The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

If the player is obviously giving himself up, then the refs will usually call it, feet first or not.

Deadskins wrote:If the player is obviously giving himself up, then the refs will usually call it, feet first or not.

Right. The issue was he coughed up the ball in the act of giving himself up... Had he stayed down he would have eventually been touched or the whistle would have blown to end the play.

Deadskins wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote: All of the other stuff he did just like of the other QBs did.

How so?

He was sitting in the meeting room just like all of the other QBs ok. All of the off field stuff he did just like everyone else.

Come you can do it, just admit that you were wrong.

The playing time in one regular season game is roughly that of the first three preseason games. You said that the first three regular season games were like his preseason. You were wrong. It's is ok to say it.

If I were wrong, I would be the first to admit it. But here, you are incorrect again on many fronts. First, I wasn't the one who said the three games were like his pre-season, that was frankcal. I was merely refuting your point that that statement was total bunk. Second, you totally glossed over my other points, by saying he got the same practice and film study between games as the other QBs. That is patently false. Watching film of another QB, does nothing to help you correct problems with your own mechanics. And yes, he participated in practices, but there was no real game time between those practices where he could work on his timing with receivers under real pressure and defensive game planning. So no, RGIII never had a preseason, and is only now showing the effects that live game experience brings. Instead you chose to focus on a silly point about actual game time, which varies greatly from club to club. I even said it was more like a game and a half of regular season, because I didn't feel the need to argue a stupid semantic point, when the point I was actually making was far more important.

I'm sorry if my correcting you on the feet first slide thing got your panties in a twist, but I'm not singling you out or anything. I just like to set the record straight when I see misinformation being reported as fact.

Since there is no way that either of can know if watching game tape of himself playing in preseasonss would have benefited him anymore than a break down of game film of his team mates then I submit that since RG3 barely played in preseason as a rookie it isn't that important for it to actually be him.

Yes, I confused you with the comment Frank made.

By the way I was also wrong when I said that the 2011 rule book had the part removed that said a player could declare himself down by simply going to the ground, because it is in the 2011 &2012 rule book. But whatever it doesn't matter.

I wasn't referring to game time that other teams play their starters in preseason I was referring to what Shanny usually does with his teams. And I have been harping on game time because that is the most important part of playing in the preseason... the playing part. All the rest RG3 got either first hand of by proxy.

This whole thread is so sad. How quickly they forget.

HEROHAMO wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:Some fans just cannot admit or accept that Griffin has not returned to form. Not yet, anway.

Its pretty obvious you think that we should have started Kirk Cousins.

However what if Kirk had started and we still had the same record of 0-3?

I've never said that. I just don't like the fact that certain fans keep making excuses for Griffin, he's obviously not playing at full form. Nothing more, nothing less. Although I do strongly believe had Cousins started the first four we would be sitting at 2-2 right now.

StorminMormon86 wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:Some fans just cannot admit or accept that Griffin has not returned to form. Not yet, anway.

Its pretty obvious you think that we should have started Kirk Cousins.

However what if Kirk had started and we still had the same record of 0-3?

I've never said that. I just don't like the fact that certain fans keep making excuses for Griffin, he's obviously not playing at full form. Nothing more, nothing less. Although I do strongly believe had Cousins started the first four we would be sitting at 2-2 right now.

Which one of the three losses would Kirk have been the difference on?

But lets assume we had started Cousins and he had gone 2-2 (i doubt that would have been the case, but we will assume it just for this) we would have been going into the break and RG3 wouldn't have had and playing time yet.

So coming out of the bye we would be facing the Cowgirls, Bears, Denver, and Charger with an RG3 that would be playing like he did the first four games and the results would have been four straight losses (or 1-3 at best). That would put us optimitically at 3-5.

Now that RG3 has four games under his belt and two weeks to prepare for the Turds I can see a win there, win against the Bears, loss to the Broncos, and a win against the Charger. However, for this I will be a bit pessimistic and say we drop one of the two games against the Bears or Chargers. So the record would be 3-5. Same record, but with RG3 having eight games under his belt vice four.

Starting RG3 was the correct choice.

I'm not making excuses for Robert. He had to work through his lack of confidence in his knee, but he could have played better, but he could have played worse.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:Some fans just cannot admit or accept that Griffin has not returned to form. Not yet, anway.

Its pretty obvious you think that we should have started Kirk Cousins.

However what if Kirk had started and we still had the same record of 0-3?

I've never said that. I just don't like the fact that certain fans keep making excuses for Griffin, he's obviously not playing at full form. Nothing more, nothing less. Although I do strongly believe had Cousins started the first four we would be sitting at 2-2 right now.

Which one of the three losses would Kirk have been the difference on?

But lets assume we had started Cousins and he had gone 2-2 (i doubt that would have been the case, but we will assume it just for this) we would have been going into the break and RG3 wouldn't have had and playing time yet.

So coming out of the bye we would be facing the Cowgirls, Bears, Denver, and Charger with an RG3 that would be playing like he did the first four games and the results would have been four straight losses (or 1-3 at best). That would put us optimitically at 3-5.

Now that RG3 has four games under his belt and two weeks to prepare for the Turds I can see a win there, win against the Bears, loss to the Broncos, and a win against the Charger. However, for this I will be a bit pessimistic and say we drop one of the two games against the Bears or Chargers. So the record would be 3-5. Same record, but with RG3 having eight games under his belt vice four.

Starting RG3 was the correct choice.

I'm not making excuses for Robert. He had to work through his lack of confidence in his knee, but he could have played better, but he could have played worse.

We would have won the Philly game had Cousins started, IMO. The rest is pure speculation as to how well RG3 would have played after resting for a few weeks.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:Some fans just cannot admit or accept that Griffin has not returned to form. Not yet, anway.

Its pretty obvious you think that we should have started Kirk Cousins.

However what if Kirk had started and we still had the same record of 0-3?

I've never said that. I just don't like the fact that certain fans keep making excuses for Griffin, he's obviously not playing at full form. Nothing more, nothing less. Although I do strongly believe had Cousins started the first four we would be sitting at 2-2 right now.

Now that RG3 has four games under his belt and two weeks to prepare for the Turds I can see a win there, win against the Bears, loss to the Broncos, and a win against the Charger. However, for this I will be a bit pessimistic and say we drop one of the two games against the Bears or Chargers. So the record would be 3-5. Same record, but with RG3 having eight games under his belt vice four.

I have seen a lot of "optimistic" posts, but this one takes the cake. "Pessimistic" is going 1-1 against the bears and chargers??????

We are 1-3 against opponents having a combined record of 3-8 (not counting the skins games). Yet you see us going 3-1 (at worst 2-2) against teams with a combined record of 11-5? Outside of pure home-team prejudice, what actual facts did you use to forumulate that conclusion? I'd love to know.

After all, OAK (one of the 2 or 3 WORST teams in the NFL) basically GAVE us that game --- they didn't have their starting QB OR RB. And it was still close!!! Our D (which is still the #1 concern regardless of the paragraph below) was only solid due to the opponent and OAK's offensive losses (QB, RB).

The fact is RGIII's play is still VERY concerning. IMHO, the best indicator of whether a QB is playing well (while not perfect, the best anyone has come out with thus far) --- ESPN's QBR stat ---- RGIII has a collective QBR this year of 29.1; last year it was 73.2. That is a HUGE difference. He still is having trouble eluding defenders in the pocket, his lateral movement is still lacking, and he has lost his explosiveness; however, his downfield passing of over 15 yards appears to be improving, so there's that I guess. Regardless he is still isn't even remotely close to the player he was last year. Honestly, I would put him in the bottom 10 starting QBs based on his play THIS SEASON. I'm not sure how anyone can argue this.

Did you watch the game? The 30 yard play where helu hurdles a defender was made only because rgiii was able to "elude" the defenders

StorminMormon86 wrote:We would have won the Philly game had Cousins started, IMO. The rest is pure speculation as to how well RG3 would have played after resting for a few weeks.

Come on, man. What was Cousins going to do? Run out on the field and tackle McCoy? Recover Alfred Morris' fumble?

We didn't lose to Philly just because RGIII was rusty. Those guys completely steam rolled us. If Cousins had started that game, we probably would could just as well have lost 33-17 instead of 33-27.

riggofan wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:We would have won the Philly game had Cousins started, IMO. The rest is pure speculation as to how well RG3 would have played after resting for a few weeks.

Come on, man. What was Cousins going to do? Run out on the field and tackle McCoy? Recover Alfred Morris' fumble?

We didn't lose to Philly just because RGIII was rusty. Those guys completely steam rolled us. If Cousins had started that game, we probably would could just as well have lost 33-17 instead of 33-27.

Philly was out of steam at the half. Completely lackluster. Had we not had what seemed like a thousand 3 and outs, we would have won that game. That game was not as much of a beat down as it appeared to be. We almost came back to win it.

markshark84 wrote:The fact is RGIII's play is still VERY concerning. IMHO, the best indicator of whether a QB is playing well (while not perfect, the best anyone has come out with thus far) --- ESPN's QBR stat ---- RGIII has a collective QBR this year of 29.1; last year it was 73.2. That is a HUGE difference. He still is having trouble eluding defenders in the pocket, his lateral movement is still lacking, and he has lost his explosiveness; however, his downfield passing of over 15 yards appears to be improving, so there's that I guess. Regardless he is still isn't even remotely close to the player he was last year. Honestly, I would put him in the bottom 10 starting QBs based on his play THIS SEASON. I'm not sure how anyone can argue this.

You'll still have people who will argue this point and make excuses for him. "It was his 4th preseason game, coming off of surgery, bad o-line protection, playcalling, the knee brace, etc." I agree with everything you said here. I haven't seen any improvement from last week to yesterday. Sure we won the game and our defense stepped up. But let's not kid ourselves. We only put up 3 freaking points on offense in the first half. That's bad.

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:Did you watch the game? The 30 yard play where helu hurdles a defender was made only because rgiii was able to "elude" the defenders

Really? That was 1 play.... 1.single.play. That's it. That's all you have. 1 out of 31 drop backs against one of arguably the worst teams in the NFL. What about the other 30!!!!! Blah.

Meanwhile, how many times has he been chased down by a DL when trying to turn the corner? How many sacks has he avoided using his legs as he did last year? How many plays from nothing has he made solely on his athletic ability as he did last year? After all, isn't everyone saying he's 100%?

For any QB, you can always point to at least 1 or 2 plays, but that is useless. The NFL is about CONSISTENCY. RGIII has made a couple (and honestly, that is what I counted, 2) solid, turn nothing into something, plays this season ---- but are YOU watching the games?????? I think it is grossly obvious something is missing. Go back and watch the final 5 games (excluding KCs vs. CLE) of last year and tell me there isn't a HUGE difference. Not just huge, but concerning.

I bet Morris can see the difference --- now that he's running against 8 man fronts on 1st (and mostly 2nd) downs and seeing Ds where there OLBs have no problems cheating inside on running downs.

You can attempt to fool yourself all you want. Hopefully he will bounce back in time to where you can pretend it never happened. I hope that is the case, but if you don't see the difference, those B&G colored glasses are making you blind.

StorminMormon86 wrote:

riggofan wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:We would have won the Philly game had Cousins started, IMO. The rest is pure speculation as to how well RG3 would have played after resting for a few weeks.

Come on, man. What was Cousins going to do? Run out on the field and tackle McCoy? Recover Alfred Morris' fumble?

We didn't lose to Philly just because RGIII was rusty. Those guys completely steam rolled us. If Cousins had started that game, we probably would could just as well have lost 33-17 instead of 33-27.

Philly was out of steam at the half. Completely lackluster. Had we not had what seemed like a thousand 3 and outs, we would have won that game. That game was not as much of a beat down as it appeared to be. We almost came back to win it.

This is simply revisionist history. You need to go back and watch that game again. The only reason Philly didn't bury us is becuase they took their foot off the gas in the second half. At no point were we ever in that game.

There is no way anyone can tell if Cousins would have helped us win any of the games, but Cousins wouldn't have prevented either of Morris' fumbles. And he certainly doesn't play defense (they were completely outplayed by the Philly O).

Philly stomped a mud hole in us! The finale score was decieving. If you want to say Cousins might have won the Detroit game then I can say you might have a point, but the Phily game and Green Bay game were just butt kickings.

:yawn:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:

riggofan wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:We would have won the Philly game had Cousins started, IMO. The rest is pure speculation as to how well RG3 would have played after resting for a few weeks.

Come on, man. What was Cousins going to do? Run out on the field and tackle McCoy? Recover Alfred Morris' fumble?

We didn't lose to Philly just because RGIII was rusty. Those guys completely steam rolled us. If Cousins had started that game, we probably would could just as well have lost 33-17 instead of 33-27.

Philly was out of steam at the half. Completely lackluster. Had we not had what seemed like a thousand 3 and outs, we would have won that game. That game was not as much of a beat down as it appeared to be. We almost came back to win it.

This is simply revisionist history. You need to go back and watch that game again. The only reason Philly didn't bury us is becuase they took their foot off the gas in the second half. At no point were we ever in that game.

There is no way anyone can tell if Cousins would have helped us win any of the games, but Cousins wouldn't have prevented either of Morris' fumbles. And he certainly doesn't play defense (they were completely outplayed by the Philly O).

Philly stomped a mud hole in us! The finale score was decieving. If you want to say Cousins might have won the Detroit game then I can say you might have a point, but the Phily game and Green Bay game were just butt kickings.

THANK YOU.

markshark84 wrote:
I have seen a lot of "optimistic" posts, but this one takes the cake. "Pessimistic" is going 1-1 against the bears and chargers??????

That is how I feel. I always feel we should beet the Bears and they have only beeten the Vikings, Pburge (both bad teams), and the Bungles. I'm more concerned about the Chargers (2-2) who can only beet (barely) NFCE teams. You would think it would be the other way around, but that is how I feel.

markshark84 wrote:We are 1-3 against opponents having a combined record of 3-8 (not counting the skins games).

Actually we are 1-3 against teams that are a combined 6-9. You can't throw out how they did against us since they played us.

markshark84 wrote:
After all, OAK (one of the 2 or 3 WORST teams in the NFL) basically GAVE us that game --- they didn't have their starting QB OR RB. And it was still close!!! Our D (which is still the #1 concern regardless of the paragraph below) was only solid due to the opponent and OAK's offensive losses (QB, RB).

I agree with most of this. Thge game was much closer than it should have been. You can let a guy have a free run at your punter (first TD) and if a ball hits you dead in your hands you need to catch the ball. If Rak doesn't Carlos Rogers that ball the Raiders don't score on the next play.

markshark84 wrote:
The fact is RGIII's play is still VERY concerning.

I'm not concerned with him. He will get his grove going soon enough and has been improving each game.

markshark84 wrote:IMHO, the best indicator of whether a QB is playing well (while not perfect, the best anyone has come out with thus far) --- ESPN's QBR stat -

Do you honestly understand the ESPN QBR stat, bacuse if yoiu do I think you are the only one in the world. I don't even think ESPN understands the QBR stat. It has Jake Locker rated higher than Romo, Brady,or Aaron Rodgers. It has Andy Dalton higher than Russel Wilson. And it had RG3 rated below Eli. I'm sorry, I still feel it is a gimmick and not a true reflection of how a player is playing and it isn't even close.

You like it, great. But it isn't the standard yet and may never be.

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote::yawn:

WTFE

People we won our fist game. Our focus should be on the Cowgirls. How to stop their offense and score on their defense.

HEROHAMO wrote:People we won our fist game. Our focus should be on the Cowgirls. How to stop their offense and score on their defense.

Apparently all we need to do is fire Jim Haslett and bench RGIII. Recipe for a comeback!!!

HEROHAMO wrote:People we won our fist game. Our focus should be on the Cowgirls. How to stop their offense and score on their defense.

(Cowboys)

masterkwon wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:People we won our fist game. Our focus should be on the Cowgirls. How to stop their offense and score on their defense.

(Cowboys)

No he got it right the first time.

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote::yawn:

I'll take that response as a "yeah, I have nothing".........

Aaannndd... checkmate!

markshark84 wrote:

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote::yawn:

I'll take that response as a "yeah, I have nothing".........

Aaannndd... checkmate!

You can take it any way you like, what ever your preference is.. I don't really care.

It was never a debate, much less chess match. If so it was over before you sat down bud!

You typed a lot of words but never said anything worth jack. Rgiii was sacked a grip last year... HEALTHY. You made a blanket statement about him not able to extend plays- I provided one that disproved your point. You dismissed it- likewise I dissmissed your opinion.

skinsfan#33 wrote:
That is how I feel. I always feel we should beet the Bears and they have only beeten the Vikings, Pburge (both bad teams), and the Bungles. I'm more concerned about the Chargers (2-2) who can only beet (barely) NFCE teams. You would think it would be the other way around, but that is how I feel.

I guess there is no point in arguing opinion. I respect that.

But, as far as CHI -- how do you think our O will do against their D? What about Cutler against our D? Our D has historically done poorly against top QBs.

Can our D keep pace with SD?

DAL is playing well at home this year averaging 33ppg.

skinsfan#33 wrote:Actually we are 1-3 against teams that are a combined 6-9. You can't throw out how they did against us since they played us.

You can't count our games because we are the variable constant. Including our games doesn't show how they do against our competition. It is useless to include our games --- we don't play ourselves.

skinsfan#33 wrote:I agree with most of this. Thge game was much closer than it should have been. You can let a guy have a free run at your punter (first TD) and if a ball hits you dead in your hands you need to catch the ball. If Rak doesn't Carlos Rogers that ball the Raiders don't score on the next play.

Would of, should ofs. In sports, it is what it is. Hey --- if I had made 3 putts that I typically sink from less than 5 feet this weekend, I would have shot in the 70s and placed 3rd in my club tournament --- but I didn't. I missed and shot an 81. That was my score. There are no asteriks or almosts. You won't hear me go back and proclaim "but..... if...... I should of........". The score was 24-14. I bet OAK could have said a ton about the pick 6 and injuries.

skinsfan#33 wrote:I'm not concerned with him. He will get his grove going soon enough and has been improving each game.

I do see improvement, but I don't see how anyone shouldn't be concerned. He is NOWHERE near what he was last year. Not even on the same planet.

skinsfan#33 wrote:Do you honestly understand the ESPN QBR stat, bacuse if yoiu do I think you are the only one in the world. I don't even think ESPN understands the QBR stat. It has Jake Locker rated higher than Romo, Brady,or Aaron Rodgers. It has Andy Dalton higher than Russel Wilson. And it had RG3 rated below Eli. I'm sorry, I still feel it is a gimmick and not a true reflection of how a player is playing and it isn't even close.

You like it, great. But it isn't the standard yet and may never be.

I'm not sure ESPN has even disclosed the EXACT metrics regarding the QBR. That said, you can't deny its outcomes.

Locker hasn't thrown an INT this year....... Rodgers QBR suffered because he basically lost the game against CINCY and has only played 3 games....... Brady hasn't been playing that well........... The Dalton-Wilson comment is a S-T-R-E-T-C-H seeing how it's 2 ponits (although Dalton is having a better year as a QB)....... Romo still hasn't thrown for 300 yards this year......

The stat is telling; just look at the top vs. the bottom --- and RGIII is DEAD LAST for all starting QBs (at least the ones that haven't been benched or inserted in for the benched player).