As A Redskins Fan, I Must Say
-
selfish malcontent comes to mind. even with his leg up on the system, he still couldn't beat out delhomme or mccoy. makes a good backup, and can spot start, but after as many years as he'sd been in the league (8 i think), he still can't look left when going thru his progressions.
mccoy could still possibly grow, wallace is who he is.
-
Granted, RG3 is a rare talent. However, do you think that the Browns would be better off going all in for him and getting players to support him in the later rounds or rolling with McCoy and possibly Flynn (personally, I would recommend McCoy. I think Flynn is a flash in the pan. This year's Kevin Kolb or Matt Cassel, but with a smaller sample size) or a mid round QB (Weeden or Cousins) this year with better receivers and running backs. If they succeed, then you're golden. If not, then go for Barkley next year.
Both strategies have their advantages. Not taking RG3 is less of a risk, with a possibly high reward IMO (thinking if McCoy, Flynn, or another drafted QB pans out). If he's taken, there will be some breaking in time. He could absolutely dominate for you, but he'll definitely need some help.
-
Zombo said:
You can bring in whoever you want. You aren't going to a Super Bowl JUST because you brought in ex-Super Bowl winners. Doesn't work that way. If we win a Super Bowl, great, but it will because we finally drafted right and put it all together not because Holmgren brought some Green Bay magic with him.
If you think your chances of going to the SB are enhanced because Mike Shanahan coached a team there 15 years ago you are awful gullible.
Neither Holmgren or Shanahan is worth another Super Bowl, it depends on the talent the teams can amass.
Zombo
--You don't have to respond to every post ... you can just be wrong you know.
I never said that Shanahan brought "magic" with him. I've said that Shanny knows how to build a winner and that it takes time. Basically I'm saying the same things you are, only you want me to say that the Browns are in a better position because of your front office.
You want to act all high and mighty about the Browns because Holmgren took the Packers and Seahawks to the Super Bowl and Heckert "built teams that constantly beat the Skins." But when I use the same argument about Shanahan and the Skins I'm being "gullible" and whatever else you've said about me.
That's a mighty high double standard you've set.
-
i guess it all depended on what they did with the extra picks.
mangini made some trades and got back some picks our own vinny cerrato (phil savage) gave away like candy. he followed it up by drafting a bunch of guys that either never made the team or severely disappointed.
if we pass on griffen, im not one to think it's the end all be all. i could live with colt/flynn/tannehill, but if those picks bust then we're no better off. its gonna take me literally weeks to iron all this out, cause i (like you said) see other possibilities that could succeed as well. i absolutely hate trading away picks, but if griffin is really as good as advertised, then i cant argue with taking the chance.
i like the flynn route only because the investment is purely monetary. if he busts, we're out some cash, and still need a QB (if this is the case, we're drafting high again and can pursue barkley). all those picks saved would bolster the team, perhaps giving flynn (or colt) some talent to work with.
if griffin busted at a cost of 3 high picks and 2 mid rounders, thats a year or 2 recovery on top of being in the same position we're in right now. tough call, no doubt.
-
Zombo said:
I am just amusing myself with your justifications on why the Redskins are so much better off than they were in Snyder meddling days.
Stability in the front office? Check.
A front office who doesn't treat the team like their personal fantasy football team? Check.
Not trading away draft picks for over-the-hill vets for one year rentals (Jason Taylor, TJ Duckett, etc)? Check.
Spending wisely in free agency, bringing in the right people at the right price? Check
Just because the record doesn't show it doesn't mean we're not better off.
A couple years of status quo sucking(Shanahan's first two years) for multiple years of consistency and stability? I'll take it.
Would you say the Browns are better off with Holmgren, Heckert, and Shurmur than with Keenan, Kokinis, and Crennel (or however your FO looked with Romeo as your head coach)? I'm saying the same thing about the Skins with Allen and Shanahan. Same argument, different names.
-
@king-ghoolie-lives said:
His release and thinking are too slow for the pros. Trust me, the guy will fizzle.
So the fact that he could run his offense like Manning ran the Colts means nothing to you? His release is one notch below Manning's.
There may be criticism of Luck, but those aren't two of them.
-
Zombo said:
Dropping from 6-10 to 5-11, check.
Zombo
Because the record is the only way to show a team is improving...
Using that logic, the Browns are worse off with their FO too. It's not like the Browns record has been getting better...
-
Zombo said:
Actually I think both teams will be better in 2012 regardless of who gets Griffin. Is ther much talk about Shanahan et al going after Manning? It'd be fun to see Peyton and Eli in the same division.
Zombo
There is talk, but most of it is smokescreens.
Honestly (and I'm one of the few who think this way), I don't want Manning here. Not because his skills have diminished, but it would throw off the long-term success of the team.
Yeah, we'd be competitive for the next three or four years, but what about after that? We're going to need to draft a QB soon. Based on the rookie contract scale, the guy we draft would be going into the last year of his contract when Manning hangs up his cleats. That would only give us one year of game evals to judge whether we want to give him an extension.
If not Griffin, I wouldn't be upset with trading down from 6 and taking Tannehill mid to late 1st. Sign a 2nd tier QB (Orton or someone like him) and roll like that. I have faith in Shanahan's ability to groom young QBs into "the" guy.
Best case scenario for both our teams (IMO):
Colts keep Manning and trade out of the pick to get players to fit their new defense (they have the Ratbirds old DC, he'll want to run a 3-4). They can get Barkley then next year. Redskins trade up and take Luck with the 1. Browns then either trade up or let RG3 fall to them. We both get elite QBs.
-
Zombo said:
Actually I think both teams will be better in 2012 regardless of who gets Griffin. Is ther much talk about Shanahan et al going after Manning? It'd be fun to see Peyton and Eli in the same division.
Zombo
There is talk, but most of it is smokescreens.
Honestly (and I'm one of the few who think this way), I don't want Manning here. Not because his skills have diminished, but it would throw off the long-term success of the team.
Yeah, we'd be competitive for the next three or four years, but what about after that? We're going to need to draft a QB soon. Based on the rookie contract scale, the guy we draft would be going into the last year of his contract when Manning hangs up his cleats. That would only give us one year of game evals to judge whether we want to give him an extension.
If not Griffin, I wouldn't be upset with trading down from 6 and taking Tannehill mid to late 1st. Sign a 2nd tier QB (Orton or someone like him) and roll like that. I have faith in Shanahan's ability to groom young QBs into "the" guy.
Best case scenario for both our teams (IMO):
Colts keep Manning and trade out of the pick to get players to fit their new defense (they have the Ratbirds old DC, he'll want to run a 3-4). They can get Barkley then next year. Redskins trade up and take Luck with the 1. Browns then either trade up or let RG3 fall to them. We both get elite QBs.
There is talk, but most of it is smokescreens.
Honestly (and I'm one of the few who think this way), I don't want Manning here. Not because his skills have diminished, but it would throw off the long-term success of the team.
Yeah, we'd be competitive for the next three or four years, but what about after that? We're going to need to draft a QB soon. Based on the rookie contract scale, the guy we draft would be going into the last year of his contract when Manning hangs up his cleats. That would only give us one year of game evals to judge whether we want to give him an extension.
If not Griffin, I wouldn't be upset with trading down from 6 and taking Tannehill mid to late 1st. Sign a 2nd tier QB (Orton or someone like him) and roll like that. I have faith in Shanahan's ability to groom young QBs into "the" guy.
Best case scenario for both our teams (IMO):
Colts keep Manning and trade out of the pick to get players to fit their new defense (they have the Ratbirds old DC, he'll want to run a 3-4). They can get Barkley then next year. Redskins trade up and take Luck with the 1. Browns then either trade up or let RG3 fall to them. We both get elite QBs.
I think the Skins would make a play for Manning if they thought it would make them legit SB contenders in the short term, they would worry about the long term later as would I if I felt we would be SB contenders with Manning. I think thats a discussion the Skins need to have internally. If they don't think he would they will try to acquire the best one they can in the draft.
-
There is talk, but most of it is smokescreens.
Honestly (and I'm one of the few who think this way), I don't want Manning here. Not because his skills have diminished, but it would throw off the long-term success of the team.
Yeah, we'd be competitive for the next three or four years, but what about after that? We're going to need to draft a QB soon. Based on the rookie contract scale, the guy we draft would be going into the last year of his contract when Manning hangs up his cleats. That would only give us one year of game evals to judge whether we want to give him an extension.
If not Griffin, I wouldn't be upset with trading down from 6 and taking Tannehill mid to late 1st. Sign a 2nd tier QB (Orton or someone like him) and roll like that. I have faith in Shanahan's ability to groom young QBs into "the" guy.
Best case scenario for both our teams (IMO):
Colts keep Manning and trade out of the pick to get players to fit their new defense (they have the Ratbirds old DC, he'll want to run a 3-4). They can get Barkley then next year. Redskins trade up and take Luck with the 1. Browns then either trade up or let RG3 fall to them. We both get elite QBs.
I think the Skins would make a play for Manning if they thought it would make them legit SB contenders in the short term, they would worry about the long term later as would I if I felt we would be SB contenders with Manning. I think thats a discussion the Skins need to have internally. If they don't think he would they will try to acquire the best one they can in the draft.
I think the Skins would make a play for Manning if they thought it would make them legit SB contenders in the short term, they would worry about the long term later as would I if I felt we would be SB contenders with Manning. I think thats a discussion the Skins need to have internally. If they don't think he would they will try to acquire the best one they can in the draft.
Unless it's a guaranteed Lombardi, I still don't want him. I'd rather have the long-term solution here for the next ten to fifteen years than try to find him once Manning leaves.
Shanahan had five years to turn the Skins around (three left on his contract). If he doesn't turn us into contenders on a long-term consistent basis, he's gone after 5. Manning doesn't do that.
-
Because your record is better?
I'm not comparing teams.
I'm saying if Shanahan is such a Super Bowl winning genie, he's failed to show it thus far in Washington. Blow the guy's cock all you want, he's proven nothing for you.
But he USED to win Super Bowls, that's what really matters...right?
I'm saying if Shanahan is such a Super Bowl winning genie, he's failed to show it thus far in Washington. Blow the guy's cock all you want, he's proven nothing for you.
But he USED to win Super Bowls, that's what really matters...right?
sounds a lot like holmgren.
-
@king-ghoolie-lives said:
This is a shitbag franchise with a shitbag FO and a shitbag owner.
The thing is, with the right draft, the Browns could see some legit improvement here in the next few years.
As good of a talent RG3 is, it would significantly slow down that improvement with what it would take to trade up for him. Not completely stop it, but slow it down A LOT. The Browns need playmakers everywhere on offense (WR, RB, and they could stand to get younger at TE). Stand pat in this draft and take Blackmon at 4 (or trade down to the mid first and take Floyd or Wright and an extra pick). Then with 22, take the best RB available (maybe not Richardson, but LaMar Miller would probably be there) or Dre Kirkpatrick to pair across from Haden, and make a formidable secondary. In the second, go either TE, RB, or DB. Add secondary, linebackers, and WR with your third rounders, and go depth then on.
Next year, roll with McCoy and a FA signing (possibly Flynn) to see how they do with the newly acquired weapons. If they do well, awesome, you're set. If they don't, go with Barkley, Jones, Wilson, Smith, or Manuel. Trade up if you have to. McCoy has skill, but he needs help to let it show. He may not be Manning or Luck, but he could very easily be on the Josh Freeman/Matt Schaub/Tony Romo level. Good enough to get you where you want to go.
The Steelers are in cap trouble and need to get rid of players. Their WRs are decent. Polamalu is over-rated IMO (he's been a liability in coverage lately - he tries to jump routes and can get fooled by double moves). Their RBs aren't anything special. Their defense is aging. Done right, in a year or two the Browns could be better than them.
The Ratbirds have an old defense, too. Ray Lewis and Ed Reed are close to retirement, I wouldn't count on them for too long. Ray Rice and Anquan Boldin are legit, but the rest of their offense is lacking. They need help at TE and Flacco isn't going to get it done for them. Browns could easily be on their level sooner than later.
The Bengals are your only real competition in the long run, but it's not like they're set everywhere. Browns could easily run with them for a while.
Yes, RG3 would be nice for you all, but he would be hung out to dry without the receivers or RBs to back him up. Get the support system in place and find your QB then.
The thing is, with the right draft, the Browns could see some legit improvement here in the next few years.
As good of a talent RG3 is, it would significantly slow down that improvement with what it would take to trade up for him. Not completely stop it, but slow it down A LOT. The Browns need playmakers everywhere on offense (WR, RB, and they could stand to get younger at TE). Stand pat in this draft and take Blackmon at 4 (or trade down to the mid first and take Floyd or Wright and an extra pick). Then with 22, take the best RB available (maybe not Richardson, but LaMar Miller would probably be there) or Dre Kirkpatrick to pair across from Haden, and make a formidable secondary. In the second, go either TE, RB, or DB. Add secondary, linebackers, and WR with your third rounders, and go depth then on.
Next year, roll with McCoy and a FA signing (possibly Flynn) to see how they do with the newly acquired weapons. If they do well, awesome, you're set. If they don't, go with Barkley, Jones, Wilson, Smith, or Manuel. Trade up if you have to. McCoy has skill, but he needs help to let it show. He may not be Manning or Luck, but he could very easily be on the Josh Freeman/Matt Schaub/Tony Romo level. Good enough to get you where you want to go.
The Steelers are in cap trouble and need to get rid of players. Their WRs are decent. Polamalu is over-rated IMO (he's been a liability in coverage lately - he tries to jump routes and can get fooled by double moves). Their RBs aren't anything special. Their defense is aging. Done right, in a year or two the Browns could be better than them.
The Ratbirds have an old defense, too. Ray Lewis and Ed Reed are close to retirement, I wouldn't count on them for too long. Ray Rice and Anquan Boldin are legit, but the rest of their offense is lacking. They need help at TE and Flacco isn't going to get it done for them. Browns could easily be on their level sooner than later.
The Bengals are your only real competition in the long run, but it's not like they're set everywhere. Browns could easily run with them for a while.
Yes, RG3 would be nice for you all, but he would be hung out to dry without the receivers or RBs to back him up. Get the support system in place and find your QB then.
wow it takes a fan from another team to throw up some logic on this thread.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login