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

CanesSkins26 wrote:

skinpride1 wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:Too bad for those fans that cannot accept that we could have won this game

we missed 2 FGs AND still took the game to OT - we've played a lot worse lately

I'm really sorry we did not win but am still pleased with a lot of what we saw

I was hoping that when Gano hit that 59 yarder he would get some confidence going or get on a roll but I guess not.

Gano= League high misses is that acceptable..Think not.

Add kicker to QB,Ol,Cb we need list.

Gano is a joke. 19 missed field goals in 26 games is flat out embarrassing.

What makes it even more embarrassing is that he's been missing FG's for 2 seasons now, and he's still our guy.

Missing FGs is not good for any kicker - the bigger issue is that this offense is making too many attempts at FGs

CanesSkins26 wrote:You can disagree but you'd be wrong. As for the Broncos, they are 5-5 and the 49ers have played an easy schedule. Sure there are some exceptions but the NFL is now a pass oriented league. The rules are set up to make it easier to pass the ball and quarterback is more important that ever.

Explain to me how I'm wrong? The original posters point was saying you need a talented QB to win games. I said the Broncos and 49ers are winning without a talented QB. It doesn't matter if the league is pass happy or the rules are set up to make it easy, there are still teams that are winning by running.

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Most with a combo of the two is true. There are teams with poor offenses who won the Super Bowl. Da Bears. Da Ravens. Name a team with a bad D that did.

2006, the Colts won the Superbowl; 23rd in points against, 21st in yards.

2009, the Saints won the Superbowl; 20th in points allowed, 25th in yards.

Two examples within the past 5 years where teams won with two pretty awful defenses.

Pretty sure the Saints D that year were among the tops in turnovers. Point is still valid though.

StorminMormon86 wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:You can disagree but you'd be wrong. As for the Broncos, they are 5-5 and the 49ers have played an easy schedule. Sure there are some exceptions but the NFL is now a pass oriented league. The rules are set up to make it easier to pass the ball and quarterback is more important that ever.

Explain to me how I'm wrong? The original posters point was saying you need a talented QB to win games. I said the Broncos and 49ers are winning without a talented QB. It doesn't matter if the league is pass happy or the rules are set up to make it easy, there are still teams that are winning by running.

What are the Broncos winning? They are 5-5 in a mediocre division. The 49ers are the lone exception, and they have played an easy schedule and will get pummeled if they play the Packers or Saints in the playoffs.

Just look at the list of quarterbacks that have won Super Bowls since we last won one...

Aikman (3 times)
Steve Young (1)
Favre
Elway (2)
Warner
Trent Dilfer
Brady (3)
Brad Johnson
Big Ben (2)
Peyton Manning
Eli Manning
Drew Brees
Aaron Rogers

Other than Dilfer, most of that list is hall of fame caliber, and those that aren't, like Johnson and Eli, are very good players. Dilfer is really the lone exception and he needed a historically dominant defense to do it.

CanesSkins26 wrote:What are the Broncos winning? They are 5-5 in a mediocre division.

And they're also 4-1 after Tebow has taken the reigns. Despite what you would classify as "mediocre" they are still winning games without passing the ball.

CanesSkins26 wrote:Other than Dilfer, most of that list is hall of fame caliber, and those that aren't, like Johnson and Eli, are very good players. Dilfer is really the lone exception and he needed a historically dominant defense to do it.

Why is Dilfer an exception? Because he refutes your point that you need a quality pass-heavy QB to go to the Superbowl (and win)?

StorminMormon86 wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:What are the Broncos winning? They are 5-5 in a mediocre division.

And they're also 4-1 after Tebow has taken the reigns. Despite what you would classify as "mediocre" they are still winning games without passing the ball.

Even if you grant that the Broncos have been successful running the ball and are winning games, it still doesn't follow that they invalidate CanesSkins' observation that today's league is a passing league. Because it's not clear to me at all that what the Broncos are doing is sustainable. They look a lot like the Zorn team that managed to go 6-2 before falling apart: they are winning games, but not in ways that anyone can systematize or produce with any consistency. When you rely on an INT return for a TD or a big 4th quarter effort every time . . . well, you might hit a good streak but at some point you'll be losing more games than the ones you are winning.

Don't let the guy at the roulette table who's guessed right 4 out of 5 times fool you.

CanesSkins26 wrote:Other than Dilfer, most of that list is hall of fame caliber, and those that aren't, like Johnson and Eli, are very good players. Dilfer is really the lone exception and he needed a historically dominant defense to do it.

Why is Dilfer an exception? Because he refutes your point that you need a quality pass-heavy QB to go to the Superbowl (and win)?[/quote]

Dilfer is an exception because he's an outlier. He's the exception that proves the rule, because it took, literally, a historically great defense to get the Ravens that far. (They almost didn't make the playoffs that year, by the way.)

In other words, CanesSkins can give you Dilfer and it doesn't make a dent on his argument. OK, if you have one of the top 3 defenses the NFL has ever seen, then no, you don't need an all-pro quarterback to win it all.

But which strategy should we try to gameplan for?

But that still doesn't refute my initial point. Someone posted something about "needing a good QB to win", and I said I disagreed because the Broncos and 49ers are winning without a good QB. I don't see how that is wrong considering the 49ers are now 9-1, and in all likelihood going to the playoffs.

The 49ers have a QB in Smith who will in all likelihood become a very good QB

I'd much rather have a very good team than just a very good QB without a good team around him
- the fact remains - your chances at success in the present NFL are much better if you have a good QB
Smith is going to be one of those

We need to get a good QB - we also need to have a good defense and a good offense

we're not going anywhere by just getting a great QB - that's the formula Cerrato & Snyder used


Mike & Bruce et al are putting the pieces together here & trying to fix the disaster that we had a few years ago

SkinsJock wrote:Too bad for those fans that cannot accept that we could have won this game

we missed 2 FGs AND still took the game to OT - we've played a lot worse lately

I'm really sorry we did not win but am still pleased with a lot of what we saw

Exactly, this game was NOT embarrassing. I hate to lose but, you can hold your chin up high. We tried all out on all phases of the game. We came up short. We were supposed to get blown out. We showed that we weren't going to quit, lay down and give in. We looked like a football team that cared.

this game was embarassing... for the Cowboys.

they barely managed to squeak by a Redskins team that, when healthy, is mediocre, and had basically the best half the team out injured. if i were a Dallas fan i'd be disgusted and very concerned. this was a huge moral victory for Washington.

StorminMormon86 wrote:But that still doesn't refute my initial point. Someone posted something about "needing a good QB to win", and I said I disagreed because the Broncos and 49ers are winning without a good QB. I don't see how that is wrong considering the 49ers are now 9-1, and in all likelihood going to the playoffs.

I explain above how it refutes your original point. You are relying on a definition of "need" that is needlessly (;)) absolutist. An appeal to an outlier doesn't actually contradict the argument that NFL teams need good QBs to be successful in this league.

Not a fan of moral victories.

I don't think anyone thought of this as any sort of 'victory'

this was just a good effort on our part and some bad play again from the pukes

we understand that we have issues with many parts of our team but the pukes almost lost both games to us this season and while they might win the NFC East they are certainly not a lot better than we are

we are a work in progress

the pukes (players and fans) are not going far this season and if they don't take advantage of an easier schedule than the stupid giants, they'll be watching the playoffs just like us

The Hogster wrote:Not a fan of moral victories.

Me either, but I am a fan of a team that doesn't give up land leaves it on the field. Winning and losing isn't a coin in the NFL, or life in general, that is one side or the other. Going from losing to winning is a processes that travels from one to the other. A casual fan can sit and wait for winning to happen. A real fan enjoys and supports the team through the ride. Including good efforts that don't result in a W...yet. None of that is a "moral victory."

Irn-Bru wrote:I explain above how it refutes your original point. You are relying on a definition of "need" that is needlessly (;)) absolutist. An appeal to an outlier doesn't actually contradict the argument that NFL teams need good QBs to be successful in this league.

Ok I see you're point. The 49ers are winning because they have better looking cheerleaders than the other teams.

StorminMormon86 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:I explain above how it refutes your original point. You are relying on a definition of "need" that is needlessly (;)) absolutist. An appeal to an outlier doesn't actually contradict the argument that NFL teams need good QBs to be successful in this league.

Ok I see you're point. The 49ers are winning because they have better looking cheerleaders than the other teams.

You seriously didn't get his point?

The 49ers are doing well because the franchise has a really good QB AND over the years, they have been adding pieces to both the offense and defense that put their franchise in position to have the sort of year they are having

The Redskins are now being managed by people that are attempting to do the same

this process has begun and we all can see (well some of us) that we really need to add a good QB like Smith and then hope he turns into a really good QB just like they have

Having a really good QB is not the ONLY part we need but it is a key to ensuring success here

KazooSkinsFan wrote:You seriously didn't get his point?

I get it, it was an attempt at humor.

CanesSkins26 wrote:Just look at the list of quarterbacks that have won Super Bowls since we last won one...

Aikman (3 times)
Steve Young (1)
Favre
Elway (2)
Warner
Trent Dilfer
Brady (3)
Brad Johnson
Big Ben (2)
Peyton Manning
Eli Manning
Drew Brees
Aaron Rogers

I'm not even sure how this got into a deabte about going to the Superbowl, but here's a list of the QBs who lost in the Superbowls (since our last victory):

Jim Kelly (2)
Stan Humphries
Neil O'Donnell
Drew Bledsoe
Brett Favre
Chris Chandler
Steve McNair
Kerry Collins
Kurt Warner (2)
Rich Gannon
Jake Delhomme
Donovan McNabb
Matt Hasselbeck
Rex Grossman
Tom Brady
Peyton Manning
Ben Roethlisberger

You can make the argument that over half of that list made it to the dance because of the team effort as a whole, and had nothing to do with the quality of play in the QB. Delhomme was 4 points away from being another "exception" to the rule.