2-14 = Andrew Luck Our Future QB

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 8:56 pm

RedskinsRule56 wrote:I take back the 5-8 wins-- I will stay with 4-6 wins max. Regardless even if we did miraculously win 8 games that does nothing to help the future of this franchise. It will only hurt us as we will lose on out Andrew Luck.

This is still pretty absurd. You originally called it a 2-win season (with some bragging about how accurate you allegedly were last season); then you've said we might win 6 max. That's a swing of 5 games, dude. Again, imagine if I said "I've got this season pegged, and we are going to win 10 games. But, we might not do quite as well and only end up with 6 wins." :lol:

Do you not see how big that swing is?

RedskinsRule56 · Post by **RedskinsRule56** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 8:59 pm

I said 2 wins because that is what I want. I Want us to win 2 games. Given how easy on paper our schedule is we might luck into some wins over crappy teams that might boost our win total. Will beating a team like Carolina with a rookie QB and beating Buffalo really mean anything? The answer is no. When 2 crappy teams play each other it's a toss up as to who will win.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:05 pm

RedskinsRule56 wrote:I said 2 wins because that is what I want.

Did you? Because when someone questioned your 2-win projection, you said "I called under 7 wins last year and this year I am projecting 2," i.e., "and you should believe me because this is how accurate I am."

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:07 pm

absinthe1023 wrote:Regardless of whether or not you think the OP has a point, criticizing his fanhood based solely on an opinion he has expressed is ludicrous and actually falls under the aegis of a personal attack.

Let me ask you a question I thought when I first saw this post: does it bother you just as much when anyone who disagrees with the most negative view put forward is instantly labeled a "homer," "blind," and dismissed as being "unrealistic"?

RedskinsRule56 · Post by **RedskinsRule56** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:10 pm

I will stay with my 2 wins. I did project under 7 wins last year. If we win 4 games because we beat crappy teams like SF, Carolina, Seattle and Buffalo Irn-Bru I think you should go celebrate. What a joke.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:13 pm

RedskinsRule56 wrote:I will stay with my 2 wins. I did project under 7 wins last year. If we win 4 games because we beat crappy teams like SF, Carolina, Seattle and Buffalo Irn-Bru I think you should go celebrate. What a joke.

Umm, didn't I just say that anything under 8 will be a disappointment to me? 4 certainly would be.

RedskinsRule56 · Post by **RedskinsRule56** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:15 pm

Be prepared to be disappointed then.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:18 pm

Personally, I think we'll be meeting again around week 5.

RedskinsRule56 · Post by **RedskinsRule56** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:23 pm

I will be on here every week.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Sun Aug 28, 2011 9:24 am

RedskinsRule56 wrote: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

You're not a Redskin fan, you're a Luck fan. You realize you can just follow whoever drafts him...

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Sun Aug 28, 2011 6:58 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:Personally, I think we'll be meeting again around week 5.

Yeah, what will he say when we have 2 wins prior to wk 3? And 4 before our 7th game?

I'm going to laugh my a$$ off if Luck is a total bust and think how greatful I'm that RR isn't our coach or GM!

RedskinsRule56 · Post by **RedskinsRule56** » Sun Aug 28, 2011 7:00 pm

SkinsFan33 what if Luck is a beast and we end up Landry Jones or Matt Barkley and they end up being a bust for us? Then what will you say?

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sun Aug 28, 2011 7:03 pm

RedskinsRule56 wrote:SkinsFan33 what if Luck is a beast and we end up Landry Jones or Matt Barkley and they end up being a bust for us? Then what will you say?

What if Jones and Barkley are beast and Luck sucks... What will you say then?

RedskinsRule56 · Post by **RedskinsRule56** » Sun Aug 28, 2011 7:06 pm

1niksder then I will admit I was wrong about Luck.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sun Aug 28, 2011 7:13 pm

RedskinsRule56 wrote:1niksder then I will admit I was wrong about Luck.

It'll be too little too late after you've rooted for "your team" to throw the season to get him won't it?

The fact is none of us know what
they'll do down the road, which is why they should play to win week in and week out

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Aug 29, 2011 9:49 am

jeremyroyce wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
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.

Because Beck was let go by Bill Parcells, and Ozzie Newsome. Say whatever you want about the record of the Dolphins, regardless of the record when you get a chance to start you have to seize the opportunity and the fact that Beck did not make any type of impression speaks volumes. Even know that a team can have a poor record a good evaluator can say wow now that guy is pretty damn good. And one more thing about Beck and Grossman they have been too inconsistent and I'm not comfortable with either one of them starting. To get to Brett Favre, it isn't ridiculous, because they never gave him a chance and had they given him a chance I believe they never would have been set back as long as they were. Say, what you want but the Falcons made a mistake in not giving him a chance and traded away a hall of fame QB. Since Favre was traded in 1992 They went through 16 different starting QB'S until Matt Ryan started in 2008. Chris Miller, Wade Wilson, Billy Joe Tolliver, Bobby Hebert, Jeff George, Chris Chandler, Tony Graziani, Steve Deberg, Danny Kanell, Doug Johnson, Michael Vick, Kurt Kittner, Matt Schaub, Joey Harrington, Chris Redman, Byron Leftwich. You don't think that the Falcons could have used Brett Favre? Now that is just ridiculous.

I live in Atlanta, so I'm very familiar with the Falcons woes over the years. Of course they could have used Favre. So could have the Patriots used Tom Brady before they realized what they had. The point is, not every player shows his true talent right away. John Beck may have just recently gotten "it," or he might have had it all along, but his supporting cast could have kept it undiscovered, even by your idol Bill Parcels. Maybe his skills weren't a match for those systems. All I know is he looks like a top QB in this system, right now. We'll still have to wait for the real games to see, but I'm liking what I see, even if Parcells and Newsome didn't.

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:02 am

RedskinsRule56 wrote:SkinsFan33 what if Luck is a beast and we end up Landry Jones or Matt Barkley and they end up being a bust for us? Then what will you say?

Exactly. What if?

As talented as most Nfl front offices are they are lucky if they hit on 50% of their picks. When Leaf and Manning came out there were many that thought Leaf would end up being the better pro QB and some that thought Manning would just be an average QB.

You never truly know how good a player will be when you draft him. That is why it is insane to root for your team to lose enough to get the top pick. You don't know if Luck will even end up being a good NFL QB, or a bad, or the best ever, but what you do know is he wouldn't be coached by MS.

So what you do is you try to get the team better. You look at all of your options to make the team better and that certainly doesn't include tanking the season.

I would agree with you about tanking the season if it was a 100% certainty that Luck would end up being as good as Peyton AND if I agreed with your assessment of this team being a 2 to 4 win team. However, since there is less than a 50% chance Luck wil end up being a elite QB and since this team will end up with more than twice as many wins as you think they will, I just can't endorse your "plan".

Plus it is just nuts!

yupchagee · Post by **yupchagee** » Mon Aug 29, 2011 12:00 pm

Manning & Favre are 2 of thye all time great QB's. in 13 yrs, Manning has 1 ring. in 20 yrs Favre has none.

Great QB's don't guarantee rings, so, even if we tank:
1) There is no guarantee we will get Luck.
2) If we get him, there is no guarantee he will be a great QB.
3) Even if we get him & he turns out to be a great QB, there is no guarantee that he will bring us a SB win.

RedskinsRule56 · Post by **RedskinsRule56** » Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:40 pm

Excuse me Yupchagee???? Brett Favre has won a Super Bowl. 1996 Packers over Patriots. Get your facts straight.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:54 pm

RedskinsRule56 wrote:Excuse me Yupchagee???? Brett Favre has won a Super Bowl. 1996 Packers over Patriots. Get your facts straight.

Yeah, he missed that one, but his point is still valid. 2 rings between the two, out of 4 opportunities in 24 seasons. Your guarantees aside, getting Luck does not ensure future success.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Mon Aug 29, 2011 2:03 pm

Deadskins wrote:
RedskinsRule56 wrote:Excuse me Yupchagee???? Brett Favre has won a Super Bowl. 1996 Packers over Patriots. Get your facts straight.

Yeah, he missed that one, but his point is still valid. 2 rings between the two, out of 4 opportunities in 24 seasons. Your guarantees aside, getting Luck does not ensure future success.

To destroy the team to the point of 1-15 would guarantee years of losing though. If we are going to spend more time sucking let's earn it by sucking on our own merits and not do it on purpose.

RedskinsRule56 · Post by **RedskinsRule56** » Mon Aug 29, 2011 2:08 pm

Dude we have a terrible team, we do not need to tank. Why are posters not understanding this. Why are posters brainwashed into buying into John Wreck and Rex Grossman at QB?

Smithian · Post by **Smithian** » Mon Aug 29, 2011 2:11 pm

I remember when we were much happier forum 2004-2007. For some reason the Zorn years cut us deep.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Mon Aug 29, 2011 2:38 pm

RedskinsRule56 wrote:Dude we have a terrible team, we do not need to tank. Why are posters not understanding this. Why are posters brainwashed into buying into John Wreck and Rex Grossman at QB?

Why are you unwilling to see to see other poster's POV. You have no bases for what you're posting other than your hope and a hunch, you get called on it a cry you're being attacked. It's your plan that is being attacked. Defend it, and stop crying.

You sound like a troll calling posters that provide solid reasoning as to why they feel different about the team brainwashed and saying posters don't understand because they have a difference in opinion than you about the worth of a QB, the route to go in acquiring that QB, or who that QB should be.

We all understand your point on view and we all think the Skins are better than what you think they are. Some agree with your POV most don't.

You started a thread with nothing but negativity and and called anyone that didn't agree a Blind Loyalist, the the true mark of a troll.

You called every Redskins fan on this board out in another thread, that too say troll.

If it talks like a troll and post like a troll, you must be a troll.

Maybe you should act like you acted back when we joined this site in 2004

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Mon Aug 29, 2011 2:48 pm

This thread has gone in every possible direction.. I nominate this thing gets locked off now.

A thread in smack in direct relation to this thread has been made.. let's continue it there.

:!: