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

riggofan wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

DEHog wrote:So...wouldn't that have been a good thing??

I guess it depends...

- Would we have suddenly turned into a HOF QB? LOL no.
- It would have turned into a media circus and that's the main thing Scot/Jay have worked so hard to prevent.

Both of those answers seem reasonable to me. Keeping him away from division rivals and preventing any of the media BS. I'd add that Snyder probably wasn't completely sold on Cousins until about three days ago. lol.

I still believe they did RG3 a huge favor keeping him on the roster this year. It would have been really tough for him to show up in October for some new team - probably a bad team - and be thrown on the field with little preparation. He'll have a much better shot going somewhere new in the offseason and having a chance to prepare.

It seems to me that Griffin has been respectful about that and been a good teammate in return. That's a credit to both the team and the player IMO.

Very well said, though I doubt he would have been thrown into the starter role right away. Well, maybe in Dallas.

Back on topic....

WE WANT DALLAS....!!! WE WANT DALLAS....!!!

Whatever players take the field, we MUST beat Dallas. It means that much to our past players, and it means that much to the rivalry.

Sure, we don't want injuries. Sure we want our guys rested........ but we MUST beat Dallas.

Deadskins wrote:

DEHog wrote:This is what I don’t understand? If the sole reason you will not activate/play him is because of the fear of an injury, why would you occupy a roster spot for that player? Who does that?

It's a roster spot, yes, but not a game-day active one. He's not keeping someone else from playing in games. Fans need to get that notion out of their heads.

Not sure that makes DEHog's question any less relevant. A roster spot is a roster spot whether a guy is active on game day or not. The Cowboys were able to sign Trey Williams off our practice squad. That could not have happened if he was an inactive RB on the active roster, right?

Deadskins wrote:Very well said, though I doubt he would have been thrown into the starter role right away. Well, maybe in Dallas.

hahah. Exactly!

riggofan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

DEHog wrote:This is what I don’t understand? If the sole reason you will not activate/play him is because of the fear of an injury, why would you occupy a roster spot for that player? Who does that?

It's a roster spot, yes, but not a game-day active one. He's not keeping someone else from playing in games. Fans need to get that notion out of their heads.

Not sure that makes DEHog's question any less relevant. A roster spot is a roster spot whether a guy is active on game day or not. The Cowboys were able to sign Trey Williams off our practice squad. That could not have happened if he was an inactive RB on the active roster, right?

True, but they couldn't sign RGIII for the same reason, right?

Deadskins wrote:

riggofan wrote:Not sure that makes DEHog's question any less relevant. A roster spot is a roster spot whether a guy is active on game day or not. The Cowboys were able to sign Trey Williams off our practice squad. That could not have happened if he was an inactive RB on the active roster, right?

True, but they couldn't sign RGIII for the same reason, right?

Of course. What does that have to do with anything I wrote?

The fact that RG3 isn't active on game days doesn't make that roster spot any less significant to the team.

riggofan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

riggofan wrote:Not sure that makes DEHog's question any less relevant. A roster spot is a roster spot whether a guy is active on game day or not. The Cowboys were able to sign Trey Williams off our practice squad. That could not have happened if he was an inactive RB on the active roster, right?

True, but they couldn't sign RGIII for the same reason, right?

Of course. What does that have to do with anything I wrote?

The fact that RG3 isn't active on game days doesn't make that roster spot any less significant to the team.

No, but it speaks to the reason why he is kept on the roster. And along with RGIII there are seven other players on the game-day roster that are not active, but no one is up in arms about the team not cutting them either. Obviously the FO feels that the benefits of keeping him on the roster outweighs the need for that spot, just like the other seven inactives.

Deadskins wrote:

DEHog wrote:This is what I don’t understand? If the sole reason you will not activate/play him is because of the fear of an injury, why would you occupy a roster spot for that player? Who does that?

It's a roster spot, yes, but not a game-day active one. He's not keeping someone else from playing in games. Fans need to get that notion out of their heads.

Yea I get that.

Deadskins wrote:

riggofan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Of course. What does that have to do with anything I wrote?

The fact that RG3 isn't active on game days doesn't make that roster spot any less significant to the team.

No, but it speaks to the reason why he is kept on the roster. And along with RGIII there are seven other players on the game-day roster that are not active, but no one is up in arms about the team not cutting them either. Obviously the FO feels that the benefits of keeping him on the roster outweighs the need for that spot, just like the other seven inactives.

Because maybe those players are in the future plans of the team. Maybe they are being developed (yes some teams do that!) So a roster spot was taken up by a player we had no intentions of activating. Could not that spot had been used for a player who could have stepped in to one of the numerous positons we had injuries at??

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

riggofan wrote:I still believe they did RG3 a huge favor keeping him on the roster this year.

I think at some point, RGIII "got it". And it was too late, he was on the bench for good. I hope that he's taken this oppurtunity to learn and gain a new/better perspective on what he needs to do moving forward.

DEHog wrote:Yes they did him a favor. They only way it turns into a media circus is if RG lets it. The same thing will/could happen when we cut him this off season...why not just do it before this past season and have it over with if you had no plans to even have him active?

Who cares about him during the off-season? It'll move some headlines in April but won't impact the team. It won't impact preparation and/or focus for an upcoming game. It'll be a non-issue.

I think someone said it above, the owner wasn't sold Kirk. Nor should he have been. I'm sure that Robert is a great guy, but he couldn't juggle this media market and his own short comings at the same time. He made some bad moves that I'm sure he wishes he could take back. I think the owner wanted to see him succeed on a personal level, that's just being a decent human being. However, it's time to move on. He can still support Robert as a friend from afar.

So there would have been a bigger media circus in August than will be in March? There was the circus of benching RG and if you remember many media members speculated that RG would be cut...Had that happend it would be a non-issue this off-season. Thanks God Kirk played well because it would be a drama filled off-season.

tribeofjudah wrote:Back on topic....

WE WANT DALLAS....!!! WE WANT DALLAS....!!!

Whatever players take the field, we MUST beat Dallas. It means that much to our past players, and it means that much to the rivalry.

Sure, we don't want injuries. Sure we want our guys rested........ but we MUST beat Dallas.

you're going to get them but beating them will be pointless since you'll be beating a cripple

DEHog wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

riggofan wrote:I still believe they did RG3 a huge favor keeping him on the roster this year.

I think at some point, RGIII "got it". And it was too late, he was on the bench for good. I hope that he's taken this oppurtunity to learn and gain a new/better perspective on what he needs to do moving forward.

DEHog wrote:Yes they did him a favor. They only way it turns into a media circus is if RG lets it. The same thing will/could happen when we cut him this off season...why not just do it before this past season and have it over with if you had no plans to even have him active?

Who cares about him during the off-season? It'll move some headlines in April but won't impact the team. It won't impact preparation and/or focus for an upcoming game. It'll be a non-issue.

I think someone said it above, the owner wasn't sold Kirk. Nor should he have been. I'm sure that Robert is a great guy, but he couldn't juggle this media market and his own short comings at the same time. He made some bad moves that I'm sure he wishes he could take back. I think the owner wanted to see him succeed on a personal level, that's just being a decent human being. However, it's time to move on. He can still support Robert as a friend from afar.

So there would have been a bigger media circus in August than will be in March? There was the circus of benching RG and if you remember many media members speculated that RG would be cut...Had that happend it would be a non-issue this off-season. Thanks God Kirk played well because it would be a drama filled off-season.

But at that point they were still hoping to get something for him, or at least keep him off division rivals rosters. There is also the Danny factor. At least now he has someone he can market to fans, especially with the whole "You like that!" thing blowing up so favorably.

There is also the Danny factor.

Agreed!!

Deadskins wrote:

DEHog wrote:This is what I don’t understand? If the sole reason you will not activate/play him is because of the fear of an injury, why would you occupy a roster spot for that player? Who does that?

It's a roster spot, yes, but not a game-day active one. He's not keeping someone else from playing in games. Fans need to get that notion out of their heads.

:lol: good luck with that - some fans here have zero tolerance of anything to do with Griffin

I can't see how anyone can possibly believe that this FO or Jay Gruden would put Griffin on the active roster - OK, have we got that clear?

Now if Griffin is not on the active roster, he cannot get injured - end of stupid theory - it's not happening


I am so hoping that Griffin can become a NFL QB so that all the a**holes here (well 3 or 4) that hate him and claim he will never be a QB in the NFL can enjoy my posts for however many games he plays

At the rate in which we've lost players this year... I'd just as soon try to beat the cow- *sh$t* with our practice squad. While that's a more fair match up, I know it's impossible.

We all know you can throw the record out the window when these two teams meet... So there within lies the biggest problem- what if we start our starters (to keep the momentum as some have pointed out) and fall flat? God forbid a significant injury to a key player, Djax scares me in particular, but what if we just get beat flat out? Then we take on an actual PLAYOFF team, coming off a beat down?

There is no love lost between these two teams, and even a W in the win column could essentially come at a HEFTY price. Even if bones aren't broke, it's likely to take a toll on some players.
Did I mention the sweet victory of losing, and how it pertains to the pukes draft position??? Lol


Man I'm glad I don't have to make the choice this weekend, I'm already nervous!!

I heard on the radio no Dez for Sunday. I say treat this game like a 3rd preseason game. Play it by ear, gain a lead, and then pull the starters.

I'd keep Kirk in and the healthiest o-linemen. From there, I'd play a skeleton crew past the 2nd half.

- Our newly acquired TE.
- Matt Jones
- Chris Thompson
- Crowder
- Grant

I understand the reasons but I just can't imagine not wanting to do whatever it takes to win each and every game ...

ESPECIALLY against the giants and the pukes - sorry, I just cannot stand those 2 franchises

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:Did I mention the sweet victory of losing, and how it pertains to the pukes draft position??? Lol

A loss to the Redskins, combined with a Tennessee, San Francisco and San Diego win puts them in a great position for the 2nd
overall pick in the draft

Tennessee vs Colts

Niners vs Rams

Chargers vs Denver

worst case scenario Colts, Broncos win Tennessee snags the second overall pick
San Deigo if they lose and they should will grab the 3rd overall pick Niners and Cowboys
duel it out for the #4th overall spot and 1 of those teams will more than likely look to
make the big splash snagging the first overall pick away from Cleveland if there is a chance
to do so?

So I wouldn't go laughing over this there is still opportunity for Dallas to do what they
want and get their impact player if they play their cards right

BEAT the pukes - they're not fixing all their issues even if they had the top 5 picks in the next draft

J. Jones is going to still be there ....

TexasCowboy wrote:

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:Did I mention the sweet victory of losing, and how it pertains to the pukes draft position??? Lol

A loss to the Redskins, combined with a Tennessee, San Francisco and San Diego win puts them in a great position for the 2nd
overall pick in the draft

Cute post, man. I can remember spending those late December days hoping to lose our last game and calculating where we might end up in our draft position.

Happy New Year, friends.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I'd keep Kirk in and the healthiest o-linemen. From there, I'd play a skeleton crew past the 2nd half.

- Our newly acquired TE.
- Matt Jones
- Chris Thompson
- Crowder
- Grant

*RossDaBoss should play a BUNCH of snaps too

riggofan wrote:Cute post, man. I can remember spending those late December days hoping to lose our last game and calculating where we might end up in our draft position.

Happy New Year, friends.

I am sure you've had lots of years practicing the mathematics and perfected rocket science it takes
to calculate where you'd end up in the draft? the last time Dallas was this low in the draft was 89
when Dallas picked up Troy Aikman out of UCLA, and now given the right circumstance Dallas could
conceivable be looking at the #2nd or #3rd overall pick but both Tennessee and San Diego must win
and Dallas would have to lose not horrible but still badly enough..to secure that second pick

will I be rooting for the Niners, chargers and Titans to win? no let the chips fall where they may
it all gets sorted out in the wash eventually!! in the meantime there is an entire roster to go over
players who will need to stay, Many who have long since needed to get the hell out like Claiborne
and Carr while we look to add some better rushers off the end, a running back, offensive line help
and possible a second receiver via a trade perhaps?

So till this mess gets cleaned up it's evaluating I'll be doing

happy new year

StorminMormon86 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:It's Dallas.

There should be but one mission, as always. Win, and if possible, dominate. That there is a question is disconcerting.

We did win already.

We're going to the playoffs and they'll be enjoying the games from the comfort of their own home.

I've never understood this mentality. I hate Dallas more than any team, but I would take 14-2 with two losses to Dallas for the rest of my life rather than being worried about beating Dallas every season.

You cannot have lived through the history, and think this way. I cannot understand how you can not understand...

TexasCowboy wrote:

riggofan wrote:Cute post, man. I can remember spending those late December days hoping to lose our last game and calculating where we might end up in our draft position.

Happy New Year, friends.

I am sure you've had lots of years practicing the mathematics and perfected rocket science it takes
to calculate where you'd end up in the draft?

haha. I cannot deny it! I'm a premium member of ontheclock.com and have frequently started mock drafting for the team in late November.

Its a nice change not to be the hot mess of NFC east.