DEHog wrote:So if you play Colt, is Cousins the backup? Or is RG active?
I think this will be an interesting decision that they are going to have make only because of RGIII.
DEHog wrote:So if you play Colt, is Cousins the backup? Or is RG active?
Irn-Bru wrote:riggofan wrote:Been thinking about it. If you have injured guys like Goldson or Moses, might be a good time to give them the week off. Otherwise, I think I would go out and play this game just like any other week. Don't mess with what you've been building.
I think I agree. Let certain o-line and d-line sit and some other injured players. Have Kirk play the first half (I don't think he's in much danger of getting injured) and Colt the second. By the middle of the third quarter start giving players a rest, and by the end of the game have almost all of your backups in there.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
What happens if the Redskins are forced to play Robert Griffin III?
DEHog wrote:What happens if the Redskins are forced to play Robert Griffin III?
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/12/robert-griffin-iii-rg3-injury-payment-2016-16-million-backup-quarterback-if-cousins-mccoy-gets-hurt-playoffs-week-17
Interesting conversation on how RG could be force to be active. The fact that the Skins kept him around is what makes this possible...never understood why they kept him if he was never going to be active because of the injury clause??
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Deadskins wrote:DEHog wrote:What happens if the Redskins are forced to play Robert Griffin III?
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/12/robert-griffin-iii-rg3-injury-payment-2016-16-million-backup-quarterback-if-cousins-mccoy-gets-hurt-playoffs-week-17
Interesting conversation on how RG could be force to be active. The fact that the Skins kept him around is what makes this possible...never understood why they kept him if he was never going to be active because of the injury clause??
They never explain why they would be "forced" to activate him. How is this situation different than any other team that only carries two QBs on their roster? It's just someone trying to stir up controversy where there is none. What else is new?
Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:Deadskins wrote:They never explain why they would be "forced" to activate him. How is this situation different than any other team that only carries two QBs on their roster? It's just someone trying to stir up controversy where there is none. What else is new?
They kind of did. They're operating under the assumption that either Cousins gets injured or McCoy gets injured. I don't think RGIII would get activated as the emergency quarterback even in those cases.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
DEHog wrote:What happens if the Redskins are forced to play Robert Griffin III?
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/12/robert-griffin-iii-rg3-injury-payment-2016-16-million-backup-quarterback-if-cousins-mccoy-gets-hurt-playoffs-week-17
Interesting conversation on how RG could be force to be active. The fact that the Skins kept him around is what makes this possible...never understood why they kept him if he was never going to be active because of the injury clause??
SkinsJock wrote:PLUS even if that happens, there's really very little chance that he gets injured so badly that he cannot pass the physical next spring
riggofan wrote:You think Sean Payton is waiting in the wings?
It would make a lot of sense, but Payton would be smart to write his own ticket and get Jerry to give up some control.
Bringing along Drew Brees wouldn't be a terrible move either.
TexasCowboy wrote:riggofan wrote:You think Sean Payton is waiting in the wings?
It would make a lot of sense, but Payton would be smart to write his own ticket and get Jerry to give up some control.
Bringing along Drew Brees wouldn't be a terrible move either.
I like the line of thinking here, I do!! but don't feel it's going to happen
considering Jerruh is not willing to fire himself as general manager of
the team even though it's been reported that it's actually Stephen who
has been in charge of the roster either way the Jones's need to step
back and let the head coach do what he is being payed to do
SkinsJock wrote:Now we do have some guys here (Deadskins) that thought we were going to win a bunch of games this season but when the schedule came out and we end up with 2 road games against the eagles and the pukes, I must admit, I never thought the NFC East would be on the line ...
here we are - NFC East Champs - and favored going into a game against the pukes in Dallass - it don't get any better than this![]()
Saturday we eliminated the eagles - this Sunday we could put the final nail in the Jason Garrett coffin
H A I L
Countertrey wrote:It's Dallas.
There should be but one mission, as always. Win, and if possible, dominate. That there is a question is disconcerting.
riggofan wrote:DEHog wrote:What happens if the Redskins are forced to play Robert Griffin III?
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/12/robert-griffin-iii-rg3-injury-payment-2016-16-million-backup-quarterback-if-cousins-mccoy-gets-hurt-playoffs-week-17
Interesting conversation on how RG could be force to be active. The fact that the Skins kept him around is what makes this possible...never understood why they kept him if he was never going to be active because of the injury clause??
That article is hilarious. So completely far fetched.
Seriously, there is no way the team can risk activating Griffin. no way. McCloughan would sign Rex Grossman as the emergency QB for two weeks. You cannot risk injuring Griffin in week 17 and being on the hook for $16m next year.
And no matter what SkinsJock says (he's 100% wrong here not surprisingly), Griffin could go out vs. Dallas and shred his ACL on the first play of the game and the team would definitely, without a doubt be on the hook for that salary in the spring. He would not pass a physical. I don't see how anyone believes that couldn't be a realistic possibility.
DEHog wrote:This is what I don’t understand? If the sole reason you will not activate/play him is because of the fear of an injury, why would you occupy a roster spot for that player? Who does that? The only reason I would see this being done is if you have/had plans of resigning him to a cheaper contract after the season, and we all know that isn’t happening!!
Chris Luva Luva wrote:DEHog wrote:This is what I don’t understand? If the sole reason you will not activate/play him is because of the fear of an injury, why would you occupy a roster spot for that player? Who does that? The only reason I would see this being done is if you have/had plans of resigning him to a cheaper contract after the season, and we all know that isn’t happening!!
I think they were trying to keep him out of the division during the year. If we released him, he would have signed in Philly or Dallas immediately.
DEHog wrote:So...wouldn't that have been a good thing??
Chris Luva Luva wrote:DEHog wrote:So...wouldn't that have been a good thing??
I guess it depends...
- Would we have suddenly turned into a HOF QB? LOL no.
- It would have turned into a media circus and that's the main thing Scot/Jay have worked so hard to prevent.
riggofan wrote:haha. Yeah I would hate to see that happen. I'm sure Payton would do a good job.
riggofan wrote:I actually think they've done a decent job building that team over the past few years. Especially their draft picks. Beastly o-line and best defense in the NFC East in my opinion. Some stupid moves like Greg Hardy though. I just don't see why Jerry won't turn it over to a good coach and let the coach do his job.
riggofan wrote:Actually having suffered through Dan Snyder, we understand that all too well.
riggofan wrote:Chris Luva Luva wrote:DEHog wrote:So...wouldn't that have been a good thing??
I guess it depends...
- Would we have suddenly turned into a HOF QB? LOL no.
- It would have turned into a media circus and that's the main thing Scot/Jay have worked so hard to prevent.
Both of those answers seem reasonable to me. Keeping him away from division rivals and preventing any of the media BS. I'd add that Snyder probably wasn't completely sold on Cousins until about three days ago. lol.
I still believe they did RG3 a huge favor keeping him on the roster this year. It would have been really tough for him to show up in October for some new team - probably a bad team - and be thrown on the field with little preparation. He'll have a much better shot going somewhere new in the offseason and having a chance to prepare.
It seems to me that Griffin has been respectful about that and been a good teammate in return. That's a credit to both the team and the player IMO.
riggofan wrote:I still believe they did RG3 a huge favor keeping him on the roster this year.
DEHog wrote:Yes they did him a favor. They only way it turns into a media circus is if RG lets it. The same thing will/could happen when we cut him this off season...why not just do it before this past season and have it over with if you had no plans to even have him active?
DEHog wrote:This is what I don’t understand? If the sole reason you will not activate/play him is because of the fear of an injury, why would you occupy a roster spot for that player? Who does that?
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.