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

StorminMormon86 wrote:-Hankerson played in one full game. I couldn't even tell you what he did in that game.

This, among other reasons is why I won't attempt to talk football with you. U really can't evaluate the team objectively. Hankerson only set a Redskin record during that game and improved vastly over his preseason performances. U don't want to analyze, or truly look ahead, U want to be negative. U can do that, have fun.

I'm hoping that we can add both talent and depth to the offense

I have no trouble with keeping Kyle
He just needs to game plan to suit the players we have and NOT what he thinks will 'work' which he has done to date
I used to think that Mike would do ANYTHING to be successful but I don't think that's true regarding his son

If we can make the additions we need to the offense and add quality depth, we should be competitive

WE ARE NOT FAR OFF being competitive in the NFC EAST

the key is that the offense needs to get the players we need and we need Kyle to use them better than he has

Chris Luva Luva wrote:This, among other reasons is why I won't attempt to talk football with you. U really can't evaluate the team objectively. Hankerson only set a Redskin record during that game and improved vastly over his preseason performances. U don't want to analyze, or truly look ahead, U want to be negative. U can do that, have fun.

I do want to look ahead, and I'm not being negative. I'm being honest. How many TDs did Hankerson catch this year? 0. How many yards was he averaging per game? 12.5. How many games did he see action in? 4. How many total receptions did he have all year? 13. These are all facts. And if you can honestly say you are impressed with a receiver who has only had 13 receptions, then you're the one not being objective. I'm not saying he sucks or is a bust and I want him to improve and be great. You take rookies like Helu and Kerrigan and yes you can see that these guys have the potential to become elite players and I'm sooooo excited that we may have a potential long term answer at RB. But get serious about Hankerson. The bottom line is (because of his injury) he did not show me anything to get excited over this year.

BTW, what record did Hankerson break?

The positives that I've seen this year are as follows:

1. Roy Helu - Is definitely a starting caliber running back in the NFL. He has to improve in pass protection, and could get a bit stronger in general. But, his CHARACTER encourages me that he will do the right things this offseason and only get better.

2. Leonard Hankerson - After being plagued by drops, he settled down a bit when given the chance to start. He seems like a humble kid who will put in the work to become a good possession receiver.


3. Will Montgomery - He is a solid Center, no Nick Mangold, but no Casey Rabach either.

4. Darrel Young - Good physical Fullback who won't make you miss Sellers.

5. Fred 'Billy Bong Thornton" Davis - The guy could be a freak. I'm not giving up on him yet.

Defense

1. Ryan Kerrigan - I love this kid. Plays like a veteran, hard worker, doesn't make many errors, relentless and high character. He will get better and I expect him to be a Pro Bowler for years to come.

2. Perry Riley - He's a protoypical ILB in a 3-4. Kind of wild, but makes more good plays than bad. Reminds me of Larry Foote.

3. Adam Carriker - He's quietly put together a strong season. Definitely took a step forward in Year 2 of the 3-4.

4. Stephen Bowen - Solid player who can get upfield and collapse the pocket.

5. Barry Cofield - Another high motor guy. One of the more athletic Nose Tackles in the league. Should get better in Year 2 of 3-4.

6. Return of Jarvis Jenkins - He showed promise in preseason and should add depth to a D Line that is already pretty good.

7. London Fletcher - The guy just keeps going and going. No sign of him falling off next year.

Brian Orakpo is talented but needs to add more moves to his repetoire. He's gotta learn how to beat getting held. He's gonna be held until he learns how to avoid it.

Laron Landry has been injured almost all year. But, when healthy, he's one of the better SS in the league.

We still need a Quarterback, more interior Offensive Lineman, a true #1 Wide Receiver, Cornerbacks.

Between the draft and Free Agency, we should be able to address some of these needs and be a better team next year.

StorminMormon86 wrote:But get serious about Hankerson.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:improved vastly over his preseason performances.

So that statement, in your eyes is unrealistic? Please dude. You're posting stats but admitted earlier that you can't remember ANYTHING he did in that game. So you're not watching his improved route running, his blocking, his solid catches, snatching the ball out of the air.... None of it. So, you haven't even educated yourself to his improvement, thus you CANNOT accurately speak on it. So if you think that looking up some stats on ESPN tells the whole story, then that further proves my earlier sentiment about you, that you don't really want to discuss football. You've admitted that you didn't watch him, so that makes anything you have to say about his on-the-field-play invalid.

SkinsJock wrote:He just needs to game plan to suit the players we have and NOT what he thinks will 'work' which he has done to date

Yes, if only Mike and Kyle trolled the internet more often, they might know that they have to come up with a game plan that suits their players. Its amazing how stupid they are.

riggofan wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:He just needs to game plan to suit the players we have and NOT what he thinks will 'work' which he has done to date

Yes, if only Mike and Kyle trolled the internet more often, they might know that they have to come up with a game plan that suits their players. Its amazing how stupid they are.

LMAO!!! I needed that laugh.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:So that statement, in your eyes is unrealistic?

Not unrealistic. It's irrelevant. He's a rookie...who's injured. What else is there to say? You can't evaluate anything other than his improvement from preaseason play? And then you flame me when I say what's he's done (in his limited playing time) is not memorable?

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Please dude. You're posting stats but admitted earlier that you can't remember ANYTHING he did in that game. So you're not watching his improved route running, his blocking, his solid catches, snatching the ball out of the air.... None of it.

I said I didn't remember his performance (because it didn't stand out) so I went back and looked up his stats. The guy played in four games this year. You honestly noted all of these "improvements" after 13 receptions?

Chris Luva Luva wrote:So, you haven't even educated yourself to his improvement, thus you CANNOT accurately speak on it. So if you think that looking up some stats on ESPN tells the whole story, then that further proves my earlier sentiment about you, that you don't really want to discuss football. You've admitted that you didn't watch him, so that makes anything you have to say about his on-the-field-play invalid.

You've already "educated" me on his improvement from preaseason. And that means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things (because he's injured). I've made it clear that he has not shown me anything this year (thanks to his injury and limited playing time) that would warrant the attention he's getting. I did watch him and it was a forgettable performance. I'm all about discussing football, but I think it's time to take the rose tinted glasses off for a bit.

I'm still curious as to what record he broke though.

StorminMormon86 wrote:The guy played in four games this year. You honestly noted all of these "improvements" after 13 receptions?

Right, cus he only played 13 plays all year. He doesn't practice. He doesn't play with the practice squad. He wasn't staying after to work on his craft. Routes only matter when you catch the ball apparently. Blocking doesn't matter, apparently.

You've just further clarified that you didn't pay attention to him. That's fine. U didn't, but dont try minimize his improvement cus u weren't watching. If you can't see the improvement, that's on you. Because it's apparent to me and clearly other posters who are mentioning him.

StorminMormon86 wrote:I'm still curious as to what record he broke though.

It was mentioned during the game, gotta find it.

StorminMormon86 wrote:Not unrealistic. It's irrelevant. He's a rookie...who's injured.

It's irrelevant that a rookie WR improved for us and looked good? It is also irrelevant because he's not injured. That's called being short-sighted.

StorminMormon86 wrote:What else is there to say? You can't evaluate anything other than his improvement from preaseason play?

It's called discussing football. And analyzing players. It's different than constantly whining.

StorminMormon86 wrote: And then you flame me when I say what's he's done (in his limited playing time) is not memorable?

Yes.

StorminMormon86 wrote:You've already "educated" me on his improvement from preaseason. And that means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things (because he's injured).[/quoted]
Yes, the grand scheme doesn't matter because he's injured right now. LMAO That makes absolutely ZERO sense. U contradicted yourself.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Right, cus he only played 13 plays all year. He doesn't practice. He doesn't play with the practice squad. He wasn't staying after to work on his craft. Routes only matter when you catch the ball apparently. Blocking doesn't matter, apparently.

You've just further clarified that you didn't pay attention to him. That's fine. U didn't, but dont try minimize his improvement cus u weren't watching. If you can't see the improvement, that's on you. Because it's apparent to me and clearly other posters who are mentioning him

He's played in four games! Let's let him play a full season before we can start discussing his value and play.

Back to the topic at hand, I used to think Kyle Shanahan was unfairly targeted by fans/media. But week after week the critics (including the announcers during our games) become more vocal about him flat out abandoning the run. You cannot let Rex Grossman pass 46 times...EVER. Even after our pass game was not working, there were three straight drives where we went pass, pass, pass, punt. And there were ZERO adjustments made. IIRC, there were ZERO adjustments made in the Buffalo game. And that falls squarely on Kyle Shanahan's shoulders. I don't advocate his firing just yet, but he definitely deserves some blame for our lack of offensive production.

StorminMormon86 wrote:He's played in four games!

Irrelevant. Myself and many others here witnessed progress. Nobody called him a future probowler. What we saw was solid contribution, which is what this team can use. And how his contributions can aide this offense and potentially stop this "fire personx" nonsense, is very much on topic.

The Hogster wrote:The positives that I've seen this year are as follows:

1. Roy Helu - Is definitely a starting caliber running back in the NFL. He has to improve in pass protection, and could get a bit stronger in general. But, his CHARACTER encourages me that he will do the right things this offseason and only get better.

2. Leonard Hankerson - After being plagued by drops, he settled down a bit when given the chance to start. He seems like a humble kid who will put in the work to become a good possession receiver.


3. Will Montgomery - He is a solid Center, no Nick Mangold, but no Casey Rabach either.

4. Darrel Young - Good physical Fullback who won't make you miss Sellers.

5. Fred 'Billy Bong Thornton" Davis - The guy could be a freak. I'm not giving up on him yet.

Defense

1. Ryan Kerrigan - I love this kid. Plays like a veteran, hard worker, doesn't make many errors, relentless and high character. He will get better and I expect him to be a Pro Bowler for years to come.

2. Perry Riley - He's a protoypical ILB in a 3-4. Kind of wild, but makes more good plays than bad. Reminds me of Larry Foote.

3. Adam Carriker - He's quietly put together a strong season. Definitely took a step forward in Year 2 of the 3-4.

4. Stephen Bowen - Solid player who can get upfield and collapse the pocket.

5. Barry Cofield - Another high motor guy. One of the more athletic Nose Tackles in the league. Should get better in Year 2 of 3-4.

6. Return of Jarvis Jenkins - He showed promise in preseason and should add depth to a D Line that is already pretty good.

7. London Fletcher - The guy just keeps going and going. No sign of him falling off next year.

Brian Orakpo is talented but needs to add more moves to his repetoire. He's gotta learn how to beat getting held. He's gonna be held until he learns how to avoid it.

Laron Landry has been injured almost all year. But, when healthy, he's one of the better SS in the league.

We still need a Quarterback, more interior Offensive Lineman, a true #1 Wide Receiver, Cornerbacks.

Between the draft and Free Agency, we should be able to address some of these needs and be a better team next year.

Great post. I definitely agree on all accounts. Especially about Hankerson. LMAO

I think Hank broke a record for most yards in a single game rookie year by a WR.

That alone is enough for this fan to be stoked about his future

riggofan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:The point was, SF had the same record as us last year, and the most significant change was the coaching staff, which directly challenges your claim that the coaches get too much credit for wins and losses.

Yeah but I never claimed that COACHES get too much credit for wins and losses. I said COORDINATORS. What I'm talking about specifically is play calling. I just think at that point its more about players executing. "The OC didn't call the right play" is just B.S. second guessing and kind of nitpicking in my opinion.

I'd completely agree with you about a change at head coach like in SF.

You're going to have to define for me the differences between "Coordinators" and "Coaches", because I've been operating under the impression that these are the same things.

So you don't think it matters what plays are called? You don't think that coordinators (Coaches) don't need to employ a strategy in their play selection? I think that is the prime responsibility of the OC, and DC .. and the good ones figure out how to defeat their opponents strategies, while the not so good ones don't break the code. As for execution of plays ... that's the position coache's responsibility to get his position players utilizing the proper techniques to be successful.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Yall talk like he's choosing to start Grossman while Tom Brady is on the bench. Did yall watch when Beck was in there, they score NO POINTS!! LMAO

It's getting harder and harder to take some of these posts seriously.

This COMPLETELY (and probably deliberately) mistates the issue we are voicing.
We are perfectly aware that is the least bad quarterback on the roster.
The PROBLEM we have is NOT that Tom Brady is not on the bench. The PROBLEM is that Kyle Shanahan insists on giving away an effective option (a running game that was moving the ball in big chunks) and putting the ball UNECESSARILY into the hands of Rex. I believe that cost us this game. I believe that it has cost us at least 2 other games this year.

I'm certain that this team was never more than a 500 team. There are still too many holes...

But it doesn't help that the OC throws games away by abandoning the only part of the offense that is working... working well enough to defeat another marginal team like the Jets.

Every OC has bad games. I could forgive that... but Kyle Shanahan does this REPEATEDLY. We have complained about this on at least 4 occasions this year. A clear pattern of a failed philosophy.

"I don't change"... Kyle Shanahan.

RayNAustin wrote:

riggofan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:The point was, SF had the same record as us last year, and the most significant change was the coaching staff, which directly challenges your claim that the coaches get too much credit for wins and losses.

Yeah but I never claimed that COACHES get too much credit for wins and losses. I said COORDINATORS. What I'm talking about specifically is play calling. I just think at that point its more about players executing. "The OC didn't call the right play" is just B.S. second guessing and kind of nitpicking in my opinion.

I'd completely agree with you about a change at head coach like in SF.

You're going to have to define for me the differences between "Coordinators" and "Coaches", because I've been operating under the impression that these are the same things.

So you don't think it matters what plays are called? You don't think that coordinators (Coaches) don't need to employ a strategy in their play selection? I think that is the prime responsibility of the OC, and DC .. and the good ones figure out how to defeat their opponents strategies, while the not so good ones don't break the code. As for execution of plays ... that's the position coache's responsibility to get his position players utilizing the proper techniques to be successful.

Ray, what I think he's saying (and what most believe by the way) is that a DC or OC are typically in charge of playcalling, whereas a head coaching change in San Fran was a directional change...meaning, Harbaugh brought some semblance of organization, leadership, and respect to a team that was missing it for a long time. All the while, the franchise drafted many talented players. So they HAD talent, just not a good leader. Whereas we had no talent and we now have to build. Good God, look at our drafts since 2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington ... ft_history
If you think we had any, feel free to dispute that (and I'm sure you will as you like to argue). We have not drafted much of anything before Shannahan got here. We actually had a very tired team, filled with has-beens, and overpaid players, and when we finally did draft someone in the lower rounds, we never took care of them (similar to what the Eagles are doing now by the way).

He's saying that calling out a DC or OC for playcalling is pretty trivial when you don't have very much of a supporting cast or depth to do much. You think a OC is going to be able to develop a game plan with 4 starters, and a bunch of 1st and second year players? I guess you do, but that's just not realistic...but now that these players have had some playing time, and we get our starters back next year, guess what...now we have some offensive depth.

I think the big picture here that maybe you aren't getting, is that the comparison between San Francisco and Washington is a pretty poor one.

The thing I'm laughing about now is that you were seemingly ALL over getting rid of Campbell 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 years ago, which Shannahan did as the first order of business, and now you think that was an error on his part. People can't have it both way without looking like a total bafoons can they?

chiefhog44 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:

riggofan wrote: Yeah but I never claimed that COACHES get too much credit for wins and losses. I said COORDINATORS. What I'm talking about specifically is play calling. I just think at that point its more about players executing. "The OC didn't call the right play" is just B.S. second guessing and kind of nitpicking in my opinion.

I'd completely agree with you about a change at head coach like in SF.

You're going to have to define for me the differences between "Coordinators" and "Coaches", because I've been operating under the impression that these are the same things.

So you don't think it matters what plays are called? You don't think that coordinators (Coaches) don't need to employ a strategy in their play selection? I think that is the prime responsibility of the OC, and DC .. and the good ones figure out how to defeat their opponents strategies, while the not so good ones don't break the code. As for execution of plays ... that's the position coache's responsibility to get his position players utilizing the proper techniques to be successful.

Ray, what I think he's saying (and what most believe by the way) is that a DC or OC are typically in charge of playcalling, whereas a head coaching change in San Fran was a directional change...meaning, Harbaugh brought some semblance of organization, leadership, and respect to a team that was missing it for a long time.

Chief ..I can read. And I'll tell ya, what "most believe" is often good enough reason alone not to believe it yourself.

A Head Coach by himself does not turn around a team ... a Head Coach is only as successful as the other 10-12 assistant coaches he surrounds himself with. And it is those choices that will determine whether he winds up a winner or a loser ... not his commanding presence in meetings and on the sidelines. That's why they usually insist on hiring their own assistants rather than keeping the previous staff.

chiefhog44 wrote: All the while, the franchise drafted many talented players. So they HAD talent, just not a good leader. Whereas we had no talent and we now have to build. Good God, look at our drafts since 2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington ... ft_history
If you think we had any, feel free to dispute that (and I'm sure you will as you like to argue). We have not drafted much of anything before Shannahan got here. We actually had a very tired team, filled with has-beens, and overpaid players, and when we finally did draft someone in the lower rounds, we never took care of them (similar to what the Eagles are doing now by the way).

Funny you should use the Eagles as an example, because that is precisely the example I was planning to cite to show that success or failure is often not determined by talent ... as talent is a very strange item to evaluate many times. Success often defines talent far more than talent defines success. By that I mean you can have all of the talent in the world (like the eagles) and still fall flat on your face ... and you can have lots of talent that is not evident because you have failed to utilize them or put them in the best position to succeed. By the same token, you can have what appears to be inferior talent and be extremely successful.

At the level of competition these days in the NFL, there are small margins of difference in overall talent teams have. Sure, some are recognized as MORE talented when they achieve more success. Again, success defines talent more often. And each week in the NFL, supposed inferior teams beat supposed superior ones. In SF, NOW they have talent .. last year they were just the 6-10 49ers talking about cutting the QB.

chiefhog44 wrote: He's saying that calling out a DC or OC for playcalling is pretty trivial when you don't have very much of a supporting cast or depth to do much. You think a OC is going to be able to develop a game plan with 4 starters, and a bunch of 1st and second year players? I guess you do, but that's just not realistic...but now that these players have had some playing time, and we get our starters back next year, guess what...now we have some offensive depth.

I UNDERSTAND what he's saying and he's wrong. And I'm not buying the not enough talent crap. It's a lame excuse that has been worn out around here. Accoding to many here ... only the Redskin receivers drop passes .. only the Redskin O-Line gives up sacks ... it's the same sad tune every year, and it simply isn't true. The ONLY area that this is true is in the absence of talent at QB, and these two we have now may be two of the worst we've had here in a long, long while. And the Shanahans ... take your pick are responsible for those crappy QBs being here. And I'm telling you straight up ... the Redskins have a very decent defense ... and we have both veteran and young offensive talent, with no one to be the field general. If we had Drew Brees with the ball in his hands, and Sean Peyton calling the Redskin offense .. the redskins would be 8-4 instead of 4-8 right now .. WITH all of those other untalented players who would magically become talented.

chiefhog44 wrote: I think the big picture here that maybe you aren't getting, is that the comparison between San Francisco and Washington is a pretty poor one.

The thing I'm laughing about now is that you were seemingly ALL over getting rid of Campbell 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 years ago, which Shannahan did as the first order of business, and now you think that was an error on his part. People can't have it both way without looking like a total bafoons can they?

You're missing the picture Chief .... I don't want Campbell back ... that was simply my way of illustrating the INANE situation now facing us at the QB position which is so pathetic, it makes Jason an upgrade. The entire NFL know that among the various teams, it is the Redskins that have the biggest QB problem, and Vinny Cerrato is no where in sight to place the blame on.

And lets forget what has happened for a minute in Minnesota with McNabb ... McNabb, with all of his faults was still a better option than the two knuckleheads we have now. Yeah yeah yeah ... he was lazy and wouldn't follow instructions ... the winners of wars usually write the history books to their advantage. I was here then .. and I saw what transpired. McNabb was not Kyle's guy ... he didn't choose him, and he didn't want him. He disrespected McNabb, and instead of creating a cooperative working relationship, he created controversy and an adversarial relationship. So I'm not buying the Shanahan propaganda. There are always two sides to every story ... and the other side was plain to see .... Kyle was a punk, and his ego was placed ahead of the success of the team.

Kyle got BOTH his guys .. Grossman and Beck ... and here we are .. with a disaster that Ray Chalres could see ... yet STILL some people want to make excuses for these two, and give them a pass.

chiefhog44 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:

riggofan wrote: Yeah but I never claimed that COACHES get too much credit for wins and losses. I said COORDINATORS. What I'm talking about specifically is play calling. I just think at that point its more about players executing. "The OC didn't call the right play" is just B.S. second guessing and kind of nitpicking in my opinion.

I'd completely agree with you about a change at head coach like in SF.

You're going to have to define for me the differences between "Coordinators" and "Coaches", because I've been operating under the impression that these are the same things.

So you don't think it matters what plays are called? You don't think that coordinators (Coaches) don't need to employ a strategy in their play selection? I think that is the prime responsibility of the OC, and DC .. and the good ones figure out how to defeat their opponents strategies, while the not so good ones don't break the code. As for execution of plays ... that's the position coache's responsibility to get his position players utilizing the proper techniques to be successful.

Ray, what I think he's saying (and what most believe by the way) is that a DC or OC are typically in charge of playcalling, whereas a head coaching change in San Fran was a directional change...meaning, Harbaugh brought some semblance of organization, leadership, and respect to a team that was missing it for a long time.

Chief ..I can read. And I'll tell ya, what "most believe" is often good enough reason alone not to believe it yourself.

A Head Coach by himself does not turn around a team ... a Head Coach is only as successful as the other 10-12 assistant coaches he surrounds himself with. And it is those choices that will determine whether he winds up a winner or a loser ... not his commanding presence in meetings and on the sidelines. That's why they usually insist on hiring their own assistants rather than keeping the previous staff.

chiefhog44 wrote: All the while, the franchise drafted many talented players. So they HAD talent, just not a good leader. Whereas we had no talent and we now have to build. Good God, look at our drafts since 2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington ... ft_history
If you think we had any, feel free to dispute that (and I'm sure you will as you like to argue). We have not drafted much of anything before Shannahan got here. We actually had a very tired team, filled with has-beens, and overpaid players, and when we finally did draft someone in the lower rounds, we never took care of them (similar to what the Eagles are doing now by the way).

Funny you should use the Eagles as an example, because that is precisely the example I was planning to cite to show that success or failure is often not determined by talent ... as talent is a very strange item to evaluate many times. Success often defines talent far more than talent defines success. By that I mean you can have all of the talent in the world (like the eagles) and still fall flat on your face ... and you can have lots of talent that is not evident because you have failed to utilize them or put them in the best position to succeed. By the same token, you can have what appears to be inferior talent and be extremely successful.

At the level of competition these days in the NFL, there are small margins of difference in overall talent teams have. Sure, some are recognized as MORE talented when they achieve more success. Again, success defines talent more often. And each week in the NFL, supposed inferior teams beat supposed superior ones. In SF, NOW they have talent .. last year they were just the 6-10 49ers talking about cutting the QB.

chiefhog44 wrote: He's saying that calling out a DC or OC for playcalling is pretty trivial when you don't have very much of a supporting cast or depth to do much. You think a OC is going to be able to develop a game plan with 4 starters, and a bunch of 1st and second year players? I guess you do, but that's just not realistic...but now that these players have had some playing time, and we get our starters back next year, guess what...now we have some offensive depth.

I UNDERSTAND what he's saying and he's wrong. And I'm not buying the not enough talent crap. It's a lame excuse that has been worn out around here. Accoding to many here ... only the Redskin receivers drop passes .. only the Redskin O-Line gives up sacks ... it's the same sad tune every year, and it simply isn't true. The ONLY area that this is true is in the absence of talent at QB, and these two we have now may be two of the worst we've had here in a long, long while. And the Shanahans ... take your pick are responsible for those crappy QBs being here. And I'm telling you straight up ... the Redskins have a very decent defense ... and we have both veteran and young offensive talent, with no one to be the field general. If we had Drew Brees with the ball in his hands, and Sean Peyton calling the Redskin offense .. the redskins would be 8-4 instead of 4-8 right now .. WITH all of those other untalented players who would magically become talented.

chiefhog44 wrote: I think the big picture here that maybe you aren't getting, is that the comparison between San Francisco and Washington is a pretty poor one.

The thing I'm laughing about now is that you were seemingly ALL over getting rid of Campbell 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 years ago, which Shannahan did as the first order of business, and now you think that was an error on his part. People can't have it both way without looking like a total bafoons can they?

You're missing the picture Chief .... I don't want Campbell back ... that was simply my way of illustrating the INANE situation now facing us at the QB position which is so pathetic, it makes Jason an upgrade. The entire NFL know that among the various teams, it is the Redskins that have the biggest QB problem, and Vinny Cerrato is no where in sight to place the blame on.

And lets forget what has happened for a minute in Minnesota with McNabb ... McNabb, with all of his faults was still a better option than the two knuckleheads we have now. Yeah yeah yeah ... he was lazy and wouldn't follow instructions ... the winners of wars usually write the history books to their advantage. I was here then .. and I saw what transpired. McNabb was not Kyle's guy ... he didn't choose him, and he didn't want him. He disrespected McNabb, and instead of creating a cooperative working relationship, he created controversy and an adversarial relationship. So I'm not buying the Shanahan propaganda. There are always two sides to every story ... and the other side was plain to see .... Kyle was a punk, and his ego was placed ahead of the success of the team.

Kyle got BOTH his guys .. Grossman and Beck ... and here we are .. with a disaster that Ray Chalres could see ... yet STILL some people want to make excuses for these two, and give them a pass?

You don't need to explain the situation to me ... I understand the situation completely. I also understand that Dad is never going to fire Son ... and any failure will most certainly be heaped on the backs of those no good, untalented players (that they picked themselves).

Countertrey wrote:This COMPLETELY (and probably deliberately) mistates the issue we are voicing.

There are people on this forum that still want Beck.

I want Beck over Grossman. Not in any long term capacity, but I'd rather Beck start the remainder of the year.

I think we should dust off Sonny ... give a shot of B-12, and put him out there.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

Countertrey wrote:This COMPLETELY (and probably deliberately) mistates the issue we are voicing.

There are people on this forum that still want Beck.

Don't know that it makes a difference... Beck doesn't win games... Grossman loses games... both go down as an L.

My point is, Kyle clearly fails to understand that winning does not have to be the result of a "sexy" offense (so to speak). If you are moving the ball... and scoring... by pounding the rock... YOU FREAKING POUND THE ROCK...

ESPECIALLY WHEN YOUR OPTIONS ARE LOSE THE GAME ON GROSSMAN'S ARM OR FAIL TO WIN ON BECK'S ARM.

Kyle is totally enamored with his offensive concept, and stubbornly refuses to permit success in the run game from preventing his concept from being used. Unfortunately, HE DOES NOT HAVE THE PLAYER TALENT TO RUN HIS CONCEPT. No matter... he'll do it anyway. So, when we get that short field, late in the first half... we are going to pass 6 times in a row... even though the Jets have failed to stop our run.

When the run game is working, an intelligent OC will put his marginal quarterback into a game management mode. Run and PA will be the order of the day, until the opponent stops it. Nope... not very sexy... but you will win a few games that way.

1st and foremost. I don't really disagree with you. What you replied to initially, was never aimed at you. That's why I replied like I did in my previous post.

Countertrey wrote: Don't know that it makes a difference... Beck doesn't win games... Grossman loses games... both go down as an L.

Agreed but at least with Grossman you have a chance. Defense might bail him out, the other team might screw up worse. LOL With Grossman it's a 50/50 chance to win. With Beck it's 0%.

Countertrey wrote:My point is, Kyle clearly fails to understand that winning does not have to be the result of a "sexy" offense (so to speak). If you are moving the ball... and scoring... by pounding the rock... YOU FREAKING POUND THE ROCK...

What I wonder is.
1. How feasible is it to change your offensive concepts week to week like that?
2. Do we have a team that can pound the rock?

To my first point, being in Baltimore I catch a lot of Ravens games. And their OC is on the hotseat, he has been for a while...at least with the fans. They want the Ravens to run the ball a lot more but they haven't really deviated too much. Even tho they have a great record, there are obviously some stats that show if Rice gets a certain # of touches, they win. #shrug I dunno if coaches alter their strategies that much mid-season.

To my second point our o-line isn't big, it isn't strong, it isn't consistent, it isn't stout at the point of contact.... I don't know if running the ball more would change much, or if it would be effective. Defenses know that's all we have, I'm sure some of it has to do with them dictating what we can actually do. If we go back to the game 1, the Giants played the run and forced us to throw. Grossman happened to be "Good Rex" that day and we won. It's IMHO that teams are forcing them to pass...

Countertrey wrote:Run and PA will be the order of the day, until the opponent stops it. Nope... not very sexy... but you will win a few games that way.

Even in PA the ball has to be thrown. The right reads have to be made, someone has to hold onto the ball. I get that you want to get the ball away from Rex by running it but....

I mean, I don't really disagree but to be quite honest. Kyle is darned if he does, darned if he don't. There's nothing good coming out of any of this.

2nd quarter vs Jets, with the run game still effective: 22 plays. 5 runs.
That's a problem. That's the issue. That's Kyle's philosophy in action... "Hey, the run is working... let's fool them, and put the game in Rex's hands".

Chris... how stupid is that????