforlife
04-23-2012, 07:38 PM
Are you saying offensive linemen wasn't in the Redskins plan? Did they pass on some guys who were overestimated? Shouldn't the offensive line be part of the plan? You know, like planning to have depth at the positions on the line?

Are you saying that the Redskins offensive line is one of the best out there?

Plus you have seen a lot of improvements on other parts of the team. And I actually do criticize Shanallen for the offensive line now. Sure they should have improved it. But coming from the salary capped atrocity of a team that he took over, anyone who thinks a total transformation is happening in 2 years without a trade for Herschel Walker behind it is grasping at straws.

cal_junior
04-23-2012, 07:46 PM
but what about giving this team time to develop together? especially at the rapid pace of the roster turnover since Shanny took over. Some of the younger guys need time to develop too. Its a tall order to expect a team to replace that many players in two offseasons while also transitioning from a 4-3 to a 3-4. Youre talking replacing starters and also having to build depth, and some even wanted all that done in less than a season...

I agree with this. If we all agree that Shanny has turned over the roster almost entirely, it's silly to expect results immediately. The Vinny Era taught us that NFL chemistry doesn't happen overnight.

akhhorus
04-23-2012, 07:47 PM
but what about giving this team time to develop together? especially at the rapid pace of the roster turnover since Shanny took over. Some of the younger guys need time to develop too. Its a tall order to expect a team to replace that many players in two offseasons while also transitioning from a 4-3 to a 3-4. Youre talking replacing starters and also having to build depth, and some even wanted all that done in less than a season...

I've been down this road with you before: Shanny has forfeited a lot of his leach with me because he's screwed off 2 seasons without much to show for it. Shanny's had the resources in picks and cap room(even an uncapped year) to have done much better then where he's taken this franchise and just about major problem this team has had in 2010 and 2011 have been because of explicit decisions that Shanahan made. Does Shanny deserve some time because he's committed so much to rg3? Sure. But at some point(and the less Shanny wins, the closer that point is) Shanny is the problem with the team and not what Shanny inheirited.



Plus you have seen a lot of improvements on other parts of the team. And I actually do criticize Shanallen for the offensive line now. Sure they should have improved it. But coming from the salary capped atrocity of a team that he took over, anyone who thinks a total transformation is happening in 2 years without a trade for Herschel Walker behind it is grasping at straws.

Maybe if 2010 wasn't an uncapped year, you'd have a great point here. And while 2 seasons sometimes isn't enough time, there has to be *some* progress in that time. I don't see where there's been much progress at all.


I agree with this. If we all agree that Shanny has turned over the roster almost entirely, it's silly to expect results immediately. The Vinny Era taught us that NFL chemistry doesn't happen overnight.

If Zorn/Vinny/Snyder were so much of the problem with the franchise, there should have been some improvement just with the change in culture with Shanny. There's been none. And if Rg3 busts out, the franchise is screwed for 6-10 years.

SKINSATIONAL
04-23-2012, 07:48 PM
Drafting Gabbert sounds a lot like tanking a decade to me. Thankfully Shanny didnt do that.

ROTFLMFAO!!!
:smash:

cal_junior
04-23-2012, 07:56 PM
If Zorn/Vinny/Snyder were so much of the problem with the franchise, there should have been some improvement just with the change in culture with Shanny. There's been none. And if Rg3 busts out, the franchise is screwed for 6-10 years.

All I'm saying is you don't expect a brand-new roster to win in what was essentially its first year playing together.

The depth wasn't there last season to withstand injuries, but what I saw in the 4-and-a-half games before guys started dropping like flies was an improvement over 2010.

hail2skins
04-23-2012, 08:00 PM
Are you saying that the Redskins offensive line is one of the best out there?

Plus you have seen a lot of improvements on other parts of the team. And I actually do criticize Shanallen for the offensive line now. Sure they should have improved it. But coming from the salary capped atrocity of a team that he took over, anyone who thinks a total transformation is happening in 2 years without a trade for Herschel Walker behind it is grasping at straws.You bought up offensive line in terms of protecting the QB. I'm saying that should be a part of the plan and no we don't have a good line which says they didn't plan for it. You seem to be bouncing back and forth on this issue.

hail2skins
04-23-2012, 08:06 PM
but what about giving this team time to develop together? especially at the rapid pace of the roster turnover since Shanny took over. Some of the younger guys need time to develop too. Its a tall order to expect a team to replace that many players in two offseasons while also transitioning from a 4-3 to a 3-4. Youre talking replacing starters and also having to build depth, and some even wanted all that done in less than a season...How can the young guys develop when they aren't getting on the field or they're getting spot duty where they can't get into the rhythm of the game. How long do coaches get these days to allow a team to develop? We're in the 3rd year of Shanny, are the players developing?

You also make it sound as though Shanny took on too much too soon. IE turning the roster over fast, getting depth and starters, switching from 4-3 to 3-4.

How long does a coach get to turn a team around in a league where there is parity? A member stated earlier in this thread or another that teams can improve fast in today's league because of that parity.

hail2skins
04-23-2012, 08:10 PM
I've been down this road with you before: Shanny has forfeited a lot of his leach with me because he's screwed off 2 seasons without much to show for it. Shanny's had the resources in picks and cap room(even an uncapped year) to have done much better then where he's taken this franchise and just about major problem this team has had in 2010 and 2011 have been because of explicit decisions that Shanahan made. Does Shanny deserve some time because he's committed so much to rg3? Sure. But at some point(and the less Shanny wins, the closer that point is) Shanny is the problem with the team and not what Shanny inheirited.
Good point. How long do you put up with a coach who has made several bad decisions at the most important position on offense? Do you give him 4 years to figure it out? Meanwhile all of that young talent is getting older.

akhhorus
04-23-2012, 08:10 PM
All I'm saying is you don't expect a brand-new roster to win in what was essentially its first year playing together.


I expect to see some sort of progress. And by progress, I mean that the skins should be doing much better then basically only having about 8-10 starters(Fletcher, Riley, Wilson, Davis or Cooley, Monty, Helu, Kerrigan, orakpo) that they can actually count on to turn in a reliable performance(and i don't fully trust half of them to show up frankly) and still need a major talent infusion across the board--especially at critical positions like FS, QB, WR, OT, OG, CB, Dline.

The depth wasn't there last season to withstand injuries, but what I saw in the 4-and-a-half games before guys started dropping like flies was an improvement over 2010.

Struggling to beat the Cards and Rams was far from impressive. And they beat the Giants in NYC even with all those guys "dropped like flies".

akhhorus
04-23-2012, 08:12 PM
Good point. How long do you put up with a coach who has made several bad decisions at the most important position on offense? Do you give him 4 years to figure it out? Meanwhile all of that young talent is getting older.

I have a feeling that if Shanny makes it 2014 as the coach(which I doubt unless Rg3 turns out to be Elway), some people will still be demanding that we give Shanny 3-5 more seasons because the rebuild of the rebuild still hasn't been completed yet.

cal_junior
04-23-2012, 08:14 PM
I expect to see some sort of progress. And by progress, I mean that the skins should be doing much better then basically only having about 8-10 starters(Fletcher, Riley, Wilson, Davis or Cooley, Monty, Helu, Kerrigan, orakpo) that they can actually count on to turn in a reliable performance and still need a major talent infusion across the board--especially at critical positions like FS, QB, WR, OT, OG, CB, Dline.



Struggling to beat the Cards and Rams was far from impressive. And they beat the Giants in NYC even with all those guys "dropped like flies".

Well I liked what I saw early in the season. And I'll be expecting another jump in performance this season from what I saw last year.

CNYSkinFan
04-23-2012, 08:16 PM
love when i become the focus of these debates, as if it was my fault we have had 21 losses over the last two seasons...

go ahead carry on, its fun. I am busying myself with how to cause 10 more losses this year

cal_junior
04-23-2012, 08:16 PM
I have a feeling that if Shanny makes it 2014 as the coach(which I doubt unless Rg3 turns out to be Elway), some people will still be demanding that we give Shanny 3-5 more seasons because the rebuild of the rebuild still hasn't been completed yet.

He doesn't have to be Elway for Shanny to get to 2014. Matt Ryan will get it done.

Skinzmanforlife
04-23-2012, 08:24 PM
You bought up offensive line in terms of protecting the QB. I'm saying that should be a part of the plan and no we don't have a good line which says they didn't plan for it. You seem to be bouncing back and forth on this issue.

But you know as well as I do that 2 years of drafting is not enough to have 22 pro bowl starters on your team. I also said there was no way they could do it all. The defense has taken huge steps forward even tho ank says otherwise. The offense has added better parts here and there, but without that opportunity to get a quality QB, you should have known that major improvement wasnt happening there.

I seem to remember when Shanny and Allen rolled into town that they said they planned on working on the defense first. Maybe im wrong on that and someone told me that without it being true. But if so, the plan was followed.

Everyones plan is to draft 30 pro bowlers a year, im saying that plan is unrealistic.

hail2skins
04-23-2012, 08:26 PM
But you know as well as I do that 2 years of drafting is not enough to have 22 pro bowl starters on your team. I also said there was no way they could do it all. The defense has taken huge steps forward even tho ank says otherwise. The offense has added better parts here and there, but without that opportunity to get a quality QB, you should have known that major improvement wasnt happening there.

I seem to remember when Shanny and Allen rolled into town that they said they planned on working on the defense first. Maybe im wrong on that and someone told me that without it being true. But if so, the plan was followed.

Everyones plan is to draft 30 pro bowlers a year, im saying that plan is unrealistic.
There's the draft and then there's free agency. It doesn't have to be completely done in the draft. As for the working on the defense first, it was already a top 10 defense. You also need to go back and read some of my older post regarding building a team. I for one don't believe you need a franchise QB, just a QB that is consistently good, not great. Read back to get some of my other thoughts.

Skinzmanforlife
04-23-2012, 08:28 PM
Maybe if 2010 wasn't an uncapped year, you'd have a great point here. And while 2 seasons sometimes isn't enough time, there has to be *some* progress in that time. I don't see where there's been much progress at all.

So the plan should have been go all out for 2010 and forsake the future like Snyderatto always did? I disagree.

Skinzmanforlife
04-23-2012, 08:36 PM
There's the draft and then there's free agency. It doesn't have to be completely done in the draft. As for the working on the defense first, it was already a top 10 defense

You are not doing much in free agency unless you want them to keep mortgaging the future. That had to stop and it had to stop now. We are in much better cap space now, which should show that. We were going no where fast with the mortgaging of the future plan.

akhhorus
04-23-2012, 08:53 PM
He doesn't have to be Elway for Shanny to get to 2014. Matt Ryan will get it done.

Ryan without the rest of the talent that the Falcons have wont save Shanny.

So the plan should have been go all out for 2010 and forsake the future like Snyderatto always did? I disagree.

So, trading away 3 firsts and a second for one pick isn't forsaking the future?

The defense has taken huge steps forward even tho ank says otherwise.

I ran the stats: the defense isn't any better. Worse, actually, in a lot of areas. And considering how much money has been spent on new defensive players, the skins sure don't think that its taking "huge steps forward."


Everyones plan is to draft 30 pro bowlers a year, im saying that plan is unrealistic.

I must have missed when anyone said that. Or even that there's any expectation that they'll get anything more then a couple starters each draft.

Skinzmanforlife
04-23-2012, 09:24 PM
So, trading away 3 firsts and a second for one pick isn't forsaking the future?

No I dont. If the Packers offered Aaron Rodgers to us for a first rounder for every year he played. I would say we take that. The Packers won a Super Bowl with no offensive line and half its team on the IR because of him.

I ran the stats: the defense isn't any better. Worse, actually, in a lot of areas. And considering how much money has been spent on new defensive players, the skins sure don't think that its taking "huge steps forward."

The defense also had a better offense under Zorn to keep it off the field more than last years team. As well, that team had aging players that werent going to sustain. I think we only have 2 remaining, London and Hall. And Im not very high on Hall myself. He can create some turnovers but gives up a lot of big plays .

I must have missed when anyone said that. Or even that there's any expectation that they'll get anything more then a couple starters each draft

I also missed all of us saying that in the year 2014 that we believed that shanny should stay regardless of record since the rebuild of the rebuild of the rebuild isnt completed, yet you still said it.

Editing to add: For that last point, a couple of starters a year in the draft? A team that has serious salary cap problems. Yet you want every single position remedied in 2 years. My point remains... That plan is unrealistic.

Red Bear
04-23-2012, 09:24 PM
I've been down this road with you before: Shanny has forfeited a lot of his leach with me because he's screwed off 2 seasons without much to show for it. Shanny's had the resources in picks and cap room(even an uncapped year) to have done much better then where he's taken this franchise and just about major problem this team has had in 2010 and 2011 have been because of explicit decisions that Shanahan made. Does Shanny deserve some time because he's committed so much to rg3? Sure. But at some point(and the less Shanny wins, the closer that point is) Shanny is the problem with the team and not what Shanny inheirited.


HA! its funny you bring up the uncapped year and talk about capspace since we got punished by the nfl for 36 million in capspace for actions in the uncapped year. you would have us getting punished for 50-60 million. HA! i wont go any further than that since you failed to even address my post and went into things completely unrelated.


How can the young guys develop when they aren't getting on the field or they're getting spot duty where they can't get into the rhythm of the game. How long do coaches get these days to allow a team to develop? We're in the 3rd year of Shanny, are the players developing?

You also make it sound as though Shanny took on too much too soon. IE turning the roster over fast, getting depth and starters, switching from 4-3 to 3-4.

How long does a coach get to turn a team around in a league where there is parity? A member stated earlier in this thread or another that teams can improve fast in today's league because of that parity.

The young guys develop by paying attention in meetings and working hard in practice. They should have to earn their time. Obviously some guys will see the field and contribute right away, but not all guys will. Some need a little work, some truely have better players in front of them. and dont you think some of those bubble guys should show you they can play before they get a major role just handed to them?

also, you say we're in year 3, but year 3 is just starting. you neglect that many/most of the young guys came in last years draft and didnt have an offseason with coaches. they have one year experience. is that enough time to develop an entire draft and/or team? a team where even the vets are learning new schemes and systems? 2 years, one without an offseason, is not enough time to allow someone to build a team that has been horrible for the past 20 years.


Good point. How long do you put up with a coach who has made several bad decisions at the most important position on offense? Do you give him 4 years to figure it out? Meanwhile all of that young talent is getting older.

oh please, every coach and GM makes bad decisions sometimes, even at QB. so all those 22-26 year old guys are 2 years older? big deal. that may even be to our advantage as they would be vets by then entering their primes.

colkurtz
04-24-2012, 04:49 AM
2/3s of the starters were replaced by the start of 2011. By right now in 2012, only 4 starters are secure in their starting gigs(Fletcher, Davis, Orakpo and Montgomery) and most of the rest are gone or will be. There's only 11 redskins on the roster that Shanny didn't acquire. This is why I commented: its very hard to claim that Shanny hasn't cycled out that "bad roster."

I think he is fielding a team THIS SEASON that has his stamp on everything. No more excuses. My point is that the team was old and overpaid and had a losing mentality when he took it over. I'll admit that mistakes were made with McNabb and even more dismally with Rex/Beck. I just don't know if he could have changed out the team much more quickly than it did. His big choice in the first year was to dump a bunch of over-the-hill vets, EVALUATE the lower levels of the team. Admittedly he brought in one-year old-guy starters which i didn't agree with.

hail2skins
04-24-2012, 05:13 AM
You are not doing much in free agency unless you want them to keep mortgaging the future. That had to stop and it had to stop now. We are in much better cap space now, which should show that. We were going no where fast with the mortgaging of the future plan.You do not stop using free agency. You use free agency wisely.

akhhorus
04-24-2012, 05:24 AM
No I dont.

Then you're a hypocrite.

If the Packers offered Aaron Rodgers to us for a first rounder for every year he played. I would say we take that. The Packers won a Super Bowl with no offensive line and half its team on the IR because of him.

While they did lose a lot of players due to injury, they did have a very good oline(Clifton, Bulaga, Colledge, Wells and Sitton--4 of them made 16 starts). But that doesn't have anything to do with the point here. You were complaining about another straw man that people would want to go back to Zorn/Cerrato/snyder's "forsaking the future" and I pointed out that Shanny just dealt away 3 firsts and a 2nd for one pick(which is much more then Snyderatto ever dealt away).



The defense also had a better offense under Zorn to keep it off the field more than last years team.

Not actually true. The offense under the Shannys is better than it was under Zorn. It's still bad, but it has improved.

As well, that team had aging players that werent going to sustain. I think we only have 2 remaining, London and Hall. And Im not very high on Hall myself. He can create some turnovers but gives up a lot of big plays .

And this has something to do with....anything said in this thread?



I also missed all of us saying that in the year 2014 that we believed that shanny should stay regardless of record since the rebuild of the rebuild of the rebuild isnt completed, yet you still said it.


I never said that you said it. I wasn't creating another straw man like you keep doing. What I said was that if Shanny hypothetically is the coach in 2014 and the team was still struggling, that some people here would be calling for him to still get more time for his "plan"(paraphrasing myself).

Editing to add: For that last point, a couple of starters a year in the draft? A team that has serious salary cap problems. Yet you want every single position remedied in 2 years. My point remains... That plan is unrealistic.

I never said that either. I realize that your position/point is based on little more then wishful thinking, but at least try to honestly discuss the issue. Thanks.

HA! its funny you bring up the uncapped year and talk about capspace since we got punished by the nfl for 36 million in capspace for actions in the uncapped year. you would have us getting punished for 50-60 million. HA!

Cutting players didn't cause the cap sanction that the league recently punished the skins with. In fact, if the skins had dumped Hall and Fat Albert as part of a roster cleaning, the league never would have penalized the skins in the first place(it was their bonuses which caused this). So, please explain how dumping this awful roster during the uncapped year would have led to more of a penalty from the league in 2012?



i wont go any further than that since you failed to even address my post and went into things completely unrelated.


No, I directly addressed your post, and your only reply was to make a very basic factual error and try to claim that this would have made things worse(another factual error).

hail2skins
04-24-2012, 05:25 AM
The young guys develop by paying attention in meetings and working hard in practice. They should have to earn their time. Obviously some guys will see the field and contribute right away, but not all guys will. Some need a little work, some truely have better players in front of them. and dont you think some of those bubble guys should show you they can play before they get a major role just handed to them? Memorizing things is one thing. Executing it is a different thing. Yeah, those bubble players need to play to show me they can play. Practice is one thing, playing in the game is totally different. Don't you agree?


also, you say we're in year 3, but year 3 is just starting. you neglect that many/most of the young guys came in last years draft and didnt have an offseason with coaches. they have one year experience. is that enough time to develop an entire draft and/or team? a team where even the vets are learning new schemes and systems? 2 years, one without an offseason, is not enough time to allow someone to build a team that has been horrible for the past 20 years. [/quote]Most of those young guys don't have one year of experience because they didn't get the playing time because of older players who shouldn't have been on the team. Two years and two bad decisions with the highest position and you'll discount it. I won't.

oh please, every coach and GM makes bad decisions sometimes, even at QB. so all those 22-26 year old guys are 2 years older? big deal. that may even be to our advantage as they would be vets by then entering their primes.
Yes they do but how many times? How many have bought in two guys and benched them both. Yeah, they are two years older now but that young QB needs time to develop (couple of years maybe). He needs to attends meeting and earn that playing time.

We're in year 3 of a supposedly rebuild where the QB is behind the mark compared to the rest of team.

Skinzmanforlife
04-24-2012, 05:48 AM
You do not stop using free agency. You use free agency wisely.

Did the quote that you quoted say to stop using free agency or did it say something else? Maybe you can requote what I said and then reread what I said. If you still come up with that I said to never use free agency again, then so be it.

hail2skins
04-24-2012, 06:11 AM
Did the quote that you quoted say to stop using free agency or did it say something else? Maybe you can requote what I said and then reread what I said. If you still come up with that I said to never use free agency again, then so be it.Below is what you wrote

You are not doing much in free agency unless you want them to keep mortgaging the future. That had to stop and it had to stop now. We are in much better cap space now, which should show that. We were going no where fast with the mortgaging of the future plan.So, to keep from mortgaging the future in free agency, it had to stop and stop now.

Skinzmanforlife
04-24-2012, 06:24 AM
Then you're a hypocrite.

Coming from you thats pretty laughable...



While they did lose a lot of players due to injury, they did have a very good oline(Clifton, Bulaga, Colledge, Wells and Sitton--4 of them made 16 starts). But that doesn't have anything to do with the point here. You were complaining about another straw man that people would want to go back to Zorn/Cerrato/snyder's "forsaking the future" and I pointed out that Shanny just dealt away 3 firsts and a 2nd for one pick(which is much more then Snyderatto ever dealt away).

Clifton was pretty good, although he was still playing while having injury problems. Bulaga was still a rookie and struggled some, the rest were average at best. Rodgers ran for his life that year. Had 38 sacks against him and his mobility prevented a lot more. Most people agree that the Green Bay offensive line in 2010 was pretty bad.

They forsake the future by signing to many high priced free agents. They could hardly ever resign youth that had played out their contract due to having cap problems. No where did I say people want to go back to that philosophy. My forsaking the future comment came directly from you saying they should have been able to do any retooling necessary due to an uncapped year. The uncapped year was only one year. Any contract they signed would still count all future years against the cap so going on a signing spree then was not a good idea.

Also if RG3 turns out to be the future, everything you just said there is blatant idiocy at its best.


And this has something to do with....anything said in this thread?

You apparently missed where you said something about the defense, and that was a direct response to it. So yes, it does have something to do with... anything said in the thread.


I never said that you said it. I wasn't creating another straw man like you keep doing. What I said was that if Shanny hypothetically is the coach in 2014 and the team was still struggling, that some people here would be calling for him to still get more time for his "plan"(paraphrasing myself).

You made a sarcastic comment... I made a sarcastic comment...

Now you want to disown your comment then claim my comment was based on nothing but the truth.

Awesome...

Yet im the hypocrite... lol.

Of course this all discounts that by you saying what you said, you were creating a straw man fallacy (Maybe you should look it up. Creating a position that someone doesnt hold to claim your right). Something you claim to not be doing. So yes you were creating a straw man and being a hypocrite for saying it.

I never said that either. I realize that your position/point is based on little more then wishful thinking, but at least try to honestly discuss the issue. Thanks.

Yes you did say that. You said a couple of starters a year on the draft is all people expect. Even though you think 2 years of only finding a couple a year is plenty of time.

Skinzmanforlife
04-24-2012, 06:26 AM
Below is what you wrote

So, to keep from mortgaging the future in free agency, it had to stop and stop now.

It clearly says "You are not doing much in free agency"

Nowhere does it say to stop using it all together which is what you are claiming I said.

Its also pretty easy to see what I mean by It has to stop now. That was for mortgaging the future, not stop using free agency completely.

Look at the bright side. You can straw man it up all day long and akh will come to your rescue claiming its not a straw man but my words are...

hail2skins
04-24-2012, 07:34 AM
It clearly says "You are not doing much in free agency"

Nowhere does it say to stop using it all together which is what you are claiming I said.

Its also pretty easy to see what I mean by It has to stop now. That was for mortgaging the future, not stop using free agency completely.

Look at the bright side. You can straw man it up all day long and akh will come to your rescue claiming its not a straw man but my words are...
Don't leave off the rest of the statement in your quote. "unless you want them to keep mortgaging the future.".

So what are you saying has to stop? Mortgaging the future using free agency? I respond to what you write and don't pretend to be a mind reader. Hence the questioning of what you wrote.

As for your straw men comment, that's between you and akh. Don't put me into it.

akhhorus
04-24-2012, 07:42 AM
Coming from you thats pretty laughable...


Yawn. Bad comeback.


Clifton was pretty good, although he was still playing while having injury problems. Bulaga was still a rookie and struggled some, the rest were average at best. Rodgers ran for his life that year. Had 38 sacks against him and his mobility prevented a lot more. Most people agree that the Green Bay offensive line in 2010 was pretty bad.

38 sacks was middle of the pack(no pun intended) in the 2010 season of the NFL.

They forsake the future by signing to many high priced free agents.

Shanny spent 152 million last year on resigning and on new free agents. So, how is this new standard of yours any different then the previous regime?

They could hardly ever resign youth that had played out their contract due to having cap problems.

Which players are you referring to?


No where did I say people want to go back to that philosophy.

No one said that you said that.

My forsaking the future comment came directly from you saying they should have been able to do any retooling necessary due to an uncapped year. The uncapped year was only one year. Any contract they signed would still count all future years against the cap so going on a signing spree then was not a good idea.

I didn't say that the uncapped year was a chance for go on a spending spree(yeah another straw man from you), I clearly said several times that it was a chance to dump all the crappy players from the previous regime.

Also if RG3 turns out to be the future, everything you just said there is blatant idiocy at its best.

No, if Rg3 turns out to be a great QB and the skins turn into a regular winner, then I was wrong about it. But that still doesn't change that Shanny pissed away 2 seasons and had to pay a massive price for his Qb.


You apparently missed where you said something about the defense, and that was a direct response to it. So yes, it does have something to do with... anything said in the thread.


It has nothing to do with the point about the play of the defense.


You made a sarcastic comment... I made a sarcastic comment...

Now you want to disown your comment then claim my comment was based on nothing but the truth.

Awesome...

Absolutely nothing you say here has nothing to do with what I said in the comment you're replying to. Honestly, I don't see how anyone could say that I'm "disowning" anything unless you're confused about what I'm writing and the voices in your head lol.


Of course this all discounts that by you saying what you said, you were creating a straw man fallacy (Maybe you should look it up. Creating a position that someone doesnt hold to claim your right). Something you claim to not be doing. So yes you were creating a straw man and being a hypocrite for saying it.


No, my comment about 2014 was a snark, not a straw man.


Yes you did say that. You said a couple of starters a year on the draft is all people expect. Even though you think 2 years of only finding a couple a year is plenty of time.

No, that not what I said at all. I said this:
"I must have missed when anyone said that. Or even that there's any expectation that they'll get anything more then a couple starters each draft"

I don't know how you decided that I was saying that anything you accuse me of here.

Red Bear
04-24-2012, 08:51 AM
Cutting players didn't cause the cap sanction that the league recently punished the skins with. In fact, if the skins had dumped Hall and Fat Albert as part of a roster cleaning, the league never would have penalized the skins in the first place(it was their bonuses which caused this). So, please explain how dumping this awful roster during the uncapped year would have led to more of a penalty from the league in 2012?


No, I directly addressed your post, and your only reply was to make a very basic factual error and try to claim that this would have made things worse(another factual error).

Who said anything about cutting players? this is about player acquisitions and spending, no one said anything about cutting costs. if this was about cutting costs then why would the draft even be mentioned in your previous post? as well as cap space? once again youre not even discussing the point, and just trying to turn it into whatever you want to.

So no, you have addressed nothing in my original post, and gone even further of course in response to my last post. You implied we could have spent more in the uncapped year in free agents, where big bonuses and base salaries probably wouldve been placed in that year, therefore causing us to lose more space. Once again i debunked that, then you completely went off in another direction and tried to make it about player cuts instead of acquisitions. Youre all over the map and have yet to discuss the actual points....



Memorizing things is one thing. Executing it is a different thing. Yeah, those bubble players need to play to show me they can play. Practice is one thing, playing in the game is totally different. Don't you agree?

Most of those young guys don't have one year of experience because they didn't get the playing time because of older players who shouldn't have been on the team. Two years and two bad decisions with the highest position and you'll discount it. I won't.

Yes they do but how many times? How many have bought in two guys and benched them both. Yeah, they are two years older now but that young QB needs time to develop (couple of years maybe). He needs to attends meeting and earn that playing time.

We're in year 3 of a supposedly rebuild where the QB is behind the mark compared to the rest of team.

1. Yes, practicing and playing are two different things. But in my opinion, players need to show they can do well in practice consistently, before seeing the field. If a player is horrible in practice then what makes you think he will be any better in an actual game? we can just agree to disagree on that if you want...

2. Most of the young guys did see some playing time. But you act like it should just be handed to them. You dont think guys should have to earn the right to play? it should just be given to them because they are young? What if theyre not really ready to see the field? Most of the older guys you see playing are 1-2 year stop gaps until these young guys do get fully up to speed and comfortable with the NFL. Remember they dont have to earn our trust as fans to see the field, the have to earn the trust of the coaching staff that they can perform. and the coaching staff sees a lot more of them then we do. and once again, no one is denying QB the last two years were horrible, no is saying this regime hasnt made mistakes. Do you support RG3 coming here? Because he can be just as much a mistake as grossman, mcnabb, or anyone else. it all remains to be seen. franchise QBs dont grow on trees. i get the feeling youre of the crowd that just getting any QB would work for you so long as it isnt someone we have already had. forget if that QB is any good or not...

3. Look at Miami, they've spent numerous 2nd rounders at QB via trade and draft. Arizona with Kolb/Skelton and going after Manning. Shall i continue? Finding a true franchise QB is not easy.

and dont you think having young guys with some experience is better help for a rookie QB than having young guys with no experience? otherwise your entire argument is pretty ridiculous.

oh, and now its important for a young QB to attend meetings and earn the playing time, but not for any of the other younger guys on the team? you totally contradicted yourself right there...in your scenario you wouldnt be dissappointed if rex started ahead of RG3 this season...

4. We couldve gotten a QB earlier, but what wouldve we had around him? We atleast have a better oline and RBs and even WRs than we had two years ago when shanny took over. all i'm saying is people should give a fair amount of time for this team to come together, and 2 years and a month or whatever into year 3 is not enough time for anyone trying to change the entire culture of a team. and if anyone thinks this team didnt need a culture change, then they are sorely mistaken...

Skinzmanforlife
04-24-2012, 09:58 AM
Yawn. Bad comeback.

Yeah because that comeback is one for the ages.

38 sacks was middle of the pack(no pun intended) in the 2010 season of the NFL.

But had Rodgers not been so mobile, they would have had 50 or more. Rodgers ran for between 300-400 yards that season, and they werent from planned run plays. He was running for his life. He also avoided plenty of sacks and got the ball out on the run. Whether that be throwing it away or finding a receiver. That offensive line was not very good at all (although they did pick up their play some in the playoffs)

Shanny spent 152 million last year on resigning and on new free agents. So, how is this new standard of yours any different then the previous regime?

On two or three players? Or was it a lot more than that? The previous regime dropped that on just a couple of players. No where near the same thing.

No one said that you said that.

No, you said we said it. Semantics...

I didn't say that the uncapped year was a chance for go on a spending spree(yeah another straw man from you), I clearly said several times that it was a chance to dump all the crappy players from the previous regime.

Which they did. But that doesnt clear up space til this year. Since they still had to be careful during the uncapped year due to long term contracts going back under a cap this year.

No, if Rg3 turns out to be a great QB and the skins turn into a regular winner, then I was wrong about it. But that still doesn't change that Shanny pissed away 2 seasons and had to pay a massive price for his Qb.

Im not sure if your still on the Gabbert or Dalton for the superbowl thing or what. I still say passing on Gabbert and Dalton was not pissing a season away. I still say not trying to sign Hasselbeck is not pissing a season away. Maybe you are right and Dalton does turn out to be a good QB, I think he will be average at best.

If RG3 turns out to be "that guy", then how it can be seen as anything other than a good thing to wait for "that guy" at the position. If we make a move first two years, that stops any chance at him. Obviously if hes a bust, that changes everything. Maybe im overexcited about RG3, but if he does turn out to be "that guy", passing on the afore mentioned players should be considered as a good move, not pissing years away. Time will tell.

If we draft Gabbert and he is a bust (and tbh, if we draft a QB last year, its most likely Gabbert) then we could be in the rex/beck position for another decade.

No, my comment about 2014 was a snark, not a straw man.

Call it what you want. You were assigning a position to the opposite side that they werent fighting for or claiming to be true and then using that position against them.

No, that not what I said at all. I said this:
"I must have missed when anyone said that. Or even that there's any expectation that they'll get anything more then a couple starters each draft"

This started off by a sarcastic comment that you assigned me as using a straw man on. When I made the comment that people are expecting 30 pro bowlers a year from the draft. You say that the expectation is only a couple.

You talked about the uncapped year, and have said you only meant it as a way to dump salaries. So then they werent spending a lot in free agency that year. The year prior, while they did some in free agency, they certainly couldnt do anything to the degree they did this year due to cap problems.

So two years of limited free agency and two years of finding a couple of starters in the draft.

Yet you have claimed that two years is plenty of time for them to fill every position. See our O-line argument earlier in the thread.

akhhorus
04-24-2012, 10:05 AM
Who said anything about cutting players? this is about player acquisitions and spending, no one said anything about cutting costs. if this was about cutting costs then why would the draft even be mentioned in your previous post? as well as cap space? once again youre not even discussing the point, and just trying to turn it into whatever you want to.


I said pretty clearly in this thread that(paraphrasing myself here) Shanny should have used the uncapped to dump the dead weight from the roster: "What I don't get about Shanny's "cleaning out of the mess" is why he didn't take the opportunity to do so in the uncapped year. No one would have faulted Shanny if he leaked all sorts of stories about the Snyderatto regime while he gutted the roster."

I guess in the future, I should make it simpler for you?

So no, you have addressed nothing in my original post, and gone even further of course in response to my last post.

You talked about the franchise needing time to develop and gel together any new pieces. I responded about my personal views, then wrote this:
"Does Shanny deserve some time because he's committed so much to rg3? Sure. But at some point(and the less Shanny wins, the closer that point is) Shanny is the problem with the team and not what Shanny inheirited. "

Which is directly on point to what you said. You need a better response then trying to accuse me of not addressing you because I did.

You implied we could have spent more in the uncapped year in free agents, where big bonuses and base salaries probably wouldve been placed in that year, therefore causing us to lose more space.

1. Thats not what you said. You said that my "plan" such as you understood it wrongly would lead to more cap penalties from the NFL. That was factually incorrect and you're trying to avoid that now.
2. You're putting words in my mouth. If you want to argue with the voices in your head, I can't stop you but I didn't say or imply that at all--especially with repeatedly saying that Shanny should have used to uncapped year to dump the crap off the roster.

Once again i debunked that, then you completely went off in another direction and tried to make it about player cuts instead of acquisitions.

Because that's what I've been saying that in this thread. Please show where I actually said that the uncapped year was a great opportunity to make more acquisitons and explain how that would have led to more NFL cap penalties(which is what you criticized me over). And I'm talking about what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote. Thanks.

Youre all over the map and have yet to discuss the actual points....


I don't think someone who's been putting words in my mouth and now trying(badly) to back out of a factually dumb post where said: "HA! its funny you bring up the uncapped year and talk about capspace since we got punished by the nfl for 36 million in capspace for actions in the uncapped year. you would have us getting punished for 50-60 million. HA!"

has any right to accuse me of anything without looking like an idiot.

Skinzmanforlife
04-24-2012, 10:17 AM
Don't leave off the rest of the statement in your quote. "unless you want them to keep mortgaging the future.".

So what are you saying has to stop? Mortgaging the future using free agency? I respond to what you write and don't pretend to be a mind reader. Hence the questioning of what you wrote.

As for your straw men comment, that's between you and akh. Don't put me into it.

"You are not doing much in free agency unless you want them to keep mortgaging the future."

Its a pretty self explanatory statement. In the past we signed high priced free agents. And to make room under the cap, we continually restructured other peoples deals. Pushing that money further into the future. It did limit what we could do. It also meant that we always had weak depth since depth was signed based on who would take the a minimum contract, and not because they were good depth players.

How you turned that statement into me saying to never sign another free agent ever again is beyond me.

akhhorus
04-24-2012, 10:21 AM
But had Rodgers not been so mobile, they would have had 50 or more. Rodgers ran for between 300-400 yards that season, and they werent from planned run plays. He was running for his life. He also avoided plenty of sacks and got the ball out on the run. Whether that be throwing it away or finding a receiver. That offensive line was not very good at all (although they did pick up their play some in the playoffs)

You have a better point with this on their 2009 season, when he ate 50 sacks and ran it 58 times.


On two or three players? Or was it a lot more than that? The previous regime dropped that on just a couple of players. No where near the same thing.

Outside of Haynesworth, the Snyderatto skins rarely gave out a massive contract(Deion being the only other one more then 40 million that I can think of). Shanny gave out 87 million on Chris Chester, Bowen and Cofield alone.


No, you said we said it. Semantics...


Semantics only applies when the statement can cut multiple ways. It can't in this case.


Which they did. But that doesnt clear up space til this year. Since they still had to be careful during the uncapped year due to long term contracts going back under a cap this year.

Thats not true. If a player was dumped during the uncapped year(but before June 1st), the "dead money charge" applied during the uncapped year and wouldn't penalize future caps. Thats why the skins did dump a bunch of players in that year(and why they should have done more).


Im not sure if your still on the Gabbert or Dalton for the superbowl thing or what. I still say passing on Gabbert and Dalton was not pissing a season away. I still say not trying to sign Hasselbeck is not pissing a season away. Maybe you are right and Dalton does turn out to be a good QB, I think he will be average at best.

In and of itself, its not pissing a season away. Rolling with Rex and Beck, and passing on any number of young Qb prospects--even for just a 1 year try out to see what you have and if he could be the future to roll with Rex/Beck at Qb was pissing away a season imo.


If RG3 turns out to be "that guy", then how it can be seen as anything other than a good thing to wait for "that guy" at the position. If we make a move first two years, that stops any chance at him. Obviously if hes a bust, that changes everything. Maybe im overexcited about RG3, but if he does turn out to be "that guy", passing on the afore mentioned players should be considered as a good move, not pissing years away. Time will tell.

Don't get me wrong, I love rg3 and think he'll be good, but the price matters when discussing which would have been better:
Rg3 at the price the skins paid or Dalton/etc etc in 2011.


If we draft Gabbert and he is a bust (and tbh, if we draft a QB last year, its most likely Gabbert) then we could be in the rex/beck position for another decade.

Actually, I heard it was going to be Kaepernick, but it doesn't matter. If the skins drafted him with the pick that was Jenkins, and he was a bust, then its a set back but not one that would have cost what rg3 is costing.


Call it what you want. You were assigning a position to the opposite side that they werent fighting for or claiming to be true and then using that position against them.


Not at all, it was an attempt at being funny and wasn't directed at you.


This started off by a sarcastic comment that you assigned me as using a straw man on. When I made the comment that people are expecting 30 pro bowlers a year from the draft. You say that the expectation is only a couple.

You're not understanding what I wrote. I said this:
"I must have missed when anyone said that. Or even that there's any expectation that they'll get anything more then a couple starters each draft"


Thats saying that no one had the expections of your 30 pro bowlers per draft snark and that no one had even the expectation of even 2 starters per draft.

See above.


You talked about the uncapped year, and have said you only meant it as a way to dump salaries. So then they werent spending a lot in free agency that year. The year prior, while they did some in free agency, they certainly couldnt do anything to the degree they did this year due to cap problems.

They certainly have been able to squeeze a lot of signings despite the cap problems. And have the means to create a significant amount of cap room with some cuts/trades.


So two years of limited free agency and two years of finding a couple of starters in the draft.

Since I didn't say that 2 starters per year draft expectation, I don't think that I have to response to this.


Yet you have claimed that two years is plenty of time for them to fill every position. See our O-line argument earlier in the thread.

You're putting words into my mouth again. I never said that 2 years was enough time to fill every position. I said this:
" So the lesson here is that you need an oline and good WRs around any potential franchise Qb. Maybe Shanahan should get started on building that for Rg3, no?"

and more on point I said this:
"I expect to see some sort of progress. And by progress, I mean that the skins should be doing much better then basically only having about 8-10 starters(Fletcher, Riley, Wilson, Davis or Cooley, Monty, Helu, Kerrigan, orakpo) that they can actually count on to turn in a reliable performance and still need a major talent infusion across the board--especially at critical positions like FS, QB, WR, OT, OG, CB, Dline"

It would be nice if you actually argued with what I'm actually saying.

Red Bear
04-24-2012, 11:18 AM
I said pretty clearly in this thread that(paraphrasing myself here) Shanny should have used the uncapped to dump the dead weight from the roster: "What I don't get about Shanny's "cleaning out of the mess" is why he didn't take the opportunity to do so in the uncapped year. No one would have faulted Shanny if he leaked all sorts of stories about the Snyderatto regime while he gutted the roster."

I guess in the future, I should make it simpler for you?



You talked about the franchise needing time to develop and gel together any new pieces. I responded about my personal views, then wrote this:
"Does Shanny deserve some time because he's committed so much to rg3? Sure. But at some point(and the less Shanny wins, the closer that point is) Shanny is the problem with the team and not what Shanny inheirited. "

Which is directly on point to what you said. You need a better response then trying to accuse me of not addressing you because I did.



1. Thats not what you said. You said that my "plan" such as you understood it wrongly would lead to more cap penalties from the NFL. That was factually incorrect and you're trying to avoid that now.
2. You're putting words in my mouth. If you want to argue with the voices in your head, I can't stop you but I didn't say or imply that at all--especially with repeatedly saying that Shanny should have used to uncapped year to dump the crap off the roster.



Because that's what I've been saying that in this thread. Please show where I actually said that the uncapped year was a great opportunity to make more acquisitons and explain how that would have led to more NFL cap penalties(which is what you criticized me over). And I'm talking about what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote. Thanks.



I don't think someone who's been putting words in my mouth and now trying(badly) to back out of a factually dumb post where said: "HA! its funny you bring up the uncapped year and talk about capspace since we got punished by the nfl for 36 million in capspace for actions in the uncapped year. you would have us getting punished for 50-60 million. HA!"

has any right to accuse me of anything without looking like an idiot.

blah blah blah blah, so you addressed one point ive made with a pretty obvious statement while avoiding the rest like the plague. and even then, the point you addressed barely touches on what ive been saying. and has nothing to do with people who were calling for shannys head even before a year into his regime and up until the end of year 2 before we ever contemplated going after RG3. sorry, but if youre just going to continue to make this about anything but the point, then i will not continue further. i guess youre amongst those who thinks a team can be built in less than a season and franchise QBs and star players fall of trees in great abundance.

akhhorus
04-24-2012, 11:31 AM
blah blah blah blah, so you addressed one point ive made with a pretty obvious statement while avoiding the rest like the plague. and even then, the point you addressed barely touches on what ive been saying. and has nothing to do with people who were calling for shannys head even before a year into his regime and up until the end of year 2 before we ever contemplated going after RG3. sorry, but if youre just going to continue to make this about anything but the point, then i will not continue further.

I've addressed your point. If you don't like my answer, tough titty. But I gave you direct responses to your points, its not my fault you made factually inaccurate comments in respond.

i guess youre amongst those who thinks a team can be built in less than a season and franchise QBs and star players fall of trees in great abundance.

I must have missed when I ever expected that or said that was the expectation for it. I wouldn't have a problem with 11 wins in 2 seasons if Shanny was showing some progress with the franchise, but I don't see any. And the skins have now been essentially forced to gamble away a ton of picks on Griffin...only they're not building a team around him to succeed(which recent NFL history tells us won't end well).

If you want to keep trying to mischaracterize anyone's argument who dares to criticize Shanahan and his time here in DC, I can't stop you: but I can point out when you're full of crap, lying or mischaracterizing. If you don't like it, tough.

Skinzmanforlife
04-24-2012, 11:37 AM
You have a better point with this on their 2009 season, when he ate 50 sacks and ran it 58 times.

A year older a year wiser. The sacks werent 50 that year also due to Rodgers, not the O-line.

Outside of Haynesworth, the Snyderatto skins rarely gave out a massive contract(Deion being the only other one more then 40 million that I can think of). Shanny gave out 87 million on Chris Chester, Bowen and Cofield alone.

29 mil each when the cap is higher...



Semantics only applies when the statement can cut multiple ways. It can't in this case.

You tried to get out of a statement by saying you didnt say it to me personally. You used we, it still meant the same thing. The argument you used to get out of the statement was semantics.

Thats not true. If a player was dumped during the uncapped year(but before June 1st), the "dead money charge" applied during the uncapped year and wouldn't penalize future caps. Thats why the skins did dump a bunch of players in that year(and why they should have done more).

I understand that part just fine. But they still cant spend like crazy unless they signed a lot of 1 year contracts. Because multiple year contracts that were signed then fall back under a cap this year is where I was going with that.

And yes I agree, they should have dumped more. I personally thought that they should have just cut Haynseworth and Hall myself. But that still brings up the question whether the Giants owner is still slipping his wallet under the table to get the commissioner on us. I cant help but believe had those two been cut, the league would have still been looking at us and taking cap space away even though it differs from what they are claiming that the skins did wrong. Because thats still massive cap space we cleared and Mara was still going to be mad. Maybe, maybe not. No one will know now.

In and of itself, its not pissing a season away. Rolling with Rex and Beck, and passing on any number of young Qb prospects--even for just a 1 year try out to see what you have and if he could be the future to roll with Rex/Beck at Qb was pissing away a season imo.

Using a number 1 on a failure last year makes trading 2 firsts and a second on RG3 much easier to take. I disagree with that statement. Maybe if we can use very low draft picks, but I prefer they try to hit on high ones. Even a 2nd rounder is to high to "give a tryout" imo.

Don't get me wrong, I love rg3 and think he'll be good, but the price matters when discussing which would have been better:
Rg3 at the price the skins paid or Dalton/etc etc in 2011.

While Im not going to dispute what you say there, I also believe another component needs to be factored in. And thats if they can win the big one. If Dalton turns out to be an average starter and RG3 turns out to be a star, then im glad we spent the extra for RG3. Now if RG3 is only slightly better than Dalton long term, then yes, those extra picks give us more players to say that Dalton plus the picks would have been better. Obviously if hes worse then its a huge mistake.

Actually, I heard it was going to be Kaepernick, but it doesn't matter. If the skins drafted him with the pick that was Jenkins, and he was a bust, then its a set back but not one that would have cost what rg3 is costing.

Set back or not, I think the bar for choosing a long term QB needs to be high. I care if they find a franchise QB. A warm body to replace Rex doesnt do it for me. I get the hate of Rex, cant stand him myself since he showed up out of shape last year to camp, but just to replace him just to replace him doesnt seem like a plan to me. Once they found the guy they wanted, they jumped at him.


They certainly have been able to squeeze a lot of signings despite the cap problems. And have the means to create a significant amount of cap room with some cuts/trades.

You can always make cap room, at the expense of depth. Restructuring isnt hard, it just keeps adding up on future years and eventually you are signing people to depth positions because they fit under the cap not because they deserve to make the team.

Since I didn't say that 2 starters per year draft expectation, I don't think that I have to response to this.

Whats the expectation then?

You're putting words into my mouth again. I never said that 2 years was enough time to fill every position. I said this:
" So the lesson here is that you need an oline and good WRs around any potential franchise Qb. Maybe Shanahan should get started on building that for Rg3, no?"

and more on point I said this:
"I expect to see some sort of progress. And by progress, I mean that the skins should be doing much better then basically only having about 8-10 starters(Fletcher, Riley, Wilson, Davis or Cooley, Monty, Helu, Kerrigan, orakpo) that they can actually count on to turn in a reliable performance and still need a major talent infusion across the board--especially at critical positions like FS, QB, WR, OT, OG, CB, Dline"

It would be nice if you actually argued with what I'm actually saying.

For your critical positions, you pretty much named all of the positions. If we are going to differentiate between a critical position and not so much, shouldnt there actually be some positions in the not so much category? Or is that reserved for kickers only?

I also disagree that we only have 8 good starters, 9 if we do a double tight end set. I dont buy that 8 good starters can win 5 games with a terrible QB. Or that only a good set of LB's for our defense gives us a chance to win at all as well. We would have only won one or two games and never given Rex the opportunity to lose several games himself if that was the case.

DUCKIN_TACKLERS
04-24-2012, 11:42 AM
SInce we are off topic anyway can I please reccomend that we ban the word "Straw man" from the boards. That is all:smash:

akhhorus
04-24-2012, 11:56 AM
29 mil each when the cap is higher...


So, if the cap space is there, giving out massive contracts(or highly inflated ones) is okay? They also gave Moss and Brown 35 million combined. Which is obscene.


You tried to get out of a statement by saying you didnt say it to me personally. You used we, it still meant the same thing. The argument you used to get out of the statement was semantics.

I didn't direct it at you(I believe I was responding to h2s in that snark), so there's nothing to try and "get out of".


I understand that part just fine. But they still cant spend like crazy unless they signed a lot of 1 year contracts. Because multiple year contracts that were signed then fall back under a cap this year is where I was going with that.

Good thing I wasn't saying that Shanny should have signed a lot of players then.


And yes I agree, they should have dumped more. I personally thought that they should have just cut Haynseworth and Hall myself. But that still brings up the question whether the Giants owner is still slipping his wallet under the table to get the commissioner on us. I cant help but believe had those two been cut, the league would have still been looking at us and taking cap space away even though it differs from what they are claiming that the skins did wrong. Because thats still massive cap space we cleared and Mara was still going to be mad. Maybe, maybe not. No one will know now.


There's no way that they could have sanctioned the skins for doing so. Or if the skins converted the bonus money into signing bonus that year(2010). The skins would have had to add over 6 million a year in new cap charges, but thats better then the 36 million dollar sanction.



Using a number 1 on a failure last year makes trading 2 firsts and a second on RG3 much easier to take. I disagree with that statement. Maybe if we can use very low draft picks, but I prefer they try to hit on high ones. Even a 2nd rounder is to high to "give a tryout" imo.


We'll just have to disagree on this.



Set back or not, I think the bar for choosing a long term QB needs to be high. I care if they find a franchise QB. A warm body to replace Rex doesnt do it for me.

I can agree with that, but if you(Shanny) don't see a Qb worth the pick(fwiu, they did love Kaepernick), then doesn't it make sense to take a flyer guy after the 5th round just in case he works out? What do you lose? Not having a 7th WR or 4th TE?

I get the hate of Rex, cant stand him myself since he showed up out of shape last year to camp, but just to replace him just to replace him doesnt seem like a plan to me. Once they found the guy they wanted, they jumped at him.

And they shouldn't have brought him back lol.


You can always make cap room, at the expense of depth. Restructuring isnt hard, it just keeps adding up on future years and eventually you are signing people to depth positions because they fit under the cap not because they deserve to make the team.


Yes, but dumping guys like Hall, doughty, Beck, Moss and Gaffney would clear up enough cap room to go after quality players(either starters or depth).


Whats the expectation then?

I expect that 1st and 2nd picks should be able to be starters within a full season and I expect that they find at least a couple contributors(even just as good backups) in the later rounds.



For your critical positions, you pretty much named all of the positions. If we are going to differentiate between a critical position and not so much, shouldnt there actually be some positions in the not so much category? Or is that reserved for kickers only?


Looking back at it, I would modify it as FS, QB, OL and WR as being the critical positions that the skins need to fill.

silverspring
04-24-2012, 12:03 PM
Also if RG3 turns out to be the future, everything you just said there is blatant idiocy at its best.

The RG3 move is nothing but a wild gamble. You can't plan around a gamble like that. It is putting everything on black 36 and crossing your fingers. If RG3 turns out to be the future then we got lucky, nothing more. Shanhan already showed that when he hand picks his qbs he fails miserably, so this time he just closed his eyes and guessed. If it works out, it will be nothing more than dumb luck.

Remember the "A" in BPA means "Available". RG3 wasn't available. He was bought and paid for with our future and now our future rests on him.

cal_junior
04-24-2012, 12:07 PM
SInce we are off topic anyway can I please reccomend that we ban the word "Straw man" from the boards. That is all:smash:

I like this post so much I want to take it out back and get it pregnant.

hail2skins
04-24-2012, 12:40 PM
"You are not doing much in free agency unless you want them to keep mortgaging the future."
The next statement is it had to stop and stop now. Your statement says they are not doing much with free agency. Why? Because you believe they are mortaging the future. You then said that had to stop and stop now. Stop and stop now is referencing mortaging the future which is being done in free agency - as you put it.

How you turned that statement into me saying to never sign another free agent ever again is beyond me.
That's how I interpretted your statement. Is that not what you mean.

hail2skins
04-24-2012, 12:41 PM
I like this post so much I want to take it out back and get it pregnant.
You would have to deal with semantics first. :)

CNYSkinFan
04-24-2012, 01:16 PM
SInce we are off topic anyway can I please reccomend that we ban the word "Straw man" from the boards. That is all:smash:
the irony here is you just actually created a straw man argument...delicious

bergiemoore
04-24-2012, 01:18 PM
the irony here is you just actually created a straw man argument...delicious

Just thought this might help: Your Logical Fallacy Is: (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster)

cal_junior
04-24-2012, 01:22 PM
You would have to deal with semantics first. :)

Let's just say pedantic dissection of logical fallacies is not where the board shines. All I'm saying is that I agree with Duckin 100 percent.

CNYSkinFan
04-24-2012, 01:35 PM
Just thought this might help: Your Logical Fallacy Is: (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster)
i love this post so much now I want to marry it.

dj_stouty
04-24-2012, 01:49 PM
Just thought this might help: Your Logical Fallacy Is: (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster)

:beer:

akhhorus
04-24-2012, 01:55 PM
Just thought this might help: Your Logical Fallacy Is: (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster)

Awesome.

Let's just say pedantic dissection of logical fallacies is not where the board shines. All I'm saying is that I agree with Duckin 100 percent.

This is like an arsonist complaining about building burning making things too hot for him lol.

cal_junior
04-24-2012, 02:12 PM
This is like an arsonist complaining about building burning making things too hot for him lol.

More like an arsonist complaining about too much firefighting.

akhhorus
04-24-2012, 02:20 PM
More like an arsonist complaining about too much firefighting.

lmao...if you say so.

cal_junior
04-24-2012, 02:28 PM
lmao...if you say so.

The problem for some of us is that the cure at hR is often worse than the disease.

GloryHog
04-24-2012, 02:33 PM
Just thought this might help: Your Logical Fallacy Is: (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster)

Great page.

HanburgerBum
04-24-2012, 03:47 PM
One of the scouting service guys mentioned this the other day on Twitter in reference to the Browns. Basically that since Cleveland doesn't love any of the QBs they can realistically draft, they should "do what the Skins did in 2011." i.e. Try and address other needs and plan to get the guy you want the following year.


That is certainly one way Cleveland can choose to go. But, Browns fan have got to be livid that they had more ammo and came up short in the RG sweepstakes. Plus, they have arguably the worst offense in the NFL and are stuck in a division with three playoff teams.

So, I am guessing that Holmgren is under a lot of pressure to come up with a QB solution now. His pathetic excuse that he lost out on RG because Fisher and Shanahan are friends suggests to me that Holmgren is feeling the heat.

HanburgerBum
04-24-2012, 03:53 PM
Sounds a lot like tanking a season to me. I don't believe Shanny would do that.



There is tanking, and then there is tanking. I don't believe Shanahan held a meeting with his coaches and players and said that we are going to try to lose every game so we can draft No. 1. But, once playoffs was out of reach, who knows what Shanahan tried to do?

Don't you wish now that the Skins had won only two games last season?

By the way, I think the NFL should seriously considering going to a lottery style draft system similar to those of the NBA and NHL to at least lessen the possibility of teams tanking for the draft.

HanburgerBum
04-24-2012, 04:00 PM
look i will give credit, and have, for Shanny's move for RGIII. But to call it a plan is monstrous revisionist history. The fact of the matter is that Shanny and Son truly believed RGIII and Beck could propel them to playoff victories in year two just as they thought McNabb could do it in year 1.

If tyhey truly were lanning to tank the season they would have left Beck in there, or never switched from RGIII in the first place. If they were truly rebuilding they would not have resigned older wrs like Moss and Stallworth, or even Mike Sellers.

The only time we ever rebuilt was schotty's year one where we let sooooo mnany over priced vets go and brought in 20 udfas to camp giving 10 of them roster spots.

It is worth noting that Schotty's true rebuild marked a better record then eiother of Shanny's crappy retooling years.



I don't think anyone is suggesting that Shanahan had a firm plan two years ago to end up with RG. On the same token, anyone who suggests that any coach can have a well laid out plan to get a certain QB down the road and then be able to execute such plan to fruition seems to be engaging in a healthy dose of wishful thinking.

hail2skins
04-24-2012, 09:42 PM
There is tanking, and then there is tanking. I don't believe Shanahan held a meeting with his coaches and players and said that we are going to try to lose every game so we can draft No. 1. But, once playoffs was out of reach, who knows what Shanahan tried to do?

Don't you wish now that the Skins had won only two games last season?

By the way, I think the NFL should seriously considering going to a lottery style draft system similar to those of the NBA and NHL to at least lessen the possibility of teams tanking for the draft.NO, I don't.

akhhorus
04-25-2012, 07:20 AM
There is tanking, and then there is tanking. I don't believe Shanahan held a meeting with his coaches and players and said that we are going to try to lose every game so we can draft No. 1. But, once playoffs was out of reach, who knows what Shanahan tried to do?


So, why didn't Shanny keep Beck in at QB if he wanted to tank the season, even if he was the only one in on it?

smave
04-25-2012, 08:00 AM
I never want my team to tank a season. I want my team to win every week, playoffs or not.

cal_junior
04-25-2012, 08:20 AM
I never want my team to tank a season. I want my team to win every week, playoffs or not.

Completely agree. Each week I pull for the Skins even when it's likely a loss is better for the team long-term.

With the benefit of hindsight, however, a 2-14 season in '11 would have been better for the Skins than a 5-11 one, simply because we would have been able to acquire an elite QB and still hang on to three premiere draft picks.

BIGREDSKINSFAN1963
04-25-2012, 08:32 AM
So, why didn't Shanny keep Beck in at QB if he wanted to tank the season, even if he was the only one in on it?

maybe he did'nt want to look like an even bigger idiot for letting grossman play if that's possible? let's face it,as bad as grossman was,beck was worse!

CNYSkinFan
04-25-2012, 09:04 AM
maybe he did'nt want to look like an even bigger idiot for letting grossman play if that's possible? let's face it,as bad as grossman was,beck was worse!
That cat was out of the bag when he staked his reputation on those guys.

And that to me is the most damning evidence. He actually believed those guys were nfl qbs because they did not question his authority and knew his son's sainted system. And don't bring up coachspeak, because there are a million ways to handle what was really a softball question without invoking your reputation. It's just like after the Dallas loss the year before where Grossman looked competent for a half and the Shanny's were doing victory laps despite losing.

You wanna see how to do coach speak, look at the comments Gibbs made about Patrick Ramsey who it was obvious he did not believe in but put in because he had no choice. Gibbs called him solid, said he believed he could win with him, alll the while making plans to shove him out an airlock on Redskins one. That is coachspeak. What Shanny did was different and I just dont understand how anyone can't see that.

Moe
04-25-2012, 09:07 AM
There is tanking, and then there is tanking. I don't believe Shanahan held a meeting with his coaches and players and said that we are going to try to lose every game so we can draft No. 1. But, once playoffs was out of reach, who knows what Shanahan tried to do?

Don't you wish now that the Skins had won only two games last season?

By the way, I think the NFL should seriously considering going to a lottery style draft system similar to those of the NBA and NHL to at least lessen the possibility of teams tanking for the draft.

Tanking guarantees you nothing and basically is the fast lane for the coach to put his house on the market. It doesn't happen on an institutional level in the NFL; there are too many people involved with varying motivations and you cannot manipulate the roster like you can in the NBA where teams <cough>Bobcats<cough> are clearly angling for a the top spot. Further the lottery system is a joke and would be a terrible decision for the NFL to adopt. It can penalize truly bad teams and unfairly benefit good ones, neither of which are good for a league that preaches parity.