I'd Trade Griffin

[SkinsJock]

I do think that Jay made some mistakes last season and his decisions about which QB to play was 1 of them - going forward, he and Scot will make better decisions about who plays QB here because they (not Dan & Bruce) will be making the decisions

[DEHog]

OK - this is really simple guys - try looking ahead and try thinking about things as they pertain to this franchise

The Brady/Bledsoe BS is not at all relevant - get away from that

IF this franchise is now under the 'control' of Scot and Jay with a little help from the FO and other staff members, the QB here is going to be the QB that these guys think can best help the franchise going forward - it's also not really critical right now as we try and get the other parts of the franchise headed in the right direction - if that is not the case and Dan/Bruce are any part of the decision making, then it doesn't matter who plays QB

geez, this is unbelievable - it does not matter who is the QB, the only thing that matters is who makes the decisions

and one other thing - try looking at the positives - all this stuff about RG3 not ever being able to play QB and Cousins throwing nothing but interceptions is just so negative ... how is that helpful to this franchise going forward?

we maybe should consider trading Griffin or Cousins but at this time I don't think that is best for this franchise

Scot & Jay have a chance at putting this franchise on the right track to a better product on the field ... there's not a chance in the world of that happening if they are not in control of things here - ZERO

I would rather see one of them traded...by keeping both you're saying you don’t have confidence in either.

Yes the Brady/Bledsoe comparison while irrelevant, is interesting....Brady also had a four INT game during that stretch..

[DEHog]

I do think that Jay made some mistakes last season and his decisions about which QB to play was 1 of them - going forward, he and Scot will make better decisions about who plays QB here because they (not Dan & Bruce) will be making the decisions

I don't mind the GM deciding who's here...I rather the head coach decide who plays? Easy for a GM to be swayed by who they pick.

[Deadskins]

OK - this is really simple guys - try looking ahead and try thinking about things as they pertain to this franchise

The Brady/Bledsoe BS is not at all relevant - get away from that

IF this franchise is now under the 'control' of Scot and Jay with a little help from the FO and other staff members, the QB here is going to be the QB that these guys think can best help the franchise going forward - it's also not really critical right now as we try and get the other parts of the franchise headed in the right direction - if that is not the case and Dan/Bruce are any part of the decision making, then it doesn't matter who plays QB

geez, this is unbelievable - it does not matter who is the QB, the only thing that matters is who makes the decisions

and one other thing - try looking at the positives - all this stuff about RG3 not ever being able to play QB and Cousins throwing nothing but interceptions is just so negative ... how is that helpful to this franchise going forward?

we maybe should consider trading Griffin or Cousins but at this time I don't think that is best for this franchise

Scot & Jay have a chance at putting this franchise on the right track to a better product on the field ... there's not a chance in the world of that happening if they are not in control of things here - ZERO

Obviously, but we as fans have ZERO control over all of that, so all we can do is talk about what we think about the situation (and to the topic, whether or not to trade Griffin). So quit excoriating us for having relevant discussions. And btw, it most certainly does matter who the QB is.

[Deadskins]

^^ If you read the post...I'm not arguing that point. My question is would Gruden had stayed with Cousins at 5-3?? Bottom line the job was not Cousins to lose!!

I definitely disagree. I think there is a good chance if Cousins goes 5-3 (especially if the losses were to tough teams, and he performed well) he keeps the job. And if he goes 8-0, I think Gruden would be lynched if he went back to RGIII at that point. It most definitely was Kirk's job to lose, and he did. To Colt, no less.

[Deadskins]

I do think that Jay made some mistakes last season and his decisions about which QB to play was 1 of them - going forward, he and Scot will make better decisions about who plays QB here because they (not Dan & Bruce) will be making the decisions

I don't mind the GM deciding who's here...I rather the head coach decide who plays? Easy for a GM to be swayed by who they pick.

That's the way it should, and does work. The GM doesn't pick who the starter is. Not unless he gets rid of any viable alternatives.

[DEHog]

^^ If you read the post...I'm not arguing that point. My question is would Gruden had stayed with Cousins at 5-3?? Bottom line the job was not Cousins to lose!!

I definitely disagree. I think there is a good chance if Cousins goes 5-3 (especially if the losses were to tough teams, and he performed well) he keeps the job. And if he goes 8-0, I think Gruden would be lynched if he went back to RGIII at that point. It most definitely was Kirk's job to lose, and he did. To Colt, no less.

You sure 8-0 would have got it done.....lol...thanks you made my point!!

[riggofan]

^^ If you read the post...I'm not arguing that point. My question is would Gruden had stayed with Cousins at 5-3?? Bottom line the job was not Cousins to lose!!

I definitely disagree. I think there is a good chance if Cousins goes 5-3 (especially if the losses were to tough teams, and he performed well) he keeps the job.

There's no doubt about it. It was Kirk-mania coming off that Jaguars win. 90% of the fanbase was asking, "RG Who?" on the Monday after that game. There wouldn't have been an ounce of controversy.

[Deadskins]

^^ If you read the post...I'm not arguing that point. My question is would Gruden had stayed with Cousins at 5-3?? Bottom line the job was not Cousins to lose!!

I definitely disagree. I think there is a good chance if Cousins goes 5-3 (especially if the losses were to tough teams, and he performed well) he keeps the job. And if he goes 8-0, I think Gruden would be lynched if he went back to RGIII at that point. It most definitely was Kirk's job to lose, and he did. To Colt, no less.

You sure 8-0 would have got it done.....lol...thanks you made my point!!

So that's what you focused on? Don't think I made your point at all. Quite the opposite actually.

[DEHog]

So that's what you focused on? Don't think I made your point at all. Quite the opposite actually.

At 5-3 you said "good chance"
you had to go to 8-0 before Gruden got Lynched...
That's my point at 5-3 there's a discussion it would have taken a 7-1 8-0 performace IMO to convince even Snyder!!
Remember everyone wanted Colt to play until he lost...but RG started in Minn.

[SkinsJock]

sorry - I do understand that the HC should have final say over who plays ...

I just hope that Snyder & Allen are no longer involved with the player selection process or who is playing like they were last season

[Deadskins]

So that's what you focused on? Don't think I made your point at all. Quite the opposite actually.

At 5-3 you said "good chance"
you had to go to 8-0 before Gruden got Lynched...

Lynched, yes, but that doesn't mean less would not have gotten the job done. In fact, a good chance (even further qualified by Kirk's level of play and the competition) means better than 50/50, and certainly better than the "no way a first year coach is going to make that decision" you gave.

[DEHog]

So that's what you focused on? Don't think I made your point at all. Quite the opposite actually.

At 5-3 you said "good chance"
you had to go to 8-0 before Gruden got Lynched...

Lynched, yes, but that doesn't mean less would not have gotten the job done. In fact, a good chance (even further qualified by Kirk's level of play and the competition) means better than 50/50, and certainly better than the "no way a first year coach is going to make that decision" you gave.

We'll agree to disagree...no way a first year HC who was brought here specifically to work with the “franchise” QB (who had the backing of the owner and played a role in getting a veteran coach fired) was going to make that call unless it became obvious to all involved.
So was the job McCoy’s to lose as well??

[Deadskins]

So was the job McCoy’s to lose as well??

Nope. If it had been, he would have started Vs. the Vikings. But RGIII was on the cusp of coming back when Colt got the start Vs. the Cowpies. Not the same situation at all.

[StorminMormon86]

He's never had the job where he knew he could suffer through the growing pains, it was always win or lose your job with Cousins. And it's not fair.

Please! "Bob has a dislocated ankle and is out for at least two months." Why would that be seen by Kirk as anything but "You're the man, go out there and play!" Are you saying he's looking over his shoulder at Colt, and thinking "I better not screw up or this guy is taking my job?" He threw a late pick and missed a wide open Garcon in the Smeagols game and kept his job. He threw 4 picks in 15 minutes Vs. the vaGiants, and kept his job. He played against the Seahawks and Cardinals, throwing costly picks at the end of the latter game, and still kept his job. He was finally pulled after throwing yet another pick against the Titans, and Gruden had finally seen enough. I don't know how you can keep insisting he didn't have a chance to work through his issues, or that he was treated unfairly. Give it a rest, already.

No.

Gruden was hired to "develop" Griffin. Cousins couldn't have played through rough stretches and continually been given chances. They weren't developing Cousins. Unless we won all of the games he started, there was no way this team was not going back to Griffin. Case in point: Colt McCoy.

When is this franchise going to see enough of Griffin?

[StorminMormon86]

Jeeze! YOU MAKE YOUR OWN LUCK. Cousins was installed as starter with Bob's injury. Win games, and it becomes very difficult to return him to the bench. He did not. Rather, with game plans designed to take advantage of what should have been Cousins strengths, he threw a wealth of picks. That was on Cousins... no one else. He couldn't even fight off McCoy, for crying out loud. What was coach supposed to do??? Shoot for the season interception record?

Cousins was not inserted into the starter's role with room for growing pains. It was to "win", which thanks to our defense a couple of games, didn't happen. He was given the job after Griffin's injury, not due to performance...which he would have won in the preseason if it was a true competition. He's never had the job where he knew he could suffer through the growing pains, it was always win or lose your job with Cousins. And it's not fair.

But since we're on the win games be the starter kick, why does Griffin automatically get the job? Because he has 4 more wins as a starter since 2012?

Someone is being deliberately obtuse... "It's not fair". I envision your tantrum. SO WHAT???? It's not fair... And it will NEVER be fair, I don't give a damn how you legislate it. GET OVER IT. Cousins option is perform or sit. It may not be fair... But so what??? Cousins had his opportunities last year. His job was to make the best of them. I don't care how you parse it, HE DID NOT DO THAT.

And...Griffin...did?!

That's what's hilarious. Griffin sucked last year too. That's the frustrating part...the "not fair" part. These 2, or whoever is here come OTAs and minicamps, should be given a fair shot at winning the starting job. That's all.

[Kilmer72]

Stormin... I hate to come off as an @ss but, why spend energy worrying? This is all out of your control and mine. If I could put you in charge in who should be QB I would, just so just there wouldn't be anything that goes against your will. Seeing as I do not have the power and neither do you, don't get sucked into that state of being worried. There is nothing we can do about it. Why stress?

[Deadskins]

He's never had the job where he knew he could suffer through the growing pains, it was always win or lose your job with Cousins. And it's not fair.

Please! "Bob has a dislocated ankle and is out for at least two months." Why would that be seen by Kirk as anything but "You're the man, go out there and play!" Are you saying he's looking over his shoulder at Colt, and thinking "I better not screw up or this guy is taking my job?" He threw a late pick and missed a wide open Garcon in the Smeagols game and kept his job. He threw 4 picks in 15 minutes Vs. the vaGiants, and kept his job. He played against the Seahawks and Cardinals, throwing costly picks at the end of the latter game, and still kept his job. He was finally pulled after throwing yet another pick against the Titans, and Gruden had finally seen enough. I don't know how you can keep insisting he didn't have a chance to work through his issues, or that he was treated unfairly. Give it a rest, already.

No.

Gruden was hired to "develop" Griffin. Cousins couldn't have played through rough stretches and continually been given chances. They weren't developing Cousins. Unless we won all of the games he started, there was no way this team was not going back to Griffin. Case in point: Colt McCoy.

When is this franchise going to see enough of Griffin?

That makes no sense at all. But you are right that Cousins was not continually given chances. He got to play through "rough stretches" in the Eagles, Giants, and Cardinals games, but after Gruden had seen enough turnovers, he got benched for McCoy. Griffin got benched for McCoy too, after the Tampa game. So that kind of throws your whole argument out the window, doesn't it?

[Kilmer72]

grain of salt man grain of salt...

[StorminMormon86]

That makes no sense at all. But you are right that Cousins was not continually given chances. He got to play through "rough stretches" in the Eagles, Giants, and Cardinals games, but after Gruden had seen enough turnovers, he got benched for McCoy. Griffin got benched for McCoy too, after the Tampa game. So that kind of throws your whole argument out the window, doesn't it?

Sure it does. Considering McCoy had just won 2 games in a row, and got benched because Griffin was medically cleared to play. But yeah, there was no agenda on this team last year.

Were you this enamored with giving Jason Campbell chance after chance?

[mtruslow]

Please Dear God.......can we please trade him.

[Deadskins]

That makes no sense at all. But you are right that Cousins was not continually given chances. He got to play through "rough stretches" in the Eagles, Giants, and Cardinals games, but after Gruden had seen enough turnovers, he got benched for McCoy. Griffin got benched for McCoy too, after the Tampa game. So that kind of throws your whole argument out the window, doesn't it?

Sure it does. Considering McCoy had just won 2 games in a row, and got benched because Griffin was medically cleared to play. But yeah, there was no agenda on this team last year.

Colt was the #3. You can't say that Bob would have been made the starter again if Cousins had been playing well, based on the fact that he replaced McCoy.

[DEHog]

He's never had the job where he knew he could suffer through the growing pains, it was always win or lose your job with Cousins. And it's not fair.

Please! "Bob has a dislocated ankle and is out for at least two months." Why would that be seen by Kirk as anything but "You're the man, go out there and play!" Are you saying he's looking over his shoulder at Colt, and thinking "I better not screw up or this guy is taking my job?" He threw a late pick and missed a wide open Garcon in the Smeagols game and kept his job. He threw 4 picks in 15 minutes Vs. the vaGiants, and kept his job. He played against the Seahawks and Cardinals, throwing costly picks at the end of the latter game, and still kept his job. He was finally pulled after throwing yet another pick against the Titans, and Gruden had finally seen enough. I don't know how you can keep insisting he didn't have a chance to work through his issues, or that he was treated unfairly. Give it a rest, already.

No.

Gruden was hired to "develop" Griffin. Cousins couldn't have played through rough stretches and continually been given chances. They weren't developing Cousins. Unless we won all of the games he started, there was no way this team was not going back to Griffin. Case in point: Colt McCoy.

When is this franchise going to see enough of Griffin?

Totally agree....it will be enough when Gruden gets fired...of course this is what he signed up for!

[Kilmer72]

I'm fairly sure that Gruden shares the distaste that many do here for Robert. If Cousins wins a couple games he started that might have been enough for Gruden to stick with him longer. We will never know. It would have been easy at that point to say Robert is not 100% from his dislocated ankle injury. I admit my opinion of Robert changed last year. If he thought he could be effective after his injury then that is on him. Cousins on the other hand didn't have any excuses the other QBs didn't have. I still point at the Oline for being a major contributor for all the QBs failures. If Morris can't be the back we all know he can be behind that line, then that makes everything even harder for all three QBs. It's not just the line either. The backs and TEs couldn't block.

[DEHog]

I'm fairly sure that Gruden shares the distaste that many do here for Robert. If Cousins wins a couple games he started that might have been enough for Gruden to stick with him longer. We will never know. It would have been easy at that point to say Robert is not 100% from his dislocated ankle injury. I admit my opinion of Robert changed last year. If he thought he could be effective after his injury then that is on him. Cousins on the other hand didn't have any excuses the other QBs didn't have. I still point at the Oline for being a major contributor for all the QBs failures. If Morris can't be the back we all know he can be behind that line, then that makes everything even harder for all three QBs. It's not just the line either. The backs and TEs couldn't block.

I agree with all except I'm not convince Gruden had the luxury of sticking with any QB not named Griffin. Colt won two games and RG started from there...I think Gruden wanted to stick with Colt...but couldn't. I think that's why he was so critical of RG from that point on. As for Alfred...man the holes he was running through his rookie years were huge...don't you think that had to do with the read option? Not to say we still don't need an upgrade along the OL.