Skins @ Jets Post Game Catharsis....!!!

[HEROHAMO]

Your entitled to your opinion. Fact remains when Griffin was fully healthy, had the teams full support, father wasnt interfering and when Griffin was not a jerk. We won the division.

When Caitlyn Jenner had a penis he was Bruce. Stop living in the past. We went 10-6 three seasons ago, which is not that great an accomplishment. RGIII has personally gone 5-15 since. He's 14-21 for his career.

You're entitled to your opinion as well but there's absolutely no empirical data supporting it.

Heres some data for you. 10-6 Division title and rookie of the year. Not an opinion facts... No amounts of jokes can change that...

[HEROHAMO]

Is this a serious post?

I am honestly not sure, but what makes this post even sadder is that even if all those things were true today, RGIII would still not be good enough. You'd have to include pocket presence, ability to read defenses, make correct pre-snap adjustments, run thru progressions quickly, etc etc etc.

He made plenty of good reads his rookie year. Fact is he won us a division title.

[StorminMormon86]

He made plenty of good reads his rookie year. Fact is he won us a division title.

No, he didn't.

Stop pinning the title on Griffin. He didn't do it alone. He didn't need to make good reads his rookie year because the receivers were WIDE open due to the threat he had of taking off and running. No one fears him running anymore. Let it go. The guy is done here.

[riggofan]

He made plenty of good reads his rookie year. Fact is he won us a division title.

No, he didn't.

Stop pinning the title on Griffin. He didn't do it alone. He didn't need to make good reads his rookie year because the receivers were WIDE open due to the threat he had of taking off and running. No one fears him running anymore. Let it go. The guy is done here.

In fantasy la la land, winning the division == making good reads whether there was any reading involved or not. I'm pretty sure Griffin was also an amazing place kicker that year too.

[Deadskins]

He made plenty of good reads his rookie year. Fact is he won us a division title.

No, he didn't.

Stop pinning the title on Griffin. He didn't do it alone. He didn't need to make good reads his rookie year because the receivers were WIDE open due to the threat he had of taking off and running. No one fears him running anymore. Let it go. The guy is done here.

He may be done here, but I find it funny you say you can't pin the title on RGIII, because the receivers were open because of RGIII. You won't give him credit as a good passer because he was a good runner?

[markshark84]

He made plenty of good reads his rookie year. Fact is he won us a division title.

No, he didn't.

Stop pinning the title on Griffin. He didn't do it alone. He didn't need to make good reads his rookie year because the receivers were WIDE open due to the threat he had of taking off and running. No one fears him running anymore. Let it go. The guy is done here.

He may be done here, but I find it funny you say you can't pin the title on RGIII, because the receivers were open because of RGIII. You won't give him credit as a good passer because he was a good runner?

I agree here. RGIII was the heart and soul of that team. Without him, we go 6-10 per the usual.

[hitmandm]

Great stat. Even if you take away RG3's 2012 campaign, he still has a better passer rating than Captain Pick.

Fire Jay "Code Red" Gruden. You have to be blind not to see how overmatched and stupid he is.

Put Capt Pick back onto the bench where he belongs.

[StorminMormon86]

He may be done here, but I find it funny you say you can't pin the title on RGIII, because the receivers were open because of RGIII. You won't give him credit as a good passer because he was a good runner?

He didn't win it alone. He was a big reason, but I am sick of hearing "he won a division title". Did he play by himself in those games? I give him credit for his ability in his rookie season, and the system that was tailored to him strengths.

[SkinsJock]

The expression "he won a Super Bowl" is understood to mean that 'he' was the QB of a Super Bowl team and everyone understands that - nobody with any sense thinks the QB won the Super Bowl by himself - conversely, when discussing the fact that Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl, it is understood by everyone that he was not a member of a team that won a Super Bowl ... OR when referring to the fact that Joe Gibbs won 3 Super Bowls with 3 different QBs, nobody with any sense thinks that Joe actually won 3 Super Bowls by himself

I'm sorry it hurts you to say it - he did win a Divisional title in 2012 ....

[SkinsJock]

I'm looking forward to enjoying coming off a win heading into the bye week ...

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

Great stat. Even if you take away RG3's 2012 campaign, he still has a better passer rating than Captain Pick.

So, you have the same expectations of a 1st round, #2 overall pick who cost three 1st round picks and a 2nd and a 4th round, #102 overall pick who only cost that draft pick?

[riggofan]

I really don't see any of those guys making the qb look any better then he did... A ball in the dirt is a ball in the dirt.. a perfect pass to the wrong team is still that.

Had Reed or Jax been running free down field, no I don't think Kirk magically hits them in stride, sorry.

Ok, man. Now having watched what Reed did yesterday, you don't think he makes a significant difference to Cousins?

[Deadskins]

I really don't see any of those guys making the qb look any better then he did... A ball in the dirt is a ball in the dirt.. a perfect pass to the wrong team is still that.

Had Reed or Jax been running free down field, no I don't think Kirk magically hits them in stride, sorry.

Ok, man. Now having watched what Reed did yesterday, you don't think he makes a significant difference to Cousins?

Kirk still had some accuracy problems yesterday, but he did much better in the second half with hitting his targets in stride. Scary moment before the winning TD toss, though. Glad he could shake it off.

[markshark84]

He made plenty of good reads his rookie year. Fact is he won us a division title.

No, he didn't.

Stop pinning the title on Griffin. He didn't do it alone. He didn't need to make good reads his rookie year because the receivers were WIDE open due to the threat he had of taking off and running. No one fears him running anymore. Let it go. The guy is done here.

I agree here. RGIII was the heart and soul of that team. Without him, we go 6-10 per the usual.

Whoops. I didn't realize I was actually responding and agreeing to someone that disagreed with my initial post. That makes it confusing because I didn't fully address the post since it had 2 parts.

So my full response:
1. Yes, I completely agree that RGIII "won" us the division that year. No question in my mind. He was the team that year. Without him we would have been 6-10 AT BEST. Dude was a S-T-U-D that year. Best QBing I have seen in DC since Rypiens year in 1993. And honestly, I think it was better.
2. That doesn't mean he made good reads. He was in an option-1 read type offense. His job was to see if his #1 option was open; if not, then run the ball. There were no "progressions' in that offense. He was not reading the DEF or making pre-snap adjustments on a regular basis. The OFF RGIII ran that year is now extinct in the NFL --- partly (some say mostly) because of what it did to RGIII's health and because now they just stick an LB on the QB.

So while RGIII absolutely "won" us the division, the NFL has since changed. That doesn't mean he can do it again.

[Deadskins]

He was in an option-1 read type offense. His job was to see if his #1 option was open; if not, then run the ball. There were no "progressions' in that offense. He was not reading the DEF or making pre-snap adjustments on a regular basis. The OFF RGIII ran that year is now extinct in the NFL

Not entirely true. The throw he made to Garcon in the opener against the Saints was his third option in his progressions. I'm not saying he checked off one and two, but I do remember Shanahan saying that after the game. Also, the read option is not extinct. We saw Kirk run it twice yesterday. Once for a TD.

[markshark84]

He was in an option-1 read type offense. His job was to see if his #1 option was open; if not, then run the ball. There were no "progressions' in that offense. He was not reading the DEF or making pre-snap adjustments on a regular basis. The OFF RGIII ran that year is now extinct in the NFL

Not entirely true. The throw he made to Garcon in the opener against the Saints was his third option in his progressions. I'm not saying he checked off one and two, but I do remember Shanahan saying that after the game. Also, the read option is not extinct. We saw Kirk run it twice yesterday. Once for a TD.

I can't recall whether that was RGIII's 1st or 3rd option on a TD play 3 years ago (and I generally don't take a coaches word for anything on how a team runs plays as it will provide information to future opponents). What I do recall is that it was a play action and the DE was closing in on him. RGIII neither had the time to run thru 3 progressions or the opportunity (i.e., with play action, only the WRs would have been available since the RB would have been faking the handoff and the TEs would have been faking the protection). Whether or not it was his 3rd OPTION is not as relevant as the fact it was his FIRST progression/read -- and it was his first progression/read. That being said, that was 1 single play. As I said, the offense was designed for a simplistic quick read style.

I smiled when I saw Cousins run the read option for the TD. That said, I wouldn't consider using the read-option on 3% of your plays a resurrection of sorts. The read-option is still dead. That was almost like a trick play.

[StorminMormon86]

I did lol when they ran the read option for the TD. That was genius.

[cowboykillerzRGiii]

I really don't see any of those guys making the qb look any better then he did... A ball in the dirt is a ball in the dirt.. a perfect pass to the wrong team is still that.

Had Reed or Jax been running free down field, no I don't think Kirk magically hits them in stride, sorry.

Ok, man. Now having watched what Reed did yesterday, you don't think he makes a significant difference to Cousins?

I don't think Reed would've made Kirk look much to any better vs NYJ.. I do think Reed is his favorite target, and I had said previously when Reed is healthy, every qb has benefited from his play. I think we agree, but are talking about different things.

Reed is a BEAST . Can Reed stay healthy?

[riggofan]

I really don't see any of those guys making the qb look any better then he did... A ball in the dirt is a ball in the dirt.. a perfect pass to the wrong team is still that.

Had Reed or Jax been running free down field, no I don't think Kirk magically hits them in stride, sorry.

Ok, man. Now having watched what Reed did yesterday, you don't think he makes a significant difference to Cousins?

I don't think Reed would've made Kirk look much to any better vs NYJ.. I do think Reed is his favorite target, and I had said previously when Reed is healthy, every qb has benefited from his play. I think we agree, but are talking about different things.

I'm not saying Reed is going to make Cousins throw the ball better, but I definitely think not having him vs. NYJ was a huge loss for Cousins and a big factor for his poor play. When we can't move the ball in the running game, Reed is his go to option. Not trying to make excuses for him, but that was a lot to make up for against a good team.

Mike Jones puts it pretty well in the WashPost today:
"It should be noted, both on this point and on the Gruden point, that return of Jordan Reed had a lot to do with the success the offense and quarterback enjoyed. Reed creates so much for the offense and expands the number of and kinds of plays that the team can run and have a legitimate chance to succeed on. Cousins targeted Reed 13 times and completed 11 of those passes, the last of which was the game-clinching six-yard touchdown pass. Remember last week? Gruden said he wanted to see what his quarterback could do with more of a full collection of weapons. The Redskins still were without DeSean Jackson, but Reed made a big difference, and Cousins capitalized."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/foo ... -the-bucs/

[Deadskins]

I can't recall whether that was RGIII's 1st or 3rd option on a TD play 3 years ago

Then don't say you know with certainty that he didn't make any reads or go through progressions if you can't recall.

I smiled when I saw Cousins run the read option for the TD. That said, I wouldn't consider using the read-option on 3% of your plays a resurrection of sorts. The read-option is still dead. That was almost like a trick play.

I think you need to look up the definition of the word "extinct." It doesn't mean rare.

[markshark84]

I can't recall whether that was RGIII's 1st or 3rd option on a TD play 3 years ago

Then don't say you know with certainty that he didn't make any reads or go through progressions if you can't recall.

Go back and read my post. You are really reaching on this one. The second item in my intial post you are referring to was not about RGIII specifically; it was about the OFFENSE.

Also --- I rewatched the play. He didn't make a read or go thru progressions. I was dead right in that the DE got there too quickly for him to go thru any progression whatsoever. In fact, he didn't have time to even look anywhere but in the middle of the field. So regardless I do remember random plays from 3 years ago......... So by your standards I can say I know everything from 2012 "with certainty" (ironically a statement I never made, again read my Fing posts). Funny how that works out.

You literally took the least relevant item of that post, took it out of context, and addressed it. WTF??? Typical deadskins.

I smiled when I saw Cousins run the read option for the TD. That said, I wouldn't consider using the read-option on 3% of your plays a resurrection of sorts. The read-option is still dead. That was almost like a trick play.

I think you need to look up the definition of the word "extinct." It doesn't mean rare.

Again read my posts!!!! I said the read option OFFENSE. And yes, similarly to the wildcat OFFENSE, both are now extinct as a primary form. The fact coaches will incorporate 1 or 2 read-option or wildcat style plays into their books doesn't mean the primary offense of those playsets still exist. To say the read option OFFENSE is still run by any team is flat out wrong. It is no longer used as a primary form. Come on man. Read what I write.

[cowboykillerzRGiii]

:walks in, looks around.. shakes head, departs:

[Deadskins]

You literally took the least relevant item of that post, took it out of context, and addressed it. WTF??? Typical deadskins.
...
Come on man. Read what I write.

This is one of the funniest and most hypocritical posts that you have ever written. Project much?

From our last exchange (literally only one page back):

Where did I say their DEF wasn't a factor? You seem to do this in all of our back and forths; You either focus on some tangential comment (RIK penalty) or argue against a point I never made.

When it comes to you, I actually mimic how you reply. I remove what I want and answer what I'd like to focus on. You do it quite often; it's a litigation tactic -- take the weak portion (regardless of context), disregard the rest, and tear thru it. Besides, YOU mentioned the RIK penalty, I didn't. I continued the discussion. If you didn't want me to address it, then don't post about it.

FTR, I didn't "post" about the RIK penalty, I commented that I thought it was a bad call. I was making the point that, without this penalty, we would have had plenty of time on the clock to narrow the gap to one score, which is the definition of a game being winnable. And, that was even with Kirk's crappy performance. But you tried to make it seem as though I was saying that without that call we would have won the game, just to prop up your ludicrous statement that the game was unwinnable. You are one of those people who can never admit when you were wrong, and try and deflect or redirect the conversation rather than just own up to it.

[markshark84]

You literally took the least relevant item of that post, took it out of context, and addressed it. WTF??? Typical deadskins.
...
Come on man. Read what I write.

This is one of the funniest and most hypocritical posts that you have ever written. Project much?

From our last exchange (literally only one page back):

Where did I say their DEF wasn't a factor? You seem to do this in all of our back and forths; You either focus on some tangential comment (RIK penalty) or argue against a point I never made.

When it comes to you, I actually mimic how you reply. I remove what I want and answer what I'd like to focus on. You do it quite often; it's a litigation tactic -- take the weak portion (regardless of context), disregard the rest, and tear thru it. Besides, YOU mentioned the RIK penalty, I didn't. I continued the discussion. If you didn't want me to address it, then don't post about it.

FTR, I didn't "post" about the RIK penalty, I commented that I thought it was a bad call. I was making the point that, without this penalty, we would have had plenty of time on the clock to narrow the gap to one score, which is the definition of a game being winnable. And, that was even with Kirk's crappy performance. But you tried to make it seem as though I was saying that without that call we would have won the game, just to prop up your ludicrous statement that the game was unwinnable. You are one of those people who can never admit when you were wrong, and try and deflect or redirect the conversation rather than just own up to it.

Talk to my saint of a wife. She'll agree with you. Also --- look in the mirror. You still haven't conceded that RGIII is injury prone!!!!!!!

As far as your first comment --- I did say in my post that I am going to mimic what you do (and did within this post as well)..... and I did. I consider you a fairly intelligent poster (although we disagree on things), so if you don't counter, I generally consider it a concession (because like me, you don't like to be wrong).

Also "posting" and "commenting" are the same thing when they are in the form or part of a post.... especially when it is a condition of your premise that the game was winnable.

Finally, if "narrowing the gap to one score (or having plenty of time to do so)" = the definition of a game being winnable. Then -- in reality (opposed to hypotheticals) and by YOUR definition --- the game was never winnable based on what actually happened.

[Deadskins]

I did say in my post that I am going to mimic what you do

Yes, but saying that's what I do doesn't mean that it's true. And it's funny that you said that in direct response to my accusing you of doing that exact thing.

Also "posting" and "commenting" are the same thing when they are in the form or part of a post....

No, they aren't. Posting about something means that is the focus of your post. I was posting about the game being winnable. I made the comment to support my contention, that had Kirk had even had a mediocre, game-manager type performance, the W was well within the realm of possibility. Yes, I understand that it's an argument over semantics, but it wouldn't be the first time.

Finally, if "narrowing the gap to one score (or having plenty of time to do so)" = the definition of a game being winnable. Then -- in reality (opposed to hypotheticals) and by YOUR definition --- the game was never winnable based on what actually happened.

Hmm, we were "never" within one score? I think you might want to check your facts. But, at that point, after all the other options were exhausted, you would be correct, the game wasn't winnable. But that's not what you said that prompted my original response. Your premise was that the game wasn't winnable because the Jets were just playing too well. The fact that we led at halftime, and could have been within a score at the end, despite Kirk's horrible play, clearly showed me that was not the case.