Official QB switch? Thread

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:07 pm

ChocolateMilk wrote:
JSPB22 wrote:
ChocolateMilk wrote:
JSPB22 wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:
SoulDOut wrote:PS. if you read the other thread, it was revealed after the season that Colt had a minor knee injury. so it may have been better that it wasnt aggravated at the end of the year...

What other thread?

I think it's the "What if Colt..." thread.

But when I made my original post, I didn't know about his injury. That is a valid reason, IMO, why Colt got no PT in the final two games. The JC needs those two games to develop theory is not.
The fact that JC needed those games needed to develop and the fact that HES THE STARTING QB are the only reasons he played the last 2 games.. if they had played Colt the last 2 games would be completely retarded and wouldnt make a drop of sense

You're right, of course. Beating Philly by making a goal line save on defense, and losing to the 49ers in two games that meant nothing to our season, trumps getting some of our rookies some actual PT in a real NFL game any day.
it meant getting playing time for our starting QB who is trying to learn yet another offense. I was all for playing our rookies those last 2 games. But not at QB. Campbell was our QB last year and will be next year. And he needs time on the field to get the system under his belt. And to bench him the last 2 games to throw a rookie out there makes no sense. Thats why we have the preseason.

When I said start Colt those two games, I was probably being too reactionary. I would have liked to see him get some PT, though. That way you wouldn't have to bruise JC's ego and confidence. I haven't totally given up on JC yet, but I would like to see Colt play in a game that counts, so we could find out if his pre-season success was just because he was playing against 3rd stringers, who hadn't game-planned. I'm assuming of course that we didn't draft Colt just to be a place holder on the roster, and because we think he actually might have some talent that helped him break all those NCAA records. I have to think his previously undisclosed injury had something to do with him not seeing the field.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:24 pm

JSPB22 wrote:
Kaz wrote:It wasn't worth either cent. Tom Brady was a sixth rounder and a couple guys drafted #3 and #18 overall means we should ignore developing our quarterback and blow two games on a lottery ticket. Got it.

Yeah, our QB is developing so nicely that these two games, that make no difference, are going to catapult him instantly to a pro-bowl level after three seasons. It's a good thing he got those two games under his belt, though, his production in them blew me away. And after all, we all know that every 1st rounder is destined to be great, while every late rounder never works out. But hey let's keep that "lottery ticket" we already purchased in our wallets and never scratch it off to see if we have won. I see your point.

Wow, so my choice was that the two games have to "catapult him (JC) instantly to a pro-bowl level" or play a rookie sixth round draft choice and see if he's Tom Brady? Question, where exactly did you get the power to say those are my only two choices? I only said I wanted to continue to develop our QB. Who as you point out has played only 3 seasons. And the NFL only plays 16 games a year in the regular season. You want to piss away 1/8th a season on the longest of long shots, I think continuing to DEVELOP, which is what I said and what I meant, was a better use of 1/8th a season.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:27 pm

JSPB22 wrote:You're right, of course. Beating Philly by making a goal line save on defense, and losing to the 49ers in two games that meant nothing to our season, trumps getting some of our rookies some actual PT in a real NFL game any day.

Rephrasing your post rationally, playing our starter who has 3 years experience and developing him using the 1/8 of a season we had left is a lot better use of two games then throwing them away on a guy who'll be lucky to be in the NFL 2 years from now.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:03 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
JSPB22 wrote:You're right, of course. Beating Philly by making a goal line save on defense, and losing to the 49ers in two games that meant nothing to our season, trumps getting some of our rookies some actual PT in a real NFL game any day.

Rephrasing your post rationally, playing our starter who has 3 years experience and developing him using the 1/8 of a season we had left is a lot better use of two games then throwing them away on a guy who'll be lucky to be in the NFL 2 years from now.

How dare ye profane the sacred Colt Brennan?

Colt Brennan would have started his Hall of Fame career if he had played in those 2 games. I mean, QBs drafted in the 6th round are usually super-successful.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:37 pm

PulpExposure wrote:I mean, QBs drafted in the 6th round are usually super-successful.

Hey, they can't all be Heath Shuler.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:20 pm

JSPB22 wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:I mean, QBs drafted in the 6th round are usually super-successful.

Hey, they can't all be Heath Shuler.

Lol. Some are even as good as Jordan Palmer!

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:48 pm

PulpExposure wrote:
JSPB22 wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:I mean, QBs drafted in the 6th round are usually super-successful.

Hey, they can't all be Heath Shuler.

Lol. Some are even as good as Jordan Palmer!

Athletes with brothers who have played well automatically also play well

Champsturf · Post by **Champsturf** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:20 pm

ChocolateMilk wrote:
JSPB22 wrote:
ChocolateMilk wrote:
JSPB22 wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:
SoulDOut wrote:PS. if you read the other thread, it was revealed after the season that Colt had a minor knee injury. so it may have been better that it wasnt aggravated at the end of the year...

What other thread?

I think it's the "What if Colt..." thread.

But when I made my original post, I didn't know about his injury. That is a valid reason, IMO, why Colt got no PT in the final two games. The JC needs those two games to develop theory is not.
The fact that JC needed those games needed to develop and the fact that HES THE STARTING QB are the only reasons he played the last 2 games.. if they had played Colt the last 2 games would be completely retarded and wouldnt make a drop of sense

You're right, of course. Beating Philly by making a goal line save on defense, and losing to the 49ers in two games that meant nothing to our season, trumps getting some of our rookies some actual PT in a real NFL game any day.
it meant getting playing time for our starting QB who is trying to learn yet another offense. I was all for playing our rookies those last 2 games. But not at QB. Campbell was our QB last year and will be next year. And he needs time on the field to get the system under his belt. And to bench him the last 2 games to throw a rookie out there makes no sense. Thats why we have the preseason.

Based on this, then Colt SHOUD be the starter. I don't think he should be, but you so much as said that. I agree that Campbell is the starter, but Colt should have gotten some real game time, if he was healthy. He is holding a roster spot, no? If he's not worth jack *^(*, then the sooner the coaches know that the sooner they can bring in a viable option.

I'm sorry that you and Kazoo don't see that.

As far as Campbell's confidence, I could care a less. If's he's that fragile that he's not willing to do what is best for the team, especially considering his performance, then he's even slower than I thought.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:08 am

Champsturf wrote:
ChocolateMilk wrote:
JSPB22 wrote:
ChocolateMilk wrote:
JSPB22 wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:
SoulDOut wrote:PS. if you read the other thread, it was revealed after the season that Colt had a minor knee injury. so it may have been better that it wasnt aggravated at the end of the year...

What other thread?

I think it's the "What if Colt..." thread.

But when I made my original post, I didn't know about his injury. That is a valid reason, IMO, why Colt got no PT in the final two games. The JC needs those two games to develop theory is not.
The fact that JC needed those games needed to develop and the fact that HES THE STARTING QB are the only reasons he played the last 2 games.. if they had played Colt the last 2 games would be completely retarded and wouldnt make a drop of sense

You're right, of course. Beating Philly by making a goal line save on defense, and losing to the 49ers in two games that meant nothing to our season, trumps getting some of our rookies some actual PT in a real NFL game any day.
it meant getting playing time for our starting QB who is trying to learn yet another offense. I was all for playing our rookies those last 2 games. But not at QB. Campbell was our QB last year and will be next year. And he needs time on the field to get the system under his belt. And to bench him the last 2 games to throw a rookie out there makes no sense. Thats why we have the preseason.
Based on this, then Colt SHOUD be the starter. I don't think he should be, but you so much as said that. I agree that Campbell is the starter, but Colt should have gotten some real game time, if he was healthy. He is holding a roster spot, no? If he's not worth jack *^(*, then the sooner the coaches know that the sooner they can bring in a viable option.

I'm sorry that you and Kazoo don't see that.

As far as Campbell's confidence, I could care a less. If's he's that fragile that he's not willing to do what is best for the team, especially considering his performance, then he's even slower than I thought.

I guess you missed the multiple posts where people said Colt wasn't healthy...

ChocolateMilk · Post by **ChocolateMilk** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:01 am

PulpExposure wrote:
Champsturf wrote:
ChocolateMilk wrote:
JSPB22 wrote:
ChocolateMilk wrote:
JSPB22 wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:
SoulDOut wrote:PS. if you read the other thread, it was revealed after the season that Colt had a minor knee injury. so it may have been better that it wasnt aggravated at the end of the year...

What other thread?

I think it's the "What if Colt..." thread.

But when I made my original post, I didn't know about his injury. That is a valid reason, IMO, why Colt got no PT in the final two games. The JC needs those two games to develop theory is not.
The fact that JC needed those games needed to develop and the fact that HES THE STARTING QB are the only reasons he played the last 2 games.. if they had played Colt the last 2 games would be completely retarded and wouldnt make a drop of sense

You're right, of course. Beating Philly by making a goal line save on defense, and losing to the 49ers in two games that meant nothing to our season, trumps getting some of our rookies some actual PT in a real NFL game any day.
it meant getting playing time for our starting QB who is trying to learn yet another offense. I was all for playing our rookies those last 2 games. But not at QB. Campbell was our QB last year and will be next year. And he needs time on the field to get the system under his belt. And to bench him the last 2 games to throw a rookie out there makes no sense. Thats why we have the preseason.
Based on this, then Colt SHOUD be the starter. I don't think he should be, but you so much as said that. I agree that Campbell is the starter, but Colt should have gotten some real game time, if he was healthy. He is holding a roster spot, no? If he's not worth jack *^(*, then the sooner the coaches know that the sooner they can bring in a viable option.

I'm sorry that you and Kazoo don't see that.

As far as Campbell's confidence, I could care a less. If's he's that fragile that he's not willing to do what is best for the team, especially considering his performance, then he's even slower than I thought.

I guess you missed the multiple posts where people said Colt wasn't healthy...

we were talking as if colt was healthy.. and even if he was, it would have been a mistake to play him. As Herm Edwards once said, you play to win the game. Throwing Colt in there would not have been smart, even if they think hes the future. Campbells the starter as of now and needs as much time on the field as he can get. its not a matter of hurting his feelings or anything like that. Benching a young QB the coach thinks is the teams QB(not a temporary starter till Colts ready) to play a rookie is just not smart football.

Champsturf · Post by **Champsturf** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:30 am

Screw this...waste of my time

ChocolateMilk · Post by **ChocolateMilk** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:45 am

Champsturf wrote:Screw this...waste of my time

just like benching Campbell and starting Colt would have been a waste of the Redskins time...

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:19 am

ChocolateMilk wrote:
Champsturf wrote:Screw this...waste of my time
just like benching Campbell and starting Colt would have been a waste of the Redskins time...

Speculation...

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:02 am

ChocolateMilk wrote:just like benching Campbell and starting Colt would have been a waste of the Redskins time...

Trying to "win now" is a waste of time.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:19 pm

As Herm Edwards once said, you play to win the game. Throwing Colt in there would not have been smart, even if they think hes the future.

That right there is the reason why this team is and will continue to be mediocre. Neither the owner or most fans are willing to go through the process of building a perennial contender. That involves saving your draft picks, building through the draft, and only using free agents to supplement what you have already built internally. That is how the majority (Indy, New England, Philly, NYG, Pittsburgh, etc.) of good teams do it. The Skins, however, are stuck in "win now" mode and as a result don't stick to any plan for more than a couple of years. At some point the team is going to have to realize that they need to start over and try to build the franchise the right way. Unfortunately Snyder doesn't understand that.

By the way, I don't think that we should have played Colt. He is not the answer to our qb problems.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:25 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:By the way, I don't think that we should have played Colt. He is not the answer to our qb problems.

How could you know that?

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:28 pm

JSPB22 wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:By the way, I don't think that we should have played Colt. He is not the answer to our qb problems.

How could you know that?

He can't.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:38 pm

JSPB22 wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:By the way, I don't think that we should have played Colt. He is not the answer to our qb problems.

How could you know that?

Because he is a long-term project. If you want to wait 2 to 3 years for him to be ready then be my guest. However, we don't have the luxury of waiting that long. I don't think that people understand the type of offense he played in in college and how different it is from the NFL. Hawaii rarely ran the ball when he was there and he very very rarely even took snaps from under center. Do you have any idea how big the adjustment is from being in shotgun over 90% of the time to taking snaps from under center the majority of the time. That is not something that you learn in one off-season. That doesn't even take into account his mechanics/side arm throwing motion or the fact that he looked undersized with a weak arm at the Senior Bowl.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:29 pm

He looked just fine taking snaps under center in the pre-season. Arm strength looked fine too.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:46 pm

JSPB22 wrote:He looked just fine taking snaps under center in the pre-season. Arm strength looked fine too.

He played against 3rd stringers and vanilla defenses. The throws that he was making worked against third stringers but against a 1st team defense he would've been a disaster.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:31 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
JSPB22 wrote:He looked just fine taking snaps under center in the pre-season. Arm strength looked fine too.

He played against 3rd stringers and vanilla defenses. The throws that he was making worked against third stringers but against a 1st team defense he would've been a disaster.

Zorn said as much too, I don't remember who they played but in the one of those preseason games, he completed a great-looking pass that would have been a guaranteed pick 6 against a starting defense. It baffles me that people are just willing to overlook the fact that there is a massive talent gap between guys who played third string in the pre-season and guys who start in the regular season.

SoulDOut · Post by **SoulDOut** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:19 am

I just think we should know if Colt can play the starter or not since JC is in his last year of his contract this up coming season...(or if we need a new #2/3 QB on roster)

PS. if we won the last 2 games, wouldnt we have been in the paloffs?

10-6 beating the Eaglets for that spot...

oh, and yes I meant the "what if colt" thread.

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:11 am

Fios wrote: It baffles me that people are just willing to overlook the fact that there is a massive talent gap between guys who played third string in the pre-season and guys who start in the regular season.

DUH! Those guys had Colts helmets on! He was shredding up the Colts defense!

One of the guys Colt Brennan hooked up with for a touchdown pass was Jason Goode... where's he now?

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:58 am

SoulDOut wrote:PS. if we won the last 2 games, wouldnt we have been in the paloffs? 10-6 beating the Eaglets for that spot...

Uh...no. Look at the schedule again.

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:05 am

CanesSkins26 wrote:
JSPB22 wrote:He looked just fine taking snaps under center in the pre-season. Arm strength looked fine too.

He played against 3rd stringers and vanilla defenses. The throws that he was making worked against third stringers but against a 1st team defense he would've been a disaster.

Arm strength and taking snaps from under center, two areas you specifically high lighted as weaknesses, are skillsets that have absolutely nothing to do with the caliber of players you're playing against.

QB's learn to take snaps from under center long before they ever learn to be in shotgun. I'm not sure why you think it's some highly complex and complicated skill. That's just stupid. Colt looked fine taking snaps in preseason. Did he fumble the ball all the time or something? Taking a snap from center is the first thing any QB learns to do. It ain't that difficult, as you'd have us believe. :roll:

I agree the system at Hawaii was much different than what they use in th Pro's. But what difference does it make if they only ran the ball 10% of the time and threw it 90% of the time? All that means is Colt has far more experience throwing a football and knowing how to lead receivers or how to put touch on a throw.

I agree Colt has a lot to learn playing at this level, like reading defenses and learning where he can't go with the ball, as Fios pointed out. But taking a snap from center or arm strength are NOT legitimate points of concern when evaluating Colt's playability.