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

Kilmer72 wrote:I know right? It was a gamble and it can still pay off. I would have done the same thing.

It is sort of funny that some people on this board were with the move and now say how stupid it was. I say ride things out as long as the coach says so.

I don't think I would have made the trade and said so at the time. But I also said I understood it. If you can really draft your franchise QB for three first round picks, its 100% worth it IMO.

riggofan wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:I kind of hope that Gruden lets Colt & Kirk play and tells Robert, Kirk and Colt to get ready for a QB competition

next season, my money's on Robert - he was not at all sharp but this kid will find a way to get better

IMO Robert's still the starting QB here simply because Sean & Jay think he's the better option of the 3

I think you'd better buckle up, man. The wheels are coming off this wagon quickly.

you may be right but when I look at who we have at QB, I prefer RG3 ...

SkinsJock wrote: you may be right but when I look at who we have at QB, I prefer RG3 ...

I'm not sure the WRs on the team agree with that. Those guys were not happy after Sunday's game.

riggofan wrote:

SkinsJock wrote: you may be right but when I look at who we have at QB, I prefer RG3 ...

I'm not sure the WRs on the team agree with that. Those guys were not happy after Sunday's game.

You are probably right there Riggofan. I didn't hear anything about it yet. I would assume that DJax is still in Roberts corner. I still think we as a team are doing the right thing. Frustrations are running wild. I would rather have no doubt than to give up that many picks and not see this year through. It isn't like we could win out and go anywhere after that. Too many holes.

PAPDOG67 wrote:Why wouldn't we go back to that offense then?? Why are we trying to fit a square peg into a round hole? It worked so well year 1 and it sontinues to work to some extent up in Seattle.

This is what I don't understand. RGIII has proven he is a capable read/option QB and not so much a pocket QB. SJ may be correct in saying Sean and Jay want to make him a pocket QB but sometimes you have to take what you have and make it work. Run the offense best suited for the QB and in the case of RGIII, focus on teaching him how to protect himself.

SKINS#1 wrote:

PAPDOG67 wrote:Why wouldn't we go back to that offense then?? Why are we trying to fit a square peg into a round hole? It worked so well year 1 and it sontinues to work to some extent up in Seattle.

This is what I don't understand. RGIII has proven he is a capable read/option QB and not so much a pocket QB. SJ may be correct in saying Sean and Jay want to make him a pocket QB but sometimes you have to take what you have and make it work. Run the offense best suited for the QB and in the case of RGIII, focus on teaching him how to protect himself.

From what I hear Robert wants to be that guy. He doesn't want to be a running QB. All this is part his fault also. I agree though if he wanted to be the dual threat QB he would be more successful even after all the injuries. This isn't the case as I hear it.

apparently Snyder thinks we would be 6-5 if Gruden had started Colt - maybe Jay is getting some heat from the owner

going to be an interesting week - everyone knows Robert is done - Gruden will make the call on Thursday

Kilmer72 wrote:

riggofan wrote:

SkinsJock wrote: you may be right but when I look at who we have at QB, I prefer RG3 ...

I'm not sure the WRs on the team agree with that. Those guys were not happy after Sunday's game.

You are probably right there Riggofan. I didn't hear anything about it yet. I would assume that DJax is still in Roberts corner. I still think we as a team are doing the right thing. Frustrations are running wild. I would rather have no doubt than to give up that many picks and not see this year through. It isn't like we could win out and go anywhere after that. Too many holes.

From what I was hearing yesterday, he may have even lost Jackson. I heard a good quote about the players yesterday concerning Robert. Something along the lines of: "Those guys care about two things: winning games and getting paid". What's going on with RGIII right now isn't helping them achieve that.

Garcon on curing the offensive woes: "What's it going to take? Throw to the receivers. There were a lot of opportunities. Didn't take them."

SkinsJock wrote:I kind of hope that Gruden lets Colt & Kirk play and tells Robert, Kirk and Colt to get ready for a QB competition

next season, my money's on Robert - he was not at all sharp but this kid will find a way to get better

IMO Robert's still the starting QB here simply because Sean & Jay think he's the better option of the 3

You are hopeless...when are you going to admit the obvious?

I always thought 4 top picks for 1 guy is stupid and no I wouldn't have spend 4 picks on Luck either.

Gruden wouldn't have even played Griffin a down at if he had been free to chose in my opinion. It is obvious to all but the most faithful that Griffin doesn't understand the field and therefore isn't able to process fast enough to run Gruden's offense. What Gruden plainly stated the other day is Griffin doesn't even understand how to run the dummied down version either.

I don't know when the Robert Griffin farce is going close down but Skins tickets this week are available for as little as $7.00 on Stubhub which ought to get Snyder's attention. If tickets are dirt cheap there is little reason to renew. Snyder is an awful owner from a fan's point of view but he is a shrewd businessman and marketeer so $7.00 are going to get his attention because next years season ticket sales are going to be impacted.

OldSchool wrote:Gruden wouldn't have even played Griffin a down at if he had been free to chose in my opinion.

Time to take off whatever filters you're using and come to grips with reality, then. This is off the wall.

OldSchool wrote:I always thought 4 top picks for 1 guy is stupid and no I wouldn't have spend 4 picks on Luck either.

Well it was three picks. And if you wouldn't trade three first rounders for a guy who is going to be a legit franchise QB for the next decade you're insane.

SkinsJock wrote:apparently Snyder thinks we would be 6-5 if Gruden had started Colt - maybe Jay is getting some heat from the owner

going to be an interesting week - everyone knows Robert is done - Gruden will make the call on Thursday

THANK YOU - as called on Monday by one of Griffins' ardent supporters ...

I had forgotten that this decision would most likely be made today not tomorrow ...

I have no problem with Gruden making the decision but I do not think this is very good for our franchise ...

I'm sure there will be plenty of time to analyze ...

riggofan wrote:

OldSchool wrote:Well it was three picks. And if you wouldn't trade three first rounders for a guy who is going to be a legit franchise QB for the next decade you're insane.

Honestly, I disagree with this. Anything is possible. Luck could've suffered some catastrophic injury during his rookie year that screwed up his career. I think giving up too much for one single player is a mistake.

riggofan wrote:

OldSchool wrote:I always thought 4 top picks for 1 guy is stupid and no I wouldn't have spend 4 picks on Luck either.

Well it was three picks. And if you wouldn't trade three first rounders for a guy who is going to be a legit franchise QB for the next decade you're insane.

It was four picks — don't forget about the second rounder.

I remember the days when people were trying to say it was "four first-rounders" or "five high picks," but thankfully people did finally catch on that the 1st we swapped in 2012 doesn't count twice.

Irn-Bru wrote:

riggofan wrote:

OldSchool wrote:I always thought 4 top picks for 1 guy is stupid and no I wouldn't have spend 4 picks on Luck either.

Well it was three picks. And if you wouldn't trade three first rounders for a guy who is going to be a legit franchise QB for the next decade you're insane.

It was four picks — don't forget about the second rounder.

I remember the days when people were trying to say it was "four first-rounders" or "five high picks," but thankfully people did finally catch on that the 1st we swapped in 2012 doesn't count twice.

Yeah you're right about the second rounder of course. I was making that distinction (badly) about the three firsts v. four firsts.

Stormin, I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion about how much risk they would be willing to take to get a franchise QB like Luck, Ben Roethlisberger, etc; Its a huge risk if you fail no doubt but that's not really the question. If you gave me the option today: you can have Andrew Luck or you can have those four picks back, I know which one I would take.

riggofan wrote:Stormin, I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion about how much risk they would be willing to take to get a franchise QB like Luck, Ben Roethlisberger, etc; Its a huge risk if you fail no doubt but that's not really the question. If you gave me the option today: you can have Andrew Luck or you can have those four picks back, I know which one I would take.

I just don't want our franchise to ever do anything like this ever again. Yes, knowing what we know now, I would have given up 4 for Luck. But I hope the FO has learned their lesson with Jason Camp...I mean RGIII.

If Griffin is not able to be the QB we expected, the shame is not losing draft picks - who knows what those players might have been, they could all have been busts too - the really big shame is that we now still have to find a QB

I mean - does anyone really think we're going to be able to do much with McCoy or Cousins - they're obviously just good back-up QBs
most here felt that with the weapons and with RG3, we could have a decent chance at building something here - yes we'd have to find some O line help, a safety/CB and a pass rusher - but we'd be OK - without RG3 we're back to square 1 - we're looking for a QB and when we get 1, it's going to take a while to get him up to speed

I don't think that Gruden wants to wait that long and he knows that he can get 'there' quicker with RG3

we shall see - I'm not convinced that RG3 is 'done' in DC - in Gruden's mind or in his own

SkinsJock wrote:although - we're not going to be competitive at all for a while without RG3 so we might as well just take our time and start all over again

hah. You are KILLING IT today!

btw - for those that think the Redskins are going to cut RG3 - get real

if we cut him before June 1, it will cost us well over 10 million = NOT happening

SkinsJock wrote:If Griffin is not able to be the QB we expected, the shame is not losing draft picks - who knows what those players might have been, they could all have been busts too - the really big shame is that we now still have to find a QB

I mean - does anyone really think we're going to be able to do much with McCoy or Cousins - they're obviously just good back-up QBs
most here felt that with the weapons and with RG3, we could have a decent chance at building something here - yes we'd have to find some O line help, a safety/CB and a pass rusher - but we'd be OK - without RG3 we're back to square 1 - we're looking for a QB and when we get 1, it's going to take a while to get him up to speed

I don't think that Gruden wants to wait that long and he knows that he can get 'there' quicker with RG3

we shall see - I'm not convinced that RG3 is 'done' in DC - in Gruden's mind or in his own

I don't know what makes you think RG3 is a better QB than McCoy or Cousins...he certainly hasn't shown it since 2012...in fact, his play has been worse than the other two over the last two seasons...

We'll try to trade him in the off season.

SkinsJock wrote:btw - for those that think the Redskins are going to cut RG3 - get real

if we cut him before June 1, it will cost us well over 10 million = NOT happening

Where in the world are you getting that number? Its $6m if we cut him.

If Washington were to cut Griffin, they would have to absorb a salary cap hit of $6.71 million for 2015.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/re ... story.html

Its half that if we trade him.

Irn-Bru wrote:

riggofan wrote:

OldSchool wrote:I always thought 4 top picks for 1 guy is stupid and no I wouldn't have spend 4 picks on Luck either.

Well it was three picks. And if you wouldn't trade three first rounders for a guy who is going to be a legit franchise QB for the next decade you're insane.

It was four picks — don't forget about the second rounder.

I remember the days when people were trying to say it was "four first-rounders" or "five high picks," but thankfully people did finally catch on that the 1st we swapped in 2012 doesn't count twice.

And for that reason it was two first rounders and a second, making three high draft picks, not four.