Washington football community discussions spanning the Redskins to Commanders era. 20+ years of game analysis, player discussions, and fan perspectives.
https://the-hogs.net/messageboard/
SkinsJock wrote: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
SkinsJock wrote: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
SkinsJock wrote: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
DEHog wrote:^^ 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!!
DEHog wrote:SkinsJock wrote: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 wrote:DEHog wrote:^^ 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 wrote:DEHog wrote:^^ 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.
DEHog wrote:Deadskins wrote:DEHog wrote:^^ 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 wrote: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...
Deadskins wrote:DEHog wrote: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 wrote:So was the job McCoy’s to lose as well??
Deadskins wrote:StorminMormon86 wrote: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.
Countertrey wrote:StorminMormon86 wrote:Countertrey wrote: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.
StorminMormon86 wrote:Deadskins wrote:StorminMormon86 wrote: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?
Deadskins wrote: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?
StorminMormon86 wrote:Deadskins wrote: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.
StorminMormon86 wrote:Deadskins wrote:StorminMormon86 wrote: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?
Kilmer72 wrote: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.
