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

Knowing that we helped the Cowboys in a meaningless game does gnaw at my soul. But, I'll take the win. But yes, if Barkely or RG3 goes 1 pick ahead of us, the Giants will thank heavens that they won't have to face that guy on our team twice a year for the next decade.

GREAT WIN!!

absinthe1023 wrote:Where was this intensity for most of the season?
.

It's always been there, they've been lacking execution.

The Hogster wrote:Knowing that we helped the Cowboys in a meaningless game does gnaw at my soul. But, I'll take the win. But yes, if Barkely or RG3 goes 1 pick ahead of us, the Giants will thank heavens that they won't have to face that guy on our team twice a year for the next decade.

They'll grab one of them.

The Hogster wrote:Knowing that we helped the Cowboys in a meaningless game does gnaw at my soul.

Meaningless game?

Irn-Bru wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Knowing that we helped the Cowboys in a meaningless game does gnaw at my soul.

Meaningless game?

You are correct in saying it was not meaningless. There were two concrete, objective outcomes:

1. Worsening of the Redskins draft position, which will likely either cost the team's QB of choice or make acquiring that player more expensive

2. Placing the Cowboys in control of the NFC East

The Cowgirls are not in control of anything. The giants still control their own destiny. The thing that irks me most is that if we win just one of those two nail biters against the Cowgirls we would still have a legit shot at winning the division. I guess that doesn't say much about the strength of the NFC East this season.

If we had lost, you all would be complaining about the factors that led to it. You'd complain about personnel moves, you'd gripe about play calling.

And when we win, you complain about how it screws up the draft.

It just goes to show how 95% of CANNOT be satisfied. It's ridiculous and hilarious that many of you don't even realize that you contradict ur self from week to week.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:If we had lost, you all would be complaining about the factors that led to it. You'd complain about personnel moves, you'd gripe about play calling.

And when we win, you complain about how it screws up the draft.

It just goes to show how 95% of CANNOT be satisfied. It's ridiculous and hilarious that many of you don't even realize that you contradict ur self from week to week.

You may not be referring to my posts, but because my posts are close to yours in time and space, I thought I'd make this response.
If you are referring to my posts, you are correct in that I mentioned that this win (and the Seattle win) worsened the Redskins draft position.
You are wrong, however, in saying that I am contradicting myself and have complained about "factors that led to" a defeat. If I have posted such information in the past, please reference a specific post or thread.

If you cannot provide such information, please do not paint all who hold draft position as a priority in an otherwise lost season with the same brush. I have had a consistent message and train of thought. Others may have not, but that is not important here and does not weaken my argument.

PAPDOG67 wrote:The Cowgirls are not in control of anything. The giants still control their own destiny. -snip-

So do the Cowgirls.

DarthMonk

absinthe1023 wrote:First of all, Joe Flacco is not a franchise QB.

I beg to differ. If you don't think Flacco is, I could use the example of Mark Sanchez. I personally don't think Flacco or Sanchez are anything better than decent game managers, but that doesn't mean their respective teams don't think they are their franchise QB. Hell, if Grossman wasn't averaging 2 INTS per game, he could be the "game manager" that could take us to contention (granted if our defense played every game like they did against the Giants).

absinthe1023 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Knowing that we helped the Cowboys in a meaningless game does gnaw at my soul.

Meaningless game?

You are correct in saying it was not meaningless. There were two concrete, objective outcomes:

1. Worsening of the Redskins draft position, which will likely either cost the team's QB of choice or make acquiring that player more expensive

2. Placing the Cowboys in control of the NFC East

The Redskin's draft position will likely be outside the top 5 picks, and to be honest, I'd prefer to see us win the last two games and push us to the #8, #9, #10 position. Why? Because if we wind up #6, we might just gamble that Barkley or RGIII will fall to us, only to have miscalculated, and have both taken ahead of us, forcing us to make another gamble with one of the other available QBs.

Some might argue that Jones would be a good pick, and that could be true, but the better money is on the top three, and we really must get one of them.

My view (and I'm sure that's clear now) is that we trade up as HIGH as we can, preferably to get Luck, because even though he would be the most costly in terms of what we'll have to give up to get him, he's the one that is most assured of being a true franchise level QB that will be one of the best over the next 10+ years. Barkely and RGIII may also be good ones, but Luck still blows them away in terms of the qualities most defining a successful NFL QB. In other words, he's most likely to be "Kyle Shanahan" proof.

The kid has extraordinary football intelligence that the other two guys don't possess, and the accuracy of throwing that makes him a better prospect than most that have come along over the past decade, or will likely show up over the next decade. The guy is simply as flawless as he could be, and given our misadventures at QB already (i.e. McNabb, Grossman, Beck and the shuffling and reshuffling), I trust his proven ability more than I trust the Shanahans shaky skills at evaluating QB talent.

My philosophy is simple .... eliminate as much as possible the chance of picking the wrong guy, by leaving no stone unturned in going after the best prospect regardless of cost.

An Aaron Rogers, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees type QB is worth 4-#1 picks, when you look at what Peyton Manning has done for the Colts over the past 14 years. PERIOD. Is Luck a guaranteed Peyton Manning? No ... but he fits the potential better than anything available this year or in the last several years.

Roll the dice baby .... the biggest payoffs tend to involve the biggest risks and the highest costs .... you gotta break a few eggs to make a Super Bowl omelet !

StorminMormon86 wrote:

absinthe1023 wrote:First of all, Joe Flacco is not a franchise QB.

I beg to differ. If you don't think Flacco is, I could use the example of Mark Sanchez. I personally don't think Flacco or Sanchez are anything better than decent game managers, but that doesn't mean their respective teams don't think they are their franchise QB. Hell, if Grossman wasn't averaging 2 INTS per game, he could be the "game manager" that could take us to contention (granted if our defense played every game like they did against the Giants).

say what - IF Grossman wasn't the turnover machine that most here know him to be, he'd be an OK QB

He is who he is - hopefully Grossman does not start any games for this franchise after the end of this season

StorminMormon86 wrote:

absinthe1023 wrote:First of all, Joe Flacco is not a franchise QB.

I beg to differ. If you don't think Flacco is, I could use the example of Mark Sanchez. I personally don't think Flacco or Sanchez are anything better than decent game managers, but that doesn't mean their respective teams don't think they are their franchise QB. Hell, if Grossman wasn't averaging 2 INTS per game, he could be the "game manager" that could take us to contention (granted if our defense played every game like they did against the Giants).

In NFL terms, "franchise QB" does not mean "QB who happens to play for a franchise". Flacco is an average QB in this league, Sanchez is below average and is a borderline bust at this point. Were they drafted with the hopes that they would become franchise QBs? Of course. So was Heath Shuler, for what that's worth.

In the NFL, the term "franchise QB" refers to an elite, gamechanging player who can serve as the cornerstone for an entire franchise; the type of player who positively effects play on both sides of the ball and who makes other players more valuable. The type of player who can win a game on his own even when his teammates don't perform at their best.

Current NFL franchise QBs include:

Rodgers
Stafford
Brees
Newton
Ryan (borderline)
Brady
Roethlisberger
P. Manning
Rivers

And that's it. One of them will be lifting the Lombardi trophy early next year, and it won't be a coincidence

I don't care what that win did to our draft position. REALLY could care less. The Giants have pwned us for years. That was a soul crushing beat down we handed them yesterday. Not some squeaker that we were lucky to win either. I hope they miss the playoffs and Coughlin gets fired.

I'd like to do the same thing to Philly in a few weeks and send Andy Reid on his way also.

Awesome win by the Skins yesterday. Credit to every last one of them. Just my opinion, but I don't think we would have gotten that kind of win from one of our many overpriced, over the hill gangs of mercenary free agent teams we've field in the past.

absinthe1023 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Knowing that we helped the Cowboys in a meaningless game does gnaw at my soul.

Meaningless game?

You are correct in saying it was not meaningless. There were two concrete, objective outcomes:

1. Worsening of the Redskins draft position, which will likely either cost the team's QB of choice or make acquiring that player more expensive

2. Placing the Cowboys in control of the NFC East

Sounds like you wish we had lost. It must suck to have to look at an awesome win like that from that perspective. My condolences.

(There were more "concrete, objective outcomes" than that, by the way. For one, we swept the Giants.)

absinthe1023 wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:

absinthe1023 wrote:First of all, Joe Flacco is not a franchise QB.

I beg to differ. If you don't think Flacco is, I could use the example of Mark Sanchez. I personally don't think Flacco or Sanchez are anything better than decent game managers, but that doesn't mean their respective teams don't think they are their franchise QB. Hell, if Grossman wasn't averaging 2 INTS per game, he could be the "game manager" that could take us to contention (granted if our defense played every game like they did against the Giants).

In NFL terms, "franchise QB" does not mean "QB who happens to play for a franchise". Flacco is an average QB in this league, Sanchez is below average and is a borderline bust at this point. Were they drafted with the hopes that they would become franchise QBs? Of course. So was Heath Shuler, for what that's worth.

In the NFL, the term "franchise QB" refers to an elite, gamechanging player who can serve as the cornerstone for an entire franchise; the type of player who positively effects play on both sides of the ball and who makes other players more valuable. The type of player who can win a game on his own even when his teammates don't perform at their best.

Current NFL franchise QBs include:

Rodgers
Stafford
Brees
Newton
Ryan (borderline)
Brady
Roethlisberger
P. Manning
Rivers

And that's it. One of them will be lifting the Lombardi trophy early next year, and it won't be a coincidence

You have Newton and Stafford in there but no Eli Manning??

PAPDOG67 wrote:

absinthe1023 wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:

absinthe1023 wrote:First of all, Joe Flacco is not a franchise QB.

I beg to differ. If you don't think Flacco is, I could use the example of Mark Sanchez. I personally don't think Flacco or Sanchez are anything better than decent game managers, but that doesn't mean their respective teams don't think they are their franchise QB. Hell, if Grossman wasn't averaging 2 INTS per game, he could be the "game manager" that could take us to contention (granted if our defense played every game like they did against the Giants).

In NFL terms, "franchise QB" does not mean "QB who happens to play for a franchise". Flacco is an average QB in this league, Sanchez is below average and is a borderline bust at this point. Were they drafted with the hopes that they would become franchise QBs? Of course. So was Heath Shuler, for what that's worth.

In the NFL, the term "franchise QB" refers to an elite, gamechanging player who can serve as the cornerstone for an entire franchise; the type of player who positively effects play on both sides of the ball and who makes other players more valuable. The type of player who can win a game on his own even when his teammates don't perform at their best.

Current NFL franchise QBs include:

Rodgers
Stafford
Brees
Newton
Ryan (borderline)
Brady
Roethlisberger
P. Manning
Rivers

And that's it. One of them will be lifting the Lombardi trophy early next year, and it won't be a coincidence

You have Newton and Stafford in there but no Eli Manning??

Stafford definitely belongs on that list, but I agree that Eli does too. He really has made some huge strides the last couple of seasons.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

PAPDOG67 wrote:

absinthe1023 wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:

absinthe1023 wrote:First of all, Joe Flacco is not a franchise QB.

I beg to differ. If you don't think Flacco is, I could use the example of Mark Sanchez. I personally don't think Flacco or Sanchez are anything better than decent game managers, but that doesn't mean their respective teams don't think they are their franchise QB. Hell, if Grossman wasn't averaging 2 INTS per game, he could be the "game manager" that could take us to contention (granted if our defense played every game like they did against the Giants).

In NFL terms, "franchise QB" does not mean "QB who happens to play for a franchise". Flacco is an average QB in this league, Sanchez is below average and is a borderline bust at this point. Were they drafted with the hopes that they would become franchise QBs? Of course. So was Heath Shuler, for what that's worth.

In the NFL, the term "franchise QB" refers to an elite, gamechanging player who can serve as the cornerstone for an entire franchise; the type of player who positively effects play on both sides of the ball and who makes other players more valuable. The type of player who can win a game on his own even when his teammates don't perform at their best.

Current NFL franchise QBs include:

Rodgers
Stafford
Brees
Newton
Ryan (borderline)
Brady
Roethlisberger
P. Manning
Rivers

And that's it. One of them will be lifting the Lombardi trophy early next year, and it won't be a coincidence

You have Newton and Stafford in there but no Eli Manning??

Stafford definitely belongs on that list, but I agree that Eli does too. He really has made some huge strides the last couple of seasons.

I like Stafford a lot, but lets see the guy at least make it to the playoffs before we throw him in that category. Same with Newton.

absinthe1023 wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:

absinthe1023 wrote:First of all, Joe Flacco is not a franchise QB.

I beg to differ. If you don't think Flacco is, I could use the example of Mark Sanchez. I personally don't think Flacco or Sanchez are anything better than decent game managers, but that doesn't mean their respective teams don't think they are their franchise QB. Hell, if Grossman wasn't averaging 2 INTS per game, he could be the "game manager" that could take us to contention (granted if our defense played every game like they did against the Giants).

In NFL terms, "franchise QB" does not mean "QB who happens to play for a franchise". Flacco is an average QB in this league, Sanchez is below average and is a borderline bust at this point. Were they drafted with the hopes that they would become franchise QBs? Of course. So was Heath Shuler, for what that's worth.

In the NFL, the term "franchise QB" refers to an elite, gamechanging player who can serve as the cornerstone for an entire franchise; the type of player who positively effects play on both sides of the ball and who makes other players more valuable. The type of player who can win a game on his own even when his teammates don't perform at their best.

Current NFL franchise QBs include:

Rodgers
Stafford
Brees
Newton
Ryan (borderline)
Brady
Roethlisberger
P. Manning
Rivers

And that's it. One of them will be lifting the Lombardi trophy early next year, and it won't be a coincidence

P. Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Roethlisberger already have hoisted that trophy 8 times, collectively. (these are the Elite group)

Rivers, Ryan, Stafford, and Newton may get the chance at some point. (these are the very good, but not yet Elite).

I think Bradford belongs on the list, as does Cutler, and maybe even (gasp) Romo. All three are very good, though not Elite.

Irn-Bru wrote:

absinthe1023 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Knowing that we helped the Cowboys in a meaningless game does gnaw at my soul.

Meaningless game?

You are correct in saying it was not meaningless. There were two concrete, objective outcomes:

1. Worsening of the Redskins draft position, which will likely either cost the team's QB of choice or make acquiring that player more expensive

2. Placing the Cowboys in control of the NFC East

Sounds like you wish we had lost. It must suck to have to look at an awesome win like that from that perspective. My condolences.

(There were more "concrete, objective outcomes" than that, by the way. For one, we swept the Giants.)

I said earlier that the win gave me a bittersweet feeling. I don't know if that qualifies for condolences, but since you offered, thanks

RayNAustin wrote:

absinthe1023 wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:

absinthe1023 wrote:First of all, Joe Flacco is not a franchise QB.

I beg to differ. If you don't think Flacco is, I could use the example of Mark Sanchez. I personally don't think Flacco or Sanchez are anything better than decent game managers, but that doesn't mean their respective teams don't think they are their franchise QB. Hell, if Grossman wasn't averaging 2 INTS per game, he could be the "game manager" that could take us to contention (granted if our defense played every game like they did against the Giants).

In NFL terms, "franchise QB" does not mean "QB who happens to play for a franchise". Flacco is an average QB in this league, Sanchez is below average and is a borderline bust at this point. Were they drafted with the hopes that they would become franchise QBs? Of course. So was Heath Shuler, for what that's worth.

In the NFL, the term "franchise QB" refers to an elite, gamechanging player who can serve as the cornerstone for an entire franchise; the type of player who positively effects play on both sides of the ball and who makes other players more valuable. The type of player who can win a game on his own even when his teammates don't perform at their best.

Current NFL franchise QBs include:

Rodgers
Stafford
Brees
Newton
Ryan (borderline)
Brady
Roethlisberger
P. Manning
Rivers

And that's it. One of them will be lifting the Lombardi trophy early next year, and it won't be a coincidence

P. Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Roethlisberger already have hoisted that trophy 8 times, collectively. (these are the Elite group)

Rivers, Ryan, Stafford, and Newton may get the chance at some point. (these are the very good, but not yet Elite).

I think Bradford belongs on the list, as does Cutler, and maybe even (gasp) Romo. All three are very good, though not Elite.

What he said (with the exception of Romo, who is too inconsistent to make the list, much like E. Manning and the Chicago version of Cutler). I haven't seen enough of a healthy Bradford to add him to the list yet.
Regarding Stafford: He already has four 4-TD games in his career, and one of those is a 5 TD game. He also has a number of comeback wins to his credit, including yesterday's game.

PAPDOG67 wrote:

absinthe1023 wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:

absinthe1023 wrote:First of all, Joe Flacco is not a franchise QB.

I beg to differ. If you don't think Flacco is, I could use the example of Mark Sanchez. I personally don't think Flacco or Sanchez are anything better than decent game managers, but that doesn't mean their respective teams don't think they are their franchise QB. Hell, if Grossman wasn't averaging 2 INTS per game, he could be the "game manager" that could take us to contention (granted if our defense played every game like they did against the Giants).

In NFL terms, "franchise QB" does not mean "QB who happens to play for a franchise". Flacco is an average QB in this league, Sanchez is below average and is a borderline bust at this point. Were they drafted with the hopes that they would become franchise QBs? Of course. So was Heath Shuler, for what that's worth.

In the NFL, the term "franchise QB" refers to an elite, gamechanging player who can serve as the cornerstone for an entire franchise; the type of player who positively effects play on both sides of the ball and who makes other players more valuable. The type of player who can win a game on his own even when his teammates don't perform at their best.

Current NFL franchise QBs include:

Rodgers
Stafford
Brees
Newton
Ryan (borderline)
Brady
Roethlisberger
P. Manning
Rivers

And that's it. One of them will be lifting the Lombardi trophy early next year, and it won't be a coincidence

You have Newton and Stafford in there but no Eli Manning??

Correct. If the Redskins have a 6 point lead in the fourth quarter and are kicking off with 2 minutes left to one of the above guys, I'm sweating bullets. Same situation with Eli on the opposite sideline, I'm pretty comfortable (lucky Super Bowl win notwithstanding).

RayNAustin wrote:

absinthe1023 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Knowing that we helped the Cowboys in a meaningless game does gnaw at my soul.

Meaningless game?

You are correct in saying it was not meaningless. There were two concrete, objective outcomes:

1. Worsening of the Redskins draft position, which will likely either cost the team's QB of choice or make acquiring that player more expensive

2. Placing the Cowboys in control of the NFC East

The Redskin's draft position will likely be outside the top 5 picks, and to be honest, I'd prefer to see us win the last two games and push us to the #8, #9, #10 position. Why? Because if we wind up #6, we might just gamble that Barkley or RGIII will fall to us, only to have miscalculated, and have both taken ahead of us, forcing us to make another gamble with one of the other available QBs.

Some might argue that Jones would be a good pick, and that could be true, but the better money is on the top three, and we really must get one of them.

My view (and I'm sure that's clear now) is that we trade up as HIGH as we can, preferably to get Luck, because even though he would be the most costly in terms of what we'll have to give up to get him, he's the one that is most assured of being a true franchise level QB that will be one of the best over the next 10+ years. Barkely and RGIII may also be good ones, but Luck still blows them away in terms of the qualities most defining a successful NFL QB. In other words, he's most likely to be "Kyle Shanahan" proof.

The kid has extraordinary football intelligence that the other two guys don't possess, and the accuracy of throwing that makes him a better prospect than most that have come along over the past decade, or will likely show up over the next decade. The guy is simply as flawless as he could be, and given our misadventures at QB already (i.e. McNabb, Grossman, Beck and the shuffling and reshuffling), I trust his proven ability more than I trust the Shanahans shaky skills at evaluating QB talent.

My philosophy is simple .... eliminate as much as possible the chance of picking the wrong guy, by leaving no stone unturned in going after the best prospect regardless of cost.

An Aaron Rogers, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees type QB is worth 4-#1 picks, when you look at what Peyton Manning has done for the Colts over the past 14 years. PERIOD. Is Luck a guaranteed Peyton Manning? No ... but he fits the potential better than anything available this year or in the last several years.

Roll the dice baby .... the biggest payoffs tend to involve the biggest risks and the highest costs .... you gotta break a few eggs to make a Super Bowl omelet !

I like your approach. My second scenario would be if we can't get Luck because of cost then we should try to get Peyton for much less and not give up any picks this year (the 2012 draft). This assumes Peyton is healthy and we don't give up more than a #1 in 2013.

GoSkins wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:

absinthe1023 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Knowing that we helped the Cowboys in a meaningless game does gnaw at my soul.

Meaningless game?

You are correct in saying it was not meaningless. There were two concrete, objective outcomes:

1. Worsening of the Redskins draft position, which will likely either cost the team's QB of choice or make acquiring that player more expensive

2. Placing the Cowboys in control of the NFC East

The Redskin's draft position will likely be outside the top 5 picks, and to be honest, I'd prefer to see us win the last two games and push us to the #8, #9, #10 position. Why? Because if we wind up #6, we might just gamble that Barkley or RGIII will fall to us, only to have miscalculated, and have both taken ahead of us, forcing us to make another gamble with one of the other available QBs.

Some might argue that Jones would be a good pick, and that could be true, but the better money is on the top three, and we really must get one of them.

My view (and I'm sure that's clear now) is that we trade up as HIGH as we can, preferably to get Luck, because even though he would be the most costly in terms of what we'll have to give up to get him, he's the one that is most assured of being a true franchise level QB that will be one of the best over the next 10+ years. Barkely and RGIII may also be good ones, but Luck still blows them away in terms of the qualities most defining a successful NFL QB. In other words, he's most likely to be "Kyle Shanahan" proof.

The kid has extraordinary football intelligence that the other two guys don't possess, and the accuracy of throwing that makes him a better prospect than most that have come along over the past decade, or will likely show up over the next decade. The guy is simply as flawless as he could be, and given our misadventures at QB already (i.e. McNabb, Grossman, Beck and the shuffling and reshuffling), I trust his proven ability more than I trust the Shanahans shaky skills at evaluating QB talent.

My philosophy is simple .... eliminate as much as possible the chance of picking the wrong guy, by leaving no stone unturned in going after the best prospect regardless of cost.

An Aaron Rogers, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees type QB is worth 4-#1 picks, when you look at what Peyton Manning has done for the Colts over the past 14 years. PERIOD. Is Luck a guaranteed Peyton Manning? No ... but he fits the potential better than anything available this year or in the last several years.

Roll the dice baby .... the biggest payoffs tend to involve the biggest risks and the highest costs .... you gotta break a few eggs to make a Super Bowl omelet !

I like your approach. My second scenario would be if we can't get Luck because of cost then we should try to get Peyton for much less and not give up any picks this year (the 2012 draft). This assumes Peyton is healthy and we don't give up more than a #1 in 2013.

I think Peyton Manning is the best QB I've every seen play, and could be the best that has ever played the game. But I would not be in favor of trading for him for a number of reasons.

Age and health concerns, and how much he'd be willing to play at the risk of further injury to himself for another franchise. Regardless of how great Peyton is, he would be a short term, temporary solution, due to his age and health, and that could be as much as 3-4 years or as little as 1 more season.

And, I have no doubt that the Shanahans would try to teach Peyton to play their game, rather than the one Peyton has already mastered, and I don't think that would end well at all.

Just win the next game.

Anyone will go crazy if they try to guess-out the Redskins' possible draft position, and, after the season, waits until they actually make the draft. Too many bits of unpredictability.

Most of all, win the next game. And the next...

Because I can't stand to see the Redskins lose. Worse record equals a better draft spot? I don't care. I want a win.

Further, very few hot dog college QBs have turned out to be "franchise" QBs in the NFL. So says a person who grew up with Sonny (4th rounder?) and looked up the BW Parkway at Johnny Unitas (picked from the scrap heap), and remembers Joe Theismann and Joe Montana ("weak arm...lucky to have played for powerful schools").