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

SkinsFreak wrote:But taking a snap from center or arm strength are NOT legitimate points of concern when evaluating Colt's playability.

Arm strength? Isn't that pretty much one of the biggest criteria used when evaluating quarterbacks? I mean I agree I think it's overrated, but...it's still a legitimate concern. And it was certainly a concern with Brennan in the draft, notably his inability to throw the ball deep. Just a few websites:

ESPN's scouts had him ranked with a C- arm

Arm Strength C- Has to load up for the deep ball and use every inch of slight frame to drive it down the field.

This sitealso cites poor arm strength as a concern:

Another negative regarding Brennan is his arm strength. While he can get good zip on the ball in underneath routes, his throws on deep balls are often off, especially when playing in windy conditions. This could hurt his value to any team where he might play a lot of games in poor weather.

NFL.Com who compares him to the great Alex Smith (ouch to you, San Fran):

Does not have the size, strength or body mass you look for at his position.

But despite good arm strength in the short-to-intermediate areas, he isn't capable of consistently attacking the deep secondary.

SkinsFreak wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:He looked just fine taking snaps under center in the pre-season. Arm strength looked fine too.

He played against 3rd stringers and vanilla defenses. The throws that he was making worked against third stringers but against a 1st team defense he would've been a disaster.

Arm strength and taking snaps from under center, two areas you specifically high lighted as weaknesses, are skillsets that have absolutely nothing to do with the caliber of players you're playing against.

QB's learn to take snaps from under center long before they ever learn to be in shotgun. I'm not sure why you think it's some highly complex and complicated skill. That's just stupid. Colt looked fine taking snaps in preseason. Did he fumble the ball all the time or something? Taking a snap from center is the first thing any QB learns to do. It ain't that difficult, as you'd have us believe.

I agree the system at Hawaii was much different than what they use in th Pro's. But what difference does it make if they only ran the ball 10% of the time and threw it 90% of the time? All that means is Colt has far more experience throwing a football and knowing how to lead receivers or how to put touch on a throw.

I agree Colt has a lot to learn playing at this level, like reading defenses and learning where he can't go with the ball, as Fios pointed out. But taking a snap from center or arm strength are NOT legitimate points of concern when evaluating Colt's playability.

YOu can't fault Colt for only playing against 3rd stringers. You CAN, however, give him credit for playing WITH 3rd stringers AGAINST 3rd stringers and for the level of competence he brought on that even keel.

There's also no way to say how he would have reacted to 1st stringers WITH 1st stringers. Guaranteed pick 6? NOTHING is guaranteed in life except death and taxes. Favre is still one of the best QBs OVERALL for getting it done. It may have been ugly, and it may not have been EVERY game, but it was a lot more than it wasn't.

I honestly haven't seen too many people that claim that Colt will instantly usurp Brady/Montana/Unitas/<insert greatness here> for their respect. Personally, I think that Colt deserves the chance to show what he has. If he gets out there and all the naysayers are right, then that's fine.

What if, however, he gets out there and actually gets it done? I haven't seen any examples given of how it can be proven, even WITH a reasonable doubt, that Colt can't cut it. A lot of NFL QBs come from non-Pro systems. They have a learning curve, as Colt had/has/will have. Wasn't he projected a lot higher until his hip and off-field record came in to consideration? You can't base ANYTHING positively on his draft position; there have been late round HoF talent.

I can agree that he MAY NOT be the answer, but give him some rope. He may save himself and he may hang himself; no one knows which it will be right now.

It was CP that got us to 6-2, not JC.

That's fair, Pulp. I actually meant it from the perspective that those skills aren't different in a player no matter what caliber of defense you're playing, meaning the defense doesn't dictate arm strength or whether a QB can take a snap.

I was solely referring to what we saw from Colt in the preseason and it didn't appear that he had any difficulty with his arm strength, although I don't recall any deep bombs thrown by Colt.

But further, deep bombs are not a staple of a WCO while short to intermediate passes being far more prevalent, an area of skill Colt excels at, backed-up by the pre-draft analysis you posted. So maybe that's why Zorn wanted him, lot's of experience throwing and very good at the short to midrange stuff. He did throw a few "longer" passes in preseason and didn't look too bad doing so.

Nevertheless, with Colt's surgery and Zorn already saying that he doesn't think that Colt will unseat JC at this time, even though I've wanted to see an open competition and Colt get a chance, and I'm sure he will, it appears that JC is the leader in the clubhouse at this point, and he should be.

QB's learn to take snaps from under center long before they ever learn to be in shotgun. I'm not sure why you think it's some highly complex and complicated skill. That's just stupid. Colt looked fine taking snaps in preseason. Did he fumble the ball all the time or something? Taking a snap from center is the first thing any QB learns to do. It ain't that difficult, as you'd have us believe. Rolling Eyes

You read my post and came to the conclusion that I was talking about the difficulty of actually taking a snap from under center? Wow that's brilliant on your part. I wasn't talking about the actual receiving of the snap, I was talking about how different it is with regard to reading a defense. There is a major difference in how a qb goes through progressions and reads the defense when taking the ball from under center as opposed to shotgun. It is far easier to read a defense when you are in shotgun than when you are under center. That is why quarterbacks that come from pro-style college offenses generally have a much easier transition to the NFL than qb's coming out of spread offenses.

Arm strength and taking snaps from under center, two areas you specifically high lighted as weaknesses, are skillsets that have absolutely nothing to do with the caliber of players you're playing against.

Are strength has a lot to do with the caliber of players that you play against. In preseason, playing against 3rd string corners that have no prayer of ever playing in the NFL a qb can get away with a lot of throws that quicker NFL quality db's would easily pick of. Zorn himself said that Colt got away with throws that would have been picked off if he was playing against 1st team players.

VetSkinsFan wrote:I can agree that he MAY NOT be the answer, but give him some rope. He may save himself and he may hang himself; no one knows which it will be right now.

Totally agree. And further, Zorn has the most insight with regard to our best option at QB, and Zorn is fully qualified to make that evaluation. So if Zorn thinks Colt isn't quite ready and JC is the best of the three, or vice versa, then that's the only opinion that matters. All these other armchair QB's around here don't don't have the first-hand knowledge to go on, as they don't see these QB's compete, practice and workout side-by-side together everyday like Zorn and the coaches do.

CanesSkins26 wrote:I was talking about how different it is with regard to reading a defense.

Then good, I already said that the ability for Colt to be able to read defenses was going to be his biggest learning curve, regardless of whether he's in shotgun or under center.

But...

CanesSkins26 wrote:very rarely even took snaps from under center. Do you have any idea how big the adjustment is from being in shotgun over 90% of the time to taking snaps from under center the majority of the time.

...no where did you say anything in that original post about reading defenses. You merely changed your contention after I called you on it. Your original posts implied that Colt can't step up and take a snap from the center. But whatever, I know you'll just twist it in a new direction in order to have something to complain about... again.

Champsturf wrote:I agree that Campbell is the starter, but Colt should have gotten some real game time, if he was healthy. He is holding a roster spot, no? If he's not worth jack *^(*, then the sooner the coaches know that the sooner they can bring in a viable option.

I'm sorry that you and Kazoo don't see that.

OK, once AGAIN. My argument is NOT that I'm just opposed to the "idea" of playing Colt. My point is that with two games left, which is 1/8 of a season, we have a CHOICE. The NFL only plays 16 games a year. Sixteen. That's it. It's not like baseball where you throw a couple games in over a 162 game season. They play S-I-X-T-E-E-N real games. So our choice for a EIGHTH of a season is:

1) Play our starting QB with 3 years experience and continue to grow him.

2) Take a wild flier on a rookie sixth round draft choice who was passed on by all 32 teams 5 times and a bunch more a sixth time and HOPE he's a one in a million Tom Brady, who I don't think played in his rookie year either.

You can ignore that point as much as you want, I'll keep repeating it. The CHOICE of playing our young starting QB is a BETTER choice then wasting 2 games when the NFL only plays 16 regular seasons a year. You can "disagree" with that, but I'm "missing" nothing in this discussion.

Champsturf wrote:As far as Campbell's confidence, I could care a less. If's he's that fragile that he's not willing to do what is best for the team, especially considering his performance, then he's even slower than I thought.

No one I've seen has argued playing him to protect his "fragile" ego in defense of JC playing. I've argued I want him to GROW and everyone else I've seen has argued that. Those who agree with you keep bringing up he's "fragile" and now you sarcastically mock the point made by your side, not your opposition. The NFL is an uber competitive business and I would say if I believed that his ego was in question I would be in FAVOR of benching him for Colt a couple games to see if he has the fortitude to play in the NFL. But frankly I did not see that as an issue. The issue is "development."

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Champsturf wrote:I agree that Campbell is the starter, but Colt should have gotten some real game time, if he was healthy. He is holding a roster spot, no? If he's not worth jack *^(*, then the sooner the coaches know that the sooner they can bring in a viable option.

I'm sorry that you and Kazoo don't see that.

OK, once AGAIN. My argument is NOT that I'm just opposed to the "idea" of playing Colt. My point is that with two games left, which is 1/8 of a season, we have a CHOICE. The NFL only plays 16 games a year. Sixteen. That's it. It's not like baseball where you throw a couple games in over a 162 game season. They play S-I-X-T-E-E-N real games. So our choice for a EIGHTH of a season is:

1) Play our starting QB with 3 years experience and continue to grow him.

2) Take a wild flier on a rookie sixth round draft choice who was passed on by all 32 teams 5 times and a bunch more a sixth time and HOPE he's a one in a million Tom Brady, who I don't think played in his rookie year either.

You can ignore that point as much as you want, I'll keep repeating it. The CHOICE of playing our young starting QB is a BETTER choice then wasting 2 games when the NFL only plays 16 regular seasons a year. You can "disagree" with that, but I'm "missing" nothing in this discussion.

Champsturf wrote:As far as Campbell's confidence, I could care a less. If's he's that fragile that he's not willing to do what is best for the team, especially considering his performance, then he's even slower than I thought.

No one I've seen has argued his "ego" in defense of JC playing. I've argued I want him to GROW and everyone else I've seen has argued that. Those who agree with you keep bringing up he's "fragile" and now you sarcastically mock the point made by your side, not your opposition. The NFL is an uber competitive business and I would say if I believed that his ego was in question I would be in FAVOR of benching him for Colt a couple games to see if he has the fortitude to play in the NFL. But frankly I did not see that as an issue. The issue is "development."

So, your point is that you like an idea, but not actually following through with it? You keep saying 16 games...so what? Campbell gets all the snaps with the starters and Colt gets exactly squat. If Campbell can't do it during the games after practicing with the starters, why not see if Colt can? What good is having him on the roster if you don't know if he can even play? According to your logic, since there are only 16 games, Colt will NEVER see the field until the coaches have decided that Campbell does't cut it. After all, there are only 16 games and they need to try and let Campbell mature. Since 3 years hasn't done it, I'm not so sure why you think two games would make that much difference. How much "development" did you think was accomplished those last two games?

VetSkinsFan wrote:

ChocolateMilk wrote:

Champsturf wrote:Screw this...waste of my time

just like benching Campbell and starting Colt would have been a waste of the Redskins time...

Speculation...

Um..no duh. I see no benefit to starting Colt other then the longest of long shots, but hey, I can't "prove" that with anything but the extremely unlikely possibility. So while the odds are highly in favor of it being a waste of two games to play him over JC, no one can do anything but "speculate" in this discussion unless we can try one and then use a time machine to try the other and then make our choice.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

ChocolateMilk wrote:

Champsturf wrote:Screw this...waste of my time

just like benching Campbell and starting Colt would have been a waste of the Redskins time...

Speculation...

Um..no duh. I see no benefit to starting Colt other then the longest of long shots, but hey, I can't "prove" that with anything but the extremely unlikely possibility. So while the odds are highly in favor of it being a waste of two games to play him over JC, no one can do anything but "speculate" in this discussion unless we can try one and then use a time machine to try the other and then make our choice.

BTW, I'm sure glad that they played Campbell those last two games. After them, he now looks ready to take the team to the Super Bowl.

Starting Colt would just to be good business. We know that the "scouting" department sucks and the Skins need to found out their needs for this offseason. If Colt is garbage, then they need a viable option at least for a backup QB.

Champsturf wrote:So, your point is that you like an idea, but not actually following through with it?

I neither said nor meant that, go back and re-read.

Champsturf wrote:You keep saying 16 games...so what? Campbell gets all the snaps with the starters and Colt gets exactly squat. If Campbell can't do it during the games after practicing with the starters, why not see if Colt can? What good is having him on the roster if you don't know if he can even play? According to your logic, since there are only 16 games, Colt will NEVER see the field until the coaches have decided that Campbell does't cut it. After all, there are only 16 games and they need to try and let Campbell mature. Since 3 years hasn't done it, I'm not so sure why you think two games would make that much difference. How much "development" did you think was accomplished those last two games?

Colt could play if JC got injured as has been repeatedly raised by others. He would play if the coaches felt he merited it. I haven't seen anyone who argued Colt should play the last two games base that on the Redskin coaches assessment, so I'm assuming it's their own. If the coaches said they were souring on JC and/or thought Colt could in fact be Tom Brady I'd be fine with playing him too.

Champsturf wrote:BTW, I'm sure glad that they played Campbell those last two games. After them, he now looks ready to take the team to the Super Bowl.

Can you explain this comment to me in the context of anything I said since you quoted me?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Champsturf wrote:BTW, I'm sure glad that they played Campbell those last two games. After them, he now looks ready to take the team to the Super Bowl.

Can you explain this comment to me in the context of anything I said since you quoted me?

His progression in developing was amazing. You couldn't see that by watching? You also made it clear in one of your posts that it's smarter to play a QB with 3 years experience 2 more games to continue his development. I don't see how playing two meaningless games will benefit someone with 3 years experience...especially after watching him play those 2 games.

Champsturf wrote:Screw this...waste of my time

I feel that it's time for this again.

Champsturf wrote:You also made it clear in one of your posts that it's smarter to play a QB with 3 years experience 2 more games to continue his development. I don't see how playing two meaningless games will benefit someone with 3 years experience...especially after watching him play those 2 games.

Of course you wouldn't, that's not surprising. If it were 3 years in the same system, then perhaps. But it's JC's 1st year in a new system, a system that's not even fully implemented yet. And further, you keep saying the coaches need to see Colt, yet they see and evaluate him every day against a very good defense.

Champsturf wrote:

Champsturf wrote:Screw this...waste of my time

I feel that it's time for this again.

Most intelligent post you've made all day.

Champsturf wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Champsturf wrote:BTW, I'm sure glad that they played Campbell those last two games. After them, he now looks ready to take the team to the Super Bowl.

Can you explain this comment to me in the context of anything I said since you quoted me?

His progression in developing was amazing. You couldn't see that by watching? You also made it clear in one of your posts that it's smarter to play a QB with 3 years experience 2 more games to continue his development. I don't see how playing two meaningless games will benefit someone with 3 years experience...especially after watching him play those 2 games.

So where did I use the words "amazing" development or "Super Bowl" or any synonym of those terms? I said we should continue to develop him, period. The NFL only plays 16 games a year. We don't have 2 games to blow on a wild long shot.

The fact is that most NFL starters are first round draft picks. And yet the first round busts are spectacular and frequent. You go even to the second and third rounds and the odds are dropping off a cliff. You go to day two of the draft and they drop off a second cliff. Very, very few QBs go that far below the radar and most of them spend years carrying a clip board before they do. The coaches are saying NOTHING about that Colt's ready to play in the NFL. What you're proposing is just as I keep accurately describing it as buying a lottery ticket. And the price of stopping development of our QB for an eighth of a short NFL season is way, way too high.

I realize you're going to decline once again to address any of these points, but now you've at least set the bar that the standard is "the Super Bowl" next year. So, I will admit failure, I see no reason to believe that playing the two games put JC in a position that the Super Bowl is a certainty next year. So, for $2000 Alex, what makes you believe that starting Colt would have us going to the Super Bowl next year? Since you set the bar, clear it. To you Champ, go...

Champsturf wrote:

Champsturf wrote:Screw this...waste of my time

I feel that it's time for this again.

Well, basically the content of your argument was...I have a wild, baseless idea which I can support with a dearth of logic and zero support from the Redskin coaching staff. If being challenged for those sorts of ideas bothers you so much, don't post them on message boards... Just a thought.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The fact is that most NFL starters are first round draft picks. And yet the first round busts are spectacular and frequent. You go even to the second and third rounds and the odds are dropping off a cliff. You go to day two of the draft and they drop off a second cliff. Very, very few QBs go that far below the radar and most of them spend years carrying a clip board before they do. The coaches are saying NOTHING about that Colt's ready to play in the NFL. What you're proposing is just as I keep accurately describing it as buying a lottery ticket.

OMG TOM BRADY!!!

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The fact is that most NFL starters are first round draft picks. And yet the first round busts are spectacular and frequent. You go even to the second and third rounds and the odds are dropping off a cliff. You go to day two of the draft and they drop off a second cliff. Very, very few QBs go that far below the radar and most of them spend years carrying a clip board before they do. The coaches are saying NOTHING about that Colt's ready to play in the NFL. What you're proposing is just as I keep accurately describing it as buying a lottery ticket.

OMG TOM BRADY!!!

Hmm...buy a dictionary and look up the words I highlighted, do they mean it's not likely to happen or it has never happened? Now, using your keen lawyer logic, what does your providing exactly ONE name bear on the argument? Would it tend to support the contention that it's worthwhile to spend an eighth of a season on because it's a likely outcome, or is it a better reflection that your ability to think of only one name means it is in fact a very unlikely outcome?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The fact is that most NFL starters are first round draft picks. And yet the first round busts are spectacular and frequent. You go even to the second and third rounds and the odds are dropping off a cliff. You go to day two of the draft and they drop off a second cliff. Very, very few QBs go that far below the radar and most of them spend years carrying a clip board before they do. The coaches are saying NOTHING about that Colt's ready to play in the NFL. What you're proposing is just as I keep accurately describing it as buying a lottery ticket.

OMG TOM BRADY!!!

Hmm...buy a dictionary and look up the words I highlighted, do they mean it's not likely to happen or it has never happened? Now, using your keen lawyer logic, what does your providing exactly ONE name bear on the argument? Would it tend to support the contention that it's worthwhile to spend an eighth of a season on because it's a likely outcome, or is it a better reflection that your ability to think of only one name means it is in fact a very unlikely outcome?

Lol Kaz. You know my posting style; stop and think...do I post seriously in such a manner? Or is it possible I was being...you know...sarcastic?

To spell it out: I was agreeing with you, and providing the one counter point you KNEW someone was going to make. (likely all in caps just like that). To wit, Brady WAS a lottery ticket. The great exception from the norm.

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The fact is that most NFL starters are first round draft picks. And yet the first round busts are spectacular and frequent. You go even to the second and third rounds and the odds are dropping off a cliff. You go to day two of the draft and they drop off a second cliff. Very, very few QBs go that far below the radar and most of them spend years carrying a clip board before they do. The coaches are saying NOTHING about that Colt's ready to play in the NFL. What you're proposing is just as I keep accurately describing it as buying a lottery ticket.

OMG TOM BRADY!!!

Hmm...buy a dictionary and look up the words I highlighted, do they mean it's not likely to happen or it has never happened? Now, using your keen lawyer logic, what does your providing exactly ONE name bear on the argument? Would it tend to support the contention that it's worthwhile to spend an eighth of a season on because it's a likely outcome, or is it a better reflection that your ability to think of only one name means it is in fact a very unlikely outcome?

Lol Kaz. You know my posting style; stop and think...do I post seriously in such a manner? Or is it possible I was being...you know...sarcastic?

To spell it out: I was agreeing with you, and providing the one counter point you KNEW someone was going to make. (likely all in caps just like that). To wit, Brady WAS a lottery ticket. The great exception from the norm.

OK, fair enough. But when I keep hearing that specific example used as a real argument it's easy to miss. But in reflection, I do recall we're on the same side opposing these win now hoping sheer short sighted stupidity will pay off arguments. My bad. Bad Kaz

PulpExposure wrote:To spell it out: I was agreeing with you, and providing the one counter point you KNEW someone was going to make. (likely all in caps just like that). To wit, Brady WAS a lottery ticket. The great exception from the norm.

Right. Tom Brady will from now on be in the discussion of what was the greatest draft day steal of all time. To use him as a counter-example when talking about how risky low picks can be is insane.

Irn-Bru wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:To spell it out: I was agreeing with you, and providing the one counter point you KNEW someone was going to make. (likely all in caps just like that). To wit, Brady WAS a lottery ticket. The great exception from the norm.

Right. Tom Brady will from now on be in the discussion of what was the greatest draft day steal of all time. To use him as a counter-example when talking about how risky low picks can be is insane.

True, but wasn't Mark Rypien also a sixth round pick?

Before you guys spank the heck out my post, I'll clarify that I'm NOT in anyway comparing Tom Brady to Rypien.

All I'm saying is that both were sixth round picks and both have won Superbowls.

I think Joe Gibbs saw something similiar when he took Campbell. JC has an inmense amount of talent, but it needs to be perfected and he needs to be motivated. Rypien had to be pushed to excel, just as JC. And he damn well did during the 1991 SB season. Entering that season the BIG question was wether number 11 could overcome his frecuent mistakes and lead the team.

Maybe JC just needs a little more confidence in himself to succeed. Does he have enough fire in the belly to elevate his play and with that the mentality of the whole team?

I hope so.

El Mexican wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:To spell it out: I was agreeing with you, and providing the one counter point you KNEW someone was going to make. (likely all in caps just like that). To wit, Brady WAS a lottery ticket. The great exception from the norm.

Right. Tom Brady will from now on be in the discussion of what was the greatest draft day steal of all time. To use him as a counter-example when talking about how risky low picks can be is insane.

True, but wasn't Mark Rypien also a sixth round pick?

Before you guys spank the heck out my post, I'll clarify that I'm NOT in anyway comparing Tom Brady to Rypien.

All I'm saying is that both were sixth round picks and both have won Superbowls.

I think Joe Gibbs saw something similiar when he took Campbell. JC has an inmense amount of talent, but it needs to be perfected and he needs to be motivated. Rypien had to be pushed to excel, just as JC. And he damn well did during the 1991 SB season. Entering that season the BIG question was wether number 11 could overcome his frecuent mistakes and lead the team.

Maybe JC just needs a little more confidence in himself to succeed. Does he have enough fire in the belly to elevate his play in with that the hole team?

I hope so.

As a Redskins fan I'll take Rypien over Brady anyday.