2-14 = Andrew Luck Our Future QB

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:39 am

RedskinsRule56 wrote:Sometimes you have to take a few step backwards before going forwards.

We did that already; it was called "Zorn."

yupchagee · Post by **yupchagee** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:39 am

Deadskins wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:NOBODY can say "I am a fan of the REDSKINS" and then say that they ENDORSE LOSING

Apparently, you're wrong.

Perhaps SJ should have said "No rational person can say".

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:41 am

Deadskins wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:NOBODY can say "I am a fan of the REDSKINS" and then say that they ENDORSE the Redskins losing games

Apparently, you're wrong.

oh no ... NOT again !!!!!!

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:49 am

RedskinsRule56 wrote:Grossman and Beck both blow.

I can see why you might have that opinion of Rex, but how could you possibly know that Beck blows? I certainly haven't seen evidence of that.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:02 pm

jeremyroyce wrote:Once again if John Beck starts which I believe he will, Beck will be the 21st different starting QB for this team since 1993. That right there is a problem. We have a revolving door at the QB situation.

How do you know that Beck won't put an end too that?

jeremyroyce wrote:look how many years the Falcons were set back after they traded Brett Favre

That's just plain ridiculous. Favre was never even the starter in Atlanta. And the Falcons had never even had back to back winning seasons until last year. To say that they were set back by that trade is ludicrous.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:14 pm

absinthe1023 wrote:1. I feel like it is a personal attack to immediately dismiss the fanhood of the OP for suggesting that the Redskins would be better off in the long run by having a horrible season and getting the chance to draft Luck.

Yes, but that's not what the OP said. He said he hopes they have a horrible season, and is rooting for that outcome to get the chance to draft Luck. Big difference!

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:14 pm

Deadskins wrote:
RedskinsRule56 wrote:Grossman and Beck both blow.

I can see why you might have that opinion of Rex, but how could you possibly know that Beck blows? I certainly haven't seen evidence of that.

Maybe he has pictures... :wink:

Smithian · Post by **Smithian** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:18 pm

Deadskins wrote:
RedskinsRule56 wrote:Sometimes you have to take a few step backwards before going forwards.

We did that already; it was called "Zorn."

To quote Cam Cameron, "Fail Forward Fast"

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:20 pm

absinthe1023 wrote:a long time ago I noticed you mentioned you were a Trini, but I never made a comment about it.

Save your cross-dressing discussions for the Smack forum.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:26 pm

Deadskins wrote:
absinthe1023 wrote:1. I feel like it is a personal attack to immediately dismiss the fanhood of the OP for suggesting that the Redskins would be better off in the long run by having a horrible season and getting the chance to draft Luck.

Yes, but that's not what the OP said. He said he hopes they have a horrible season, and is rooting for that outcome to get the chance to draft Luck. Big difference!

Yep, and that has been consistently ignored in this thread.

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:46 pm

Deadskins wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:Before George Allen, we went 25 years without a play-off berth - not championship but play-off berth! Along comes man named George Allen in 1971 and puts together a team of old guys and an old half back that he wanted to make his QB.

All props to George, but it was really Lombardi who began to right the ship before he died.

After the death of Lombardi, the Skins regressed under Bill Austin and finished 6-8 in 1970. The Skins were devastated by his death. The ship was no longer righted, but listing and in grave danger of sinking back to the depths of whence she was raised. There were 30 "Lombardi" Redskins on the Roster in 1970; however only 17 would be on the roster In 1971, Allen's first year.
No doubt, George Allen bringing in several veterans including the "Ramskins" (and at least 6 Ram's coaches) and Kilmer who would be the QB for the 1971 season, righted this listing ship.

Does George, owe some of his instant success to the Lombardi for what he instilled in those 17 (2 special team - K & P, 9 offense - 7 starters and 6 defense - 4 starters) players who remained Redskins? Yes! Given that several of those players were key vets as well as the vets George brought. Give Lombaredi his due, but George righted this ship and kept it righted - never having a losing season. George was not a case of Gruden taking over a Dungy team and taking it to the Bowl or a Caldwell taking over a Dungy team and going to the Bowl. It was George's Redskins from the day, he took over.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:54 pm

Red_One43 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:Before George Allen, we went 25 years without a play-off berth - not championship but play-off berth! Along comes man named George Allen in 1971 and puts together a team of old guys and an old half back that he wanted to make his QB.

All props to George, but it was really Lombardi who began to right the ship before he died.

After the death of Lombardi, the Skins regressed under Bill Austin and finished 6-8 in 1970. The Skins were devastated by his death. The ship was no longer righted, but listing and in grave danger of sinking back to the depths of whence she was raised. There were 30 "Lombardi" Redskins on the Roster in 1970; however only 17 would be on the roster In 1971, Allen's first year.
No doubt, George Allen bringing in several veterans including the "Ramskins" (and at least 6 Ram's coaches) and Kilmer who would be the QB for the 1971 season, righted this listing ship.

Does George, owe some of his instant success to the Lombardi for what he instilled in those 17 (2 special team, 9 offense and 6 defense) players who remained Redskins? Yes! Given that several of those players were key vets as well as the vets George brought. Give Lombaredi his due, but George righted this ship and kept it righted - never having a losing season. George was not a case of Gruden taking over a Dungy team and taking it to the Bowl or a Caldwell taking over a Dungy team and going to the Bowl. It was George's Redskins from the day, he took over.

All true, but Lombardi couldn't do everything in the one year he had. Undoubtedly, he would have made more changes in 1970, maybe even turning over those 13 former players himself. He was the one who ended the decades of suffering.

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:07 pm

Deadskins wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:Before George Allen, we went 25 years without a play-off berth - not championship but play-off berth! Along comes man named George Allen in 1971 and puts together a team of old guys and an old half back that he wanted to make his QB.

All props to George, but it was really Lombardi who began to right the ship before he died.

After the death of Lombardi, the Skins regressed under Bill Austin and finished 6-8 in 1970. The Skins were devastated by his death. The ship was no longer righted, but listing and in grave danger of sinking back to the depths of whence she was raised. There were 30 "Lombardi" Redskins on the Roster in 1970; however only 17 would be on the roster In 1971, Allen's first year.
No doubt, George Allen bringing in several veterans including the "Ramskins" (and at least 6 Ram's coaches) and Kilmer who would be the QB for the 1971 season, righted this listing ship.

Does George, owe some of his instant success to the Lombardi for what he instilled in those 17 (2 special team, 9 offense and 6 defense) players who remained Redskins? Yes! Given that several of those players were key vets as well as the vets George brought. Give Lombaredi his due, but George righted this ship and kept it righted - never having a losing season. George was not a case of Gruden taking over a Dungy team and taking it to the Bowl or a Caldwell taking over a Dungy team and going to the Bowl. It was George's Redskins from the day, he took over.

All true, but Lombardi couldn't do everything in the one year he had. Undoubtedly, he would have made more changes in 1970, maybe even turning over those 13 former players himself. He was the one who ended the decades of suffering.

Dead, if Lombardi had not died, he wouldn't have just made more changes, the Skins would have gone to the Super Bowl, at least by 1971, and won the thing. I am sure that we can agree on that that!

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:35 pm

^^ true dat - George did a great job in taking over after Austin

as good a HC as George Allen was he was not close to Lombardi

You do have to give George Allen a lot of credit for what he did with the NFC East and building the itensity of the rivalries it now has

The NFL was a little different in those days

can you imagine players being seen in Georgetown bars the night before a game ... :shock:

I will say that I like the intensity and attitude that Mike is bringing in here

this franchise is undergoing a similar change/makeover to what both Lombardi and Allen saw that it needed

AND .. that is why I so strongly disagree with the idea that we are not going to do well this season

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:41 pm

Interesting discussion... wondering how it's related to deliberately tanking the season to ensure that we are inposition to draft a potentially excellent quarterback... which, of course, is a much more interesting and realistic discussion. [insert sarcasm smiley here]

Seriously, though... the comparison between what Shanahan is doing with what Lombardi was doing, and Allen did, deserves it's own thread...

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:43 pm

OK OK - I had to add in the last bit :oops:

RedskinsRule56 · Post by **RedskinsRule56** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:38 pm

It all starts with Stanford QB Andrew Luck. It doesn't take a super scout to see Luck has the tools to become a star at the next level. He has a combination of physical tools (size, arm strength, mobility) and mental capacity that led one veteran NFL scout to tell me Luck is the most NFL-ready quarterback he's seen in more than a decade. Unless Luck suffers a major injury, there's no reason to think he won't be the No. 1 overall pick in April.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/blog?name=nfl_draft&id=6898939

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:53 pm

RedskinsRule56 wrote:It all starts with Stanford QB Andrew Luck. It doesn't take a super scout to see Luck has the tools to become a star at the next level. He has a combination of physical tools (size, arm strength, mobility) and mental capacity that led one veteran NFL scout to tell me Luck is the most NFL-ready quarterback he's seen in more than a decade. Unless Luck suffers a major injury, there's no reason to think he won't be the No. 1 overall pick in April.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/blog?name=nfl_draft&id=6898939

With the exception of "it" (whatever "it" is) all starts with Stanford QB Andrew Luck. I have no disagreement with what you said.

For the 2011 season, IT is about to start with Grossman or Beck and most likely Beck, IMO.

RedskinsRule56 · Post by **RedskinsRule56** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:56 pm

WE NEED TO GO 2-14 and get Andrew Luck!!!!

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:59 pm

Countertrey wrote:Interesting discussion... wondering how it's related to deliberately tanking the season to ensure that we are inposition to draft a potentially excellent quarterback... which, of course, is a much more interesting and realistic discussion. [insert sarcasm smiley here]

Seriously, though... the comparison between what Shanahan is doing with what Lombardi was doing, and Allen did, deserves it's own thread...

Surely, I digressed. :oops:

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:03 pm

RedskinsRule56 wrote:WE NEED TO GO 2-14 and get Andrew Luck!!!!

We know you desire to get Luck and we know that you fee the need to get Luck and we know that you advocate tanking for Luck, but id you see the game on Thursday night? What did you see in that dress rehearsal of 1st teamers, playing almost the entire first half, that would lead you to rationally believe that the Skins would go 2-14?

RedskinsRule56 · Post by **RedskinsRule56** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:13 pm

I watched the whole game on Thursday. I know that Hightower and the starters played well and outplayed the Ravens a playoff team the last three years. However, preseason means nothing. I realize Baltimore was playing hard but they definitely held back on offense and defense as most teams do in the preseason. They ran a vanilla offense and defense while the Redskins went all out. I think we can all agree that the Redskins wanted to win that game more then the Ravens and it was more important for Rex vs Beck to each try to prove themselves to win the starting QB battle.

Sucess in the preseason does not automatically means success in the regular season and vice versa. Proof preseason football is meaningless: Best preseason record since 2008 belongs to the Lions (10-2). The worst belongs to the colts (2-11).

I am sure Redskins fans Remember when Spurrier came here and we looked great in the preseason. (Remember Osaka, Japan when we crushed the Niners 38-7 and we went 4-1 in the preseason and then we went 7-9 in the regular season

When the Redskins lose to the Giants, Cardinals, Cowpukes and Rams and start out 0-4 we will be well on our way to Andrew Luck.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:48 pm

RedskinsRule56 wrote:When the Redskins lose to the Giants, Cardinals, Cowpukes and Rams and start out 0-4 we will be well on our way to Andrew Luck.

Good Luck with that....

This stupid discussion isn't going to last long in the season as we get a few wins and we're obviously not the worst team in the NFL. To tank a season you have to be bad in every way to be the worst team in the NFL. We would be stunting players, systems, progress across the team. And then we'd have to start everything over again. And if you screw up and someone's worse or if Luck Sucks you did it for zippo. It's a really, really stupid idea.

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:57 pm

RedskinsRule56 wrote:I watched the whole game on Thursday. I know that Hightower and the starters played well and outplayed the Ravens a playoff team the last three years. However, preseason means nothing. I realize Baltimore was playing hard but they definitely held back on offense and defense as most teams do in the preseason. They ran a vanilla offense and defense while the Redskins went all out.

And you know that the Ravens ran a vanilla offense and defense and didn't go all out because you could tell by Ray Lewis' emotions and because you are an expert on the Raven's schemes. Nice spin, though. :roll:

I think we can all agree that the Redskins wanted to win that game more then the Ravens and it was more important for Rex vs Beck to each try to prove themselves to win the starting QB battle.

Remember you and a couple of others on this thread are the only ones who agree with you, so I don't think that you are in a position to even remotely believe that we can all agree with you that the Redskins wanted to win the game more. The Ravens didn't even play their third team QB. Last year, John Harbaugh bragged about winning the preseason game against the Skins. At the end of the game, John Harbaugh only had one thing to say to reporters, on his way to the tunnel, "Winning is better than Losing." Shanahan wanted to win the game so much he rotated his QBs.

Sucess in the preseason does not automatically means success in the regular season and vice versa. Proof preseason football is meaningless: Best preseason record since 2008 belongs to the Lions (10-2). The worst belongs to the colts (2-11)

See, now you are talking grape and peanuts. How do you define "success" in pre-season? Not by wins, RR. You know that. I give you much more credit than that. One example of success in preseason is my vanilla behind knocking the snot out of you vanilla behind on the field.

Baltimore Sun:

Did you see Lewis get absolutely bulldozer blocked by Trent Williams on Tim Hightower's touchdown run?

Baltimore Sun:

"There wasn't any miscommunication there," said defensive tackle Haloti Ngata. "It was just more of the D-line getting cut down. Really, we've got to stay on our feet.

links are on Post Game Thread

When the Redskins lose to the Giants, Cardinals, Cowpukes and Rams and start out 0-4 we will be well on our way to Andrew Luck

You know, I have a good friend who is a long time, die hard Redskin fan. She always thinks the Redskins will lose. She doesn't want them to and she is no Suck for Luck person in any way. I asked her why she can't be possitive and say that we will win. She said that by believing that they will lose is the only way she can sit through a game without having a nervous breakdown. She added if the Skins lose then she is OK, because she never got her hopes up and if they win, she can be elated because - they won. When I say after the game, see I told you that they would win, she would say, I knew that I just can't say it or I will jinx it. Now, I find that way of thinking strange, but a fan has to do what they have to do stay sane. I can tolerate a fan who does that because in their heart, they still want the Redskins to win and they confess it later. I know not to pay any attention to when she says that the Redskins will lose. There is a difference in you. I can't tell for sure on the internet, but it seems as though you are gloating about the Redskins losing. There is no tone, but you repeat the same things over and over with very little substance. You proved that Luck is expected to be the real deal, but you have yet to show anything that supports how the Redskins will end up 2-14. The best you can do is trying aweful spins. You say that you are relentless in your knowledge or words to the effect, but you haven't shown that you are. Just a thought.

RedskinsRule56 · Post by **RedskinsRule56** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:07 pm

I guess I hate to admit that our starters looked good and we might win 5-8 games and be stuck with John Beck or Rex Grossman beyond 2011. Or we draft Barkley or Landry Jones and they end up not being anywhere near as good as Luck or even worse who we select busts. I would hate to see our franchise setback by another failed attempt at franchise QB. We have had this happen to many times, look at Heath Shuler, Patrick Ramsey and Jason Campbell we took each of them in the first round in hopes that they would be a franchise QB and they all failed.