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

Doesn't look good.

http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/nfl/ ... b-winfield

Seattle is going to be a tough team next year. Would love to see us put em down.

Did he visit? Was it yesterday or next Wednesday? Talk to me goose

langleyparkjoe wrote:Did he visit? Was it yesterday or next Wednesday? Talk to me goose

I think it was Wednesday last week.

Winfield is 36 - he's NOT getting better ....

our secondary needs help and Winfield would have helped but ....

no big deal, either way


Seattle could get lucky again but .... IF they make the playoffs next season, they are NOT playing at home ...

Winfield is looking at the end of his career: he wants a soft landing spot with money and with loyalty (Minny) or a chance to the SB in this 2013 season (Seattle).

We cannot blame the guy. He has no reason to play for us in terms of less money. Seattle is offering a good opportunity with a solid secondary and, even if I disagree, a good chance in the eyes of the "experts" to make a deep run in the playoffs.

Seattle looks like another "dream team" to me, and I know that you know what I mean.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Winfield is looking at the end of his career: he wants a soft landing spot with money and with loyalty (Minny) or a chance to the SB in this 2013 season (Seattle).

We cannot blame the guy. He has no reason to play for us in terms of less money. Seattle is offering a good opportunity with a solid secondary and, even if I disagree, a good chance in the eyes of the "experts" to make a deep run in the playoffs.

Seattle looks like another "dream team" to me, and I know that you know what I mean.

Yeah, Seattle can keep dreaming cuz I feel they are NOT as solid as the pundits say. Sure they have quality players, but I have a gut feeling that the wheels will FALL OFF the Hawks bandwagon........ just my 2 cents.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Winfield is looking at the end of his career: he wants a soft landing spot with money and with loyalty (Minny) or a chance to the SB in this 2013 season (Seattle).

We cannot blame the guy. He has no reason to play for us in terms of less money. Seattle is offering a good opportunity with a solid secondary and, even if I disagree, a good chance in the eyes of the "experts" to make a deep run in the playoffs.

Seattle looks like another "dream team" to me, and I know that you know what I mean.

It seems Seattle is getting all the breaks...stronger or offense because of Harvin, stronger on defense because of Winfield and other nightmare cornerbacks. They'll be the team to beat next season...we need a dynamite draft of DB's and another first class WR... and a top notch RT would help. Hold your breath...could happen (except for the RT.) Hope Robert's at the top of his game. We'll need Alfred to repear as well.

crazyhorse1 wrote:.. It seems Seattle is getting all the breaks - stronger on offense because of Harvin, stronger on defense because of Winfield and other nightmare cornerbacks.
They'll be the team to beat next season ...

we need a dynamite draft of DB's and another first class WR ... and a top notch RT would help. Hold your breath ... could happen (except for the RT.)

Hope Robert's at the top of his game. We'll need Alfred to repeat as well.

although we should not be surprised, when we consider the source, as usual, most of your opinions are very negative

adding 'star' players and 'projecting' at this time of year is something that the Redskins used to do in the past ... and we never did as well as we thought we would

Seattle is just another off-season 'award winner' following in the footsteps of the Redskins and the Eagles

we have a better FO, we have a better HC and we have a much better QB ...
we'll see where your predictions go and where Seattle finishes up

NOT adding Winfield to the defense is not that big a deal - he's just a part of the defense - our defense is not suddenly 'weaker' because we did not add a 36 year old player

GET REAL

SkinsJock wrote:adding 'star' players and 'projecting' at this time of year is something that the Redskins used to do in the past ... and we never did as well as we thought we would

Seattle is just another off-season 'award winner' following in the footsteps of the Redskins and the Eagles

we have a better FO, we have a better HC and we have a much better QB ...
we'll see where your predictions go and where Seattle finishes up

NOT adding Winfield to the defense is not that big a deal - he's just a part of the defense - our defense is not suddenly 'weaker' because we did not add a 36 year old player

GET REAL

I think a lot of what you're saying is very arguable...

- Seattle is adding star players that aren't past their prime and they aren't overpaying... Unlike the Redskins of the past. It's not really an accurate comparison.
- It's arguable who has the better organization. I'd give Seattle the nod.
- It's arguable who has the better HC. I'd give the nod to Mike for his past works.
- It's arguable who has the better QB... Although I'm biased, Wilson is amazing and is better than Robert in certain aspects.

I agree with CH, he didn't say anything remotely negative IMO. SEA has added some good components, both them and San Fran are a lot more menacing heading into the season. I do agree with you in that, we'll have to see how it plays out.

^^ to each his own - Seattle has added a very good player in Harvin but my point is that just adding a great player does not mean that he's going to be a great addition - it does not always work that way

The current Redskins FO is superior to Seattle

Wilson is a good QB but he's not nearly as good a QB or leader of the offense as RG3

BOT - Winfield is a 36 year old CB - adding him to a defense and saying it's a big deal is just not making sense to me - we shall see - maybe he can get some of those drugs that Sherman uses




some fans just do not get it and CH1 is certainly in that group

SkinsJock wrote:Wilson is a good QB but he's not nearly as good a QB or leader of the offense as RG3

And how do you reach that conclusion? I feel the same way but I also understand that's it's totally arguable. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:Wilson is a good QB but he's not nearly as good a QB or leader of the offense as RG3

And how do you reach that conclusion? I feel the same way but I also understand that's it's totally arguable. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer.

It's JUST an opinion - I look at RG3 as being a little bit special - part of it has to with his family and his military background; part of it has to do with his athleticism; part of it has to do with the fact that he was considered and prepared for athletics at the very highest level; part of it has to do with his school and college achievements; etc.. etc.. etc..

and most importantly how he made this franchise better

Wilson is just a good QB - IMO Robert Griffin III is a better QB

IMO if the 2 QBs changed teams - the team with RG3 is better

that's just my uneducated opinion

BOT - not having Winfield does not make our secondary 'weaker'

and

adding Winfield - CERTAINLY does NOT make the Seattle secondary better

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:Wilson is a good QB but he's not nearly as good a QB or leader of the offense as RG3

And how do you reach that conclusion? I feel the same way but I also understand that's it's totally arguable. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer.

Turnover percentage, plain and simple. It's what makes RGIII the best QB in the NFL.

Might want to look into the use of IMO or IMHO.

Just IMHO.

Nope. Not opinion... fact!

Deadskins wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:Wilson is a good QB but he's not nearly as good a QB or leader of the offense as RG3

And how do you reach that conclusion? I feel the same way but I also understand that's it's totally arguable. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer.

Turnover percentage, plain and simple. It's what makes RGIII the best QB in the NFL.

LMAO. RGIII is not the best QB in the NFL, sorry that's just stupid. LOL Let's be real here, RGIII was put in an offense that had training wheels (read option). The scheme froze defenses and made his job easier and thats what good coaches do for their rookies. Mike/Kyle were deservingly celebrated for catering to Roberts strengths.

Mike & Kyle DO deserve a lot of credit ... SO DO many others ...

Robert DID play a HUGE part in making things work so well ....


at this time I WOULD prefer RG3 over all the other QBs in the NFL - I'm NOT saying that he's the best QB in the NFL ... RG3 IS the best QB playing in the NFL RIGHT NOW for this franchise and this offense

AND

I'm not sure Russell Wilson could even beat out Kirk Cousins








are we done with this - Winfield has signed with Seattle

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:Wilson is a good QB but he's not nearly as good a QB or leader of the offense as RG3

And how do you reach that conclusion? I feel the same way but I also understand that's it's totally arguable. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer.

Turnover percentage, plain and simple. It's what makes RGIII the best QB in the NFL.

LMAO. RGIII is not the best QB in the NFL, sorry that's just stupid. LOL Let's be real here

I am being real. Turnovers are the one statistic that is most closely related to wins and losses. Turn the ball over less, and your team has a better chance of winning. RGIII only had 5 picks last season (two of which were tipped balls that should have been caugh tand another where Paulsen quit on the route), and very few lost fumbles. Besides being top 5 in almost every QB category, I feel that his low turnover percentage makes him the best QB in the league. It certainly isn't laughable, like you're making it sound. It's easily arguable.

Winfield was a good signing for the Seahawks. They do not need him to play outside he can play the slot and close to the line of scrimmage, which is his strengths at his age. In that role he could play two years at a solid level. His knowledge of the game should also help develop the other corners on their team as well. People have to remember Winfield was a Top 5 CB in the league at one point legitimately.

Deadskins wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:Wilson is a good QB but he's not nearly as good a QB or leader of the offense as RG3

And how do you reach that conclusion? I feel the same way but I also understand that's it's totally arguable. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer.

Turnover percentage, plain and simple. It's what makes RGIII the best QB in the NFL.

LMAO. RGIII is not the best QB in the NFL, sorry that's just stupid. LOL Let's be real here

I am being real. Turnovers are the one statistic that is most closely related to wins and losses. Turn the ball over less, and your team has a better chance of winning. RGIII only had 5 picks last season (two of which were tipped balls that should have been caugh tand another where Paulsen quit on the route), and very few lost fumbles. Besides being top 5 in almost every QB category, I feel that his low turnover percentage makes him the best QB in the league. It certainly isn't laughable, like you're making it sound. It's easily arguable.

Just my opinion of course but, any QB that has been in a trend of not turning the ball over is going to stretch the chains. Add that to all of his other attributes and you could be absolutely correct on that statement. I saw enough to know this guy is a beast and if healthy; will be the best or at least top 3.

Deadskins wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:Wilson is a good QB but he's not nearly as good a QB or leader of the offense as RG3

And how do you reach that conclusion? I feel the same way but I also understand that's it's totally arguable. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer.

Turnover percentage, plain and simple. It's what makes RGIII the best QB in the NFL.

LMAO. RGIII is not the best QB in the NFL, sorry that's just stupid. LOL Let's be real here

I am being real. Turnovers are the one statistic that is most closely related to wins and losses. Turn the ball over less, and your team has a better chance of winning. RGIII only had 5 picks last season (two of which were tipped balls that should have been caugh tand another where Paulsen quit on the route), and very few lost fumbles. Besides being top 5 in almost every QB category, I feel that his low turnover percentage makes him the best QB in the league. It certainly isn't laughable, like you're making it sound. It's easily arguable.

I'm sorry, but no. A rookie doesn't automatically become the best QB in football. The offense was made to supplement the deficiencies in his game.

A rookie without a playoff win, a rookie without a ring, a first year player without a body of work does not compare to Rodgers, Peyton, Brady, etc. Hell, watch the games... RGIII isn't required to make more than 1-2 reads on MOST plays. He stares WR's down. He has a lot of work to do, and I'm 100% sure he'll fix it BUT he's not there YET.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:Wilson is a good QB but he's not nearly as good a QB or leader of the offense as RG3

And how do you reach that conclusion? I feel the same way but I also understand that's it's totally arguable. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer.

Turnover percentage, plain and simple. It's what makes RGIII the best QB in the NFL.

LMAO. RGIII is not the best QB in the NFL, sorry that's just stupid. LOL Let's be real here

I am being real. Turnovers are the one statistic that is most closely related to wins and losses. Turn the ball over less, and your team has a better chance of winning. RGIII only had 5 picks last season (two of which were tipped balls that should have been caugh tand another where Paulsen quit on the route), and very few lost fumbles. Besides being top 5 in almost every QB category, I feel that his low turnover percentage makes him the best QB in the league. It certainly isn't laughable, like you're making it sound. It's easily arguable.

I'm sorry, but no. A rookie doesn't automatically become the best QB in football. The offense was made to supplement the deficiencies in his game.

A rookie without a playoff win, a rookie without a ring, a first year player without a body of work does not compare to Rodgers, Peyton, Brady, etc. Hell, watch the games... RGIII isn't required to make more than 1-2 reads on MOST plays. He stares WR's down. He has a lot of work to do, and I'm 100% sure he'll fix it BUT he's not there YET.

I'm not saying those things aren't true. But the fact remains that not turning the ball over outweighs those deficiencies in his game.

While Robert may not be the 'best QB in the NFL' - he IS one of the better QBs in the NFL - even after just 1 season

and

He's showing that he's got all the attributes to be a great QB for years to come

Deadskins wrote:I'm not saying those things aren't true. But the fact remains that not turning the ball over outweighs those deficiencies in his game.

The lack of turnovers was huge, it was special. But when placed within the context of what he was asked to do. Having a scheme that make throwing lanes unusually large. Only being asked to make 1-2 reads a majority of the time. That's why the turnover ratio doesn't make him the best QB, thats why it doesn't outweigh his deficiencies.

If you put Robert in Lucks offense, his turnovers would have been a lot higher and possibly higher than Lucks. Luck was used to making multiple reads and going through progressions and he struggled. Robert was essentially given training wheels (WHICH WAS A GREAT IDEA AND MORE COACHES SHOULD DO IT), which made his transition easier. But let's not speak as if he was running a complicated offense, he wasn't.

SkinsJock wrote:While Robert may not be the 'best QB in the NFL' - he IS one of the better QBs in the NFL - even after just 1 season

I can agree with that. I'd like to see him maintain it before crowning him, but I feel you.

SkinsJock wrote:he's the best QB that's playing in the NFL that's come into the NFL in the past 3 years

Again, you have to give him more time. Cam was amazing his rookie campaign, then he slumped. Will Robert slump? I dont think so, but we have to watch it play out.

SkinsJock wrote:I cannot think of ANY QB that's joined the NFL recently that is as good a QB and leader as he is

Totally agree.