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

JSPB22 wrote:I think we could go the other way quite easily. Players who came here and became dramatically worse.

Certainly some. Lloyd, AA are obvious. Stubblefield comes to mind. We've had a lot of successes though. Anyway, as I said, I wasn't challenging any and all statements defending the FO. I'm just tired of the made up statements that follow this logic.

- I think X
- Therefore, any and all statements that are consistent with X being true are automatically true and do not need to be supported, only X does.

The FO sucking if true does not mean that everything you can accuse the FO of are automatically true. I only picked on a specific claim which if true could be clearly supported and hasn't been.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:I think we could go the other way quite easily. Players who came here and became dramatically worse.

Certainly some. Lloyd, AA are obvious. Stubblefield comes to mind. We've had a lot of successes though. Anyway, as I said, I wasn't challenging any and all statements defending the FO. I'm just tired of the made up statements that follow this logic.

- I think X
- Therefore, any and all statements that are consistent with X being true are automatically true and do not need to be supported, only X does.

The FO sucking if true does not mean that everything you can accuse the FO of are automatically true. I only picked on a specific claim which if true could be clearly supported and hasn't been.

Not at all, I called him on it in the other thread before I saw you had started this one.

JSPB22 wrote:

NC43Hog wrote:

hailskins666 wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:I'd add Brad Johnson to that list.

stephen davis......

that still pisses me off to no end.

Stephen was good (really good) before he left.

Casualty of the failed Spurrier Project.

He was more of a cap cut than Spurrier, but that was how they sold it.

please. the redskins having trouble with getting a player under the cap?????? again, please. we've been in cap hell the last 8 years, but yet seem to manage to sign every FA the FO wants.

if spurrier really wanted davis, he would have been here. he didn't, he's gone, water under the bridge.

but i still hope and pray that i get to go to a college game spurrier is coaching. I WILL get kicked out, no doubt about it. don't care about the gamecocks at all, but i hope they lose every single game that he is involved with. can't stand the dipstick.

hailskins666 wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

NC43Hog wrote:

hailskins666 wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:I'd add Brad Johnson to that list.

stephen davis......

that still pisses me off to no end.

Stephen was good (really good) before he left.

Casualty of the failed Spurrier Project.

He was more of a cap cut than Spurrier, but that was how they sold it.

please. the redskins having trouble with getting a player under the cap?????? again, please. we've been in cap hell the last 8 years, but yet seem to manage to sign every FA the FO wants.

if spurrier really wanted davis, he would have been here. he didn't, he's gone, water under the bridge.

but i still hope and pray that i get to go to a college game spurrier is coaching. I WILL get kicked out, no doubt about it. don't care about the gamecocks at all, but i hope they lose every single game that he is involved with. can't stand the dipstick.

I have no love for Spurrier, just the opposite, But if SD would have taken the same money Carolina gave him to stay here, he would have retired a Redskin. Still he was damaged goods at that point, and only really played that one last season.

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:I think we could go the other way quite easily. Players who came here and became dramatically worse.

Certainly some. Lloyd, AA are obvious. Stubblefield comes to mind. We've had a lot of successes though. Anyway, as I said, I wasn't challenging any and all statements defending the FO. I'm just tired of the made up statements that follow this logic.

- I think X
- Therefore, any and all statements that are consistent with X being true are automatically true and do not need to be supported, only X does.

The FO sucking if true does not mean that everything you can accuse the FO of are automatically true. I only picked on a specific claim which if true could be clearly supported and hasn't been.

Not at all, I called him on it in the other thread before I saw you had started this one.

Yep, just discussing, not arguing with you as we're not disagreeing.

Spurrier wasn't a bad guy, his game is just geared towards College and that was exasberated by his hired the Not Ready for Prime Time coaching staff. I'm not sure why you guys are hatting on him.

Though more pertinently I'm still looking for support for a specific claim which I'm increasingly skeptical's coming. Though to be truthful I never actually did expect it based on similar contentless replies to all the similar challenges so far.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Spurrier wasn't a bad guy, his game is just geared towards College and that was exasberated by his hired the Not Ready for Prime Time coaching staff. I'm not sure why you guys are hatting on him.

Because I think Marty had us going in the right direction, and The Danny and Spurrier messed the whole thing up.

James Thrash is the one that comes to mind for me, even though he is back now and I actually liked him when he was here the first time.

cvillehog wrote:James Thrash is the one that comes to mind for me, even though he is back now and I actually liked him when he was here the first time.

By "comes to mind" are you arguing that he "suddenly" and "drastically" got better or just he went on to do well? I'm thinking you mean the latter, which makes sense but wasn't PODS's criteria.

yupchagee wrote:David Patton comes to mind. Good at NE, bad in DC, good again in NO.

Actually, Patten came here to prove his success wasn't all because of Tom Brady. His first season, he got hurt and then they brought in ARE and Lloyd, if I'm not mistaken.

How can we forget Zak Keasey!! Now a FB in SF...how's we miss that?

Hey, how about Kenny Watson?

King of the preseason in DC, then cut.

Now he´s actually really good with Cinci (!). Last year he had 1000 + total yards.

http://www.nfl.com/players/kennywatson/ ... =WAT450800

GSPODS wrote:How far back shall I go?

Stan Humphries
Mark Schlereth
Keenan McCardell
Frank Wycheck
Derek Smith
Kenard Lang
David Terrell
Shawn Barber
Steven Alexander
Trent Green
Champ Bailey
Robert Royal

All players the Redskins drafted who went on to start for other teams. Not all improved drastically, but quite a few did.
And these are just the draft picks.
Other people have listed some of the free agents.

I'd actually have to agree wit G on this one.. those names were here and did improve when they left.. all except Champ.. he was a monster here and still continued when he got wit da Denver Dummies.

GSPODS wrote:How far back shall I go?

Stan Humphries
Mark Schlereth
Keenan McCardell
Frank Wycheck
Derek Smith
Kenard Lang
David Terrell
Shawn Barber
Steven Alexander
Trent Green
Champ Bailey
Robert Royal

All players the Redskins drafted who went on to start for other teams. Not all improved drastically, but quite a few did.
And these are just the draft picks.
Other people have listed some of the free agents.

I'd actually have to agree wit G on this one.. those names were here and did improve when they left.. all except Champ.. he was a monster here and still continued when he got wit da Denver Dummies.

langleyparkjoe wrote:

GSPODS wrote:How far back shall I go?

Stan Humphries
Mark Schlereth
Keenan McCardell
Frank Wycheck
Derek Smith
Kenard Lang
David Terrell
Shawn Barber
Steven Alexander
Trent Green
Champ Bailey
Robert Royal

All players the Redskins drafted who went on to start for other teams. Not all improved drastically, but quite a few did.
And these are just the draft picks.
Other people have listed some of the free agents.

I'd actually have to agree wit G on this one.. those names were here and did improve when they left.. all except Champ.. he was a monster here and still continued when he got wit da Denver Dummies.

OK, so you're saying of all that list other then Bailey they "suddenly" and "drastically" improved? How exactly do you justify that? Just a few.

Steven Alexander. He was good for us. How exactly did he "suddenly" and "drastically" improve? Didn't he pretty well do "OK?"

McCardell and Wycheck. Certainly they ended up being good players. But "suddenly" and "drastically?" On what planet? Neither suddenly became a great performer. And you don't think EVERY team has had low round draft picks that went on to make it with other teams? This supports that we suck evaluating talent (PODS point)? That two low round draft picks became good players for other teams? Justify that.

And Robert Royal and Kenard Lang "suddently" and "drastically" became better players?????

Let's go to Stan Humpries. Perennial Skins backup. Mediocre SD starter. Wow, BAM you got me!!!

Mark Schlereth. Solid Skin, Solid Bronco. Six with each. By what POSSIBLE standard do you say he "suddenly" and "drastically" improved with the Broncos?????

Feel free to keep going down the list, I'm not seeing it. You're going to have to do more then agree with PODS, you're going to have to make sense doing it.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

cvillehog wrote:James Thrash is the one that comes to mind for me, even though he is back now and I actually liked him when he was here the first time.

By "comes to mind" are you arguing that he "suddenly" and "drastically" got better or just he went on to do well? I'm thinking you mean the latter, which makes sense but wasn't PODS's criteria.

His best year in Washington was 2000 (that includes this stint, btw), when he had 50 recs for 653 yards and 2 TDs. The next year in Philly he had 63 catches for 833 yards and 8 TDs. Not a big change in yards per catch, but a pretty big jump in TDs.

cvillehog wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

cvillehog wrote:James Thrash is the one that comes to mind for me, even though he is back now and I actually liked him when he was here the first time.

By "comes to mind" are you arguing that he "suddenly" and "drastically" got better or just he went on to do well? I'm thinking you mean the latter, which makes sense but wasn't PODS's criteria.

His best year in Washington was 2000 (that includes this stint, btw), when he had 50 recs for 653 yards and 2 TDs. The next year in Philly he had 63 catches for 833 yards and 8 TDs. Not a big change in yards per catch, but a pretty big jump in TDs.

OK

So do you think my point was you couldn't find some stat that "suddenly" and "drastically" improved? Do you think GSPODS point I was responding to was there was "some stat" that did? Do you think I would have wasted my time saying, "you can't find some individual stat that sounds a whole lot better the year they left then when they played for us?"

Are you arguing that Thrash "suddenly" and "drastically" improved? Or is this irrelevant?

Thrash had his best years in Philly but look at the guys he played with, when you have to be thrown to you'll get better stats than if you're a situational player. No he didn't suddenly improve but once he left his playing time drastically went up. As far has the increase in TDs that too can be because of playing time. His last year in Philly wasn't as productive as his last year with Washington before heading to Philly so I've got to say it wash and Thrash wouldn't fall into the myster group of players that GSPODS has and is simply refusing to share with the rest of us.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

cvillehog wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

cvillehog wrote:James Thrash is the one that comes to mind for me, even though he is back now and I actually liked him when he was here the first time.

By "comes to mind" are you arguing that he "suddenly" and "drastically" got better or just he went on to do well? I'm thinking you mean the latter, which makes sense but wasn't PODS's criteria.

His best year in Washington was 2000 (that includes this stint, btw), when he had 50 recs for 653 yards and 2 TDs. The next year in Philly he had 63 catches for 833 yards and 8 TDs. Not a big change in yards per catch, but a pretty big jump in TDs.

OK

So do you think my point was you couldn't find some stat that "suddenly" and "drastically" improved? Do you think GSPODS point I was responding to was there was "some stat" that did? Do you think I would have wasted my time saying, "you can't find some individual stat that sounds a whole lot better the year they left then when they played for us?"

Are you arguing that Thrash "suddenly" and "drastically" improved? Or is this irrelevant?

You asked for an example of someone who drastically improved when they left. I said the closest I could get off the top of my head was Thrash, but that I thought he was good when he was here. You said I was wrong, so I decided to compare the stats, and found that he had 3 TDs in four years in Washington, and then 8 in his first year in Philly. How that would differ from the expected career trajectory of a player like Thrash, I don't know. But that's probably not very relevant here anyway. There are two underlying problems in the discussion you and I are having, as far as I can tell: 1) you think I'm taking GSPODS' side, and therefore agree 100% with him and 0% with you, and 2) you make extensive use of strawman arguments, getting hyperspecific when it suits you (I'm sure we'll be seeing a link to online definitions of "drastic" and "sudden" any moment). In reality, I'm closer to agreement than you think. GSPODS thinks there is a long list of people who left Washington and suddenly excelled (which is a claim I've heard before in one form or another). Obviously I disagree if the best I could come up with was one player who is back with the team anyway!

cvillehog wrote:
You asked for an example of someone who drastically improved when they left. I said the closest I could get off the top of my head was Thrash, but that I thought he was good when he was here. You said I was wrong, so I decided to compare the stats, and found that he had 3 TDs in four years in Washington, and then 8 in his first year in Philly. How that would differ from the expected career trajectory of a player like Thrash, I don't know. But that's probably not very relevant here anyway. There are underlying problems in the discussion you and I are having, as far as I can tell: 1) you think I'm taking GSPODS' side, and therefore agree 100% with him and 0% with you, and 2) you make extensive use of strawman arguments, getting hyperspecific when it suits you (I'm sure we'll be seeing a link to online definitions of "drastic" and "sudden" any moment). In reality, I'm closer to agreement than you think. GSPODS thinks there is a long list of people who left Washington and suddenly excelled (which is a claim I've heard before in one form or another). Obviously I disagree if the best I could come up with was one player who is back with the team anyway!

What I think is that there is a long list of players the Redskins should have kept instead of releasing, trading, and signing free agents to replace them. Beating to death two words that only I used doesn't serve any useful purpose in this discussion. Many other members have mentioned some good names of players the front office should have known had talent and worked harder to keep on the roster. That was the underlying point, which did not escape most of the members who have posted names. The obvious name is Frank Wycheck. Pro Bowler. James Thrash is an example of how the Redskins misuse the talent they have, in addition to how they struggle to identify team value and talent, which is yet another discussion thread.

cvillehog wrote:There are two underlying problems in the discussion you and I are having, as far as I can tell: 1) you think I'm taking GSPODS' side, and therefore agree 100% with him and 0% with you

I'd say you put yourself in that position, but I accept that isn't what you meant

cvillehog wrote:2) you make extensive use of strawman arguments, getting hyperspecific when it suits you (I'm sure we'll be seeing a link to online definitions of "drastic" and "sudden" any moment). In reality, I'm closer to agreement than you think. GSPODS thinks there is a long list of people who left Washington and suddenly excelled (which is a claim I've heard before in one form or another). Obviously I disagree if the best I could come up with was one player who is back with the team anyway!

"sudden" and "drastic" is "hyperspecific?" Sorry, but this makes no sense. In fact the dramaticism was in the speaker of those terms, not in holding the speaker accountable for the dramatic terms used.

GSPODS wrote:

cvillehog wrote:
You asked for an example of someone who drastically improved when they left. I said the closest I could get off the top of my head was Thrash, but that I thought he was good when he was here. You said I was wrong, so I decided to compare the stats, and found that he had 3 TDs in four years in Washington, and then 8 in his first year in Philly. How that would differ from the expected career trajectory of a player like Thrash, I don't know. But that's probably not very relevant here anyway. There are underlying problems in the discussion you and I are having, as far as I can tell: 1) you think I'm taking GSPODS' side, and therefore agree 100% with him and 0% with you, and 2) you make extensive use of strawman arguments, getting hyperspecific when it suits you (I'm sure we'll be seeing a link to online definitions of "drastic" and "sudden" any moment). In reality, I'm closer to agreement than you think. GSPODS thinks there is a long list of people who left Washington and suddenly excelled (which is a claim I've heard before in one form or another). Obviously I disagree if the best I could come up with was one player who is back with the team anyway!

What I think is that there is a long list of players the Redskins should have kept instead of releasing, trading, and signing free agents to replace them. Beating to death two words that only I used doesn't serve any useful purpose in this discussion. Many other members have mentioned some good names of players the front office should have known had talent and worked harder to keep on the roster. That was the underlying point, which did not escape most of the members who have posted names. The obvious name is Frank Wycheck. Pro Bowler. James Thrash is an example of how the Redskins misuse the talent they have, in addition to how they struggle to identify team value and talent, which is yet another discussion thread.

Blah, blah, blah. Lots of excuses here. Let's boil this down. So what is the exact list you're relying on (feel free to use the help you've gotten) of Redskins players who "suddenly" and "drastically" improved when they left our sorry land (and team you "claim" to support constant Basher of all that is Redskins) that supports your point that we suck?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

cvillehog wrote:There are two underlying problems in the discussion you and I are having, as far as I can tell: 1) you think I'm taking GSPODS' side, and therefore agree 100% with him and 0% with you

I'd say you put yourself in that position, but I accept that isn't what you meant

I put myself in that position by saying that Thrash was who came to mind, but didn't exactly fit the criteria? O....K....

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

cvillehog wrote:2) you make extensive use of strawman arguments, getting hyperspecific when it suits you (I'm sure we'll be seeing a link to online definitions of "drastic" and "sudden" any moment). In reality, I'm closer to agreement than you think. GSPODS thinks there is a long list of people who left Washington and suddenly excelled (which is a claim I've heard before in one form or another). Obviously I disagree if the best I could come up with was one player who is back with the team anyway!

"sudden" and "drastic" is "hyperspecific?" Sorry, but this makes no sense. In fact the dramaticism was in the speaker of those terms, not in holding the speaker accountable for the dramatic terms used.

You are locking in on two words and refusing to have a reasonable discussion. What would you call that? You are offended by GSPODS hyperbole. I get it. But I don't see where I used any such exaggerations. However, since you are treating me as a proxy for arguing with GSPODS, you don't care about that. You are responding to my posts by arguing against things that GSPODS said. That makes no sense at all. You are in the mood to argue, and that's fine, but you are arguing with someone that doesn't even disagree with you! And, long after GSPODS backed off from his exaggeration to say that what he "meant" was that the front office hasn't been great at evaluating homegrown talent, you ignored that and, instead of taking that as a win, continued to berate anyone who happened by the conversation. So, this is my last word here, because I don't care enough about it to continue.

cvillehog wrote:You are locking in on two words and refusing to have a reasonable discussion. What would you call that? You are offended by GSPODS hyperbole. I get it. But I don't see where I used any such exaggerations. However, since you are treating me as a proxy for arguing with GSPODS, you don't care about that. You are responding to my posts by arguing against things that GSPODS said. That makes no sense at all. You are in the mood to argue, and that's fine, but you are arguing with someone that doesn't even disagree with you! And, long after GSPODS backed off from his exaggeration to say that what he "meant" was that the front office hasn't been great at evaluating homegrown talent, you ignored that and, instead of taking that as a win, continued to berate anyone who happened by the conversation. So, this is my last word here, because I don't care enough about it to continue.

OK, let's let it go. If you look at how you joined the conversation I would think you would understand why I took it that you were taking PODS position, at least to a degree. But you've made clear you're not, so let's not argue about nothing. We're good.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

cvillehog wrote:You are locking in on two words and refusing to have a reasonable discussion. What would you call that? You are offended by GSPODS hyperbole. I get it. But I don't see where I used any such exaggerations. However, since you are treating me as a proxy for arguing with GSPODS, you don't care about that. You are responding to my posts by arguing against things that GSPODS said. That makes no sense at all. You are in the mood to argue, and that's fine, but you are arguing with someone that doesn't even disagree with you! And, long after GSPODS backed off from his exaggeration to say that what he "meant" was that the front office hasn't been great at evaluating homegrown talent, you ignored that and, instead of taking that as a win, continued to berate anyone who happened by the conversation. So, this is my last word here, because I don't care enough about it to continue.

OK, let's let it go. If you look at how you joined the conversation I would think you would understand why I took it that you were taking PODS position, at least to a degree. But you've made clear you're not, so let's not argue about nothing. We're good.

Word.