Darrell Green Fan

Members
  • Content Count

    1,922
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About Darrell Green Fan

  • Rank
    The Special Teams Ace
  • Birthday 03/03/1959

Profile Information

  • Location
    Mount Airy, MD

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This is my point all along. Kirk has put together 3 1/2 solid seasons, Brad Johnson gave us a year and a half. People so quick to send Kirk packing don't seem to be aware of what it's like to have Tony Banks or Patrick Ramsey as our QB. No thanks. .
  2. I have a response but I agree it's best to move on. I'll just call this another victory for DGF. Kidding....kidding.
  3. Well I'm sorry if my reply led to this sort of response, I'll try to tone it down. I have already explained the failure of your logic. Again just look at the Eagles and a ton of other teams that vary from year to year with no more turnover than the Vikes had. We see teams go from first to last and vice versa every year. So to compare the Vikes this year with last year as if the situations are identical when they are not make no sense. What he said.
  4. Again you need to stop comparing one year to the next. By this logic the Eagles should be in first place now seeing as they returned the entire team plus a few upgrades and the Patriots would win every Super Bowl. Things change from one year to the next and to assume that Kirk is in the identical situation Keenum found himself in is illogical As you said they are at the bottom of the league in sacks and we know from his time here that Kirk is not RGIII when it comes to sacks, he avoids them pretty well. So obviously he is not in the same situation.
  5. I have been trying to follow the rules, I came here to debate the QB situation as it is clear that Kirk talk belongs here and not on the Stadium board. That's what the sticky thread there said clearly. Since the 2 players are joined for obvious reasons Smith's name will naturally come up. Where are we supposed to go with the conversation? Or is the name Kirk Cousins no longer allowed on Extreme?
  6. Just wondering how you will feel if the Redskins slog through another 10 years of 5-11 seasons saddled with QBs like Tony Banks, the next Heath Shuler etc while the Vikes remain competitive because among other reasons they have a good starting QB. That's the entire premise of my argument. I get the flaws with Cousins, I just know what it's like to try to win with crappy QBs. That's very real possibility here and we know how that movie plays out.
  7. And again you are making the assumption that Keenum would repeat last year's numbers. First off that was a career year as we have discussed where Kirk is playing like he always had, good enough to land that huge deal. And next the 2 seasons are completely different. Minnesota has had defensive and OL issues that were not there last year. I just don't see how you can do what you are trying to do doing fairly when as well all know seasons are not in a vacum and there are dozens of differences from year to year. Hell Keenum played against a crap Bears team, Kirk went up against a very very good Bears team. That's just one of dozens of examples of the difference year to year.
  8. And don't forget we get Fuller back and the 3rd. This is it in a nutshell. I get the "Kirk's not worth the money" argument. But those people have to realize there is a reason the 10th-12th best QB gets this kind of money. It's because as we know well, and are about to find out again, it's nearly impossible to win consistently with a below average QB. While I get the cap hit argument I think it's worth the risk given what life is like with a crappy QB. Again there is a reason no other team in our lifetime (and I'm old) never let a top 10-12 QB walk. They realized how hard it is to replace a guy like that. You guys think OUR management team is right and everyone else was wrong? You can't be serious about that.
  9. When you consider the era we are comparing, and again the key point that 2 different teams considered Trent good enough to be their long term QB and that was not the case with Keenum, I think it's pretty clear that the 2 QBs were considered much different.
  10. Fair question, thanks for the civil tone. A quick look at the numbers comparing Keenum before Minnesota (through 2016) up to and Green before KC (through 2000) Case: Completion %: 58% Yards/Game 200 21 TDs 20 Int Trent: Completion %: 57% Yards/Game 239 29 TD 16 Int As we know rule changes have allowed passing stats to totally change between 2000 and 2016, in 2000 there were 3 QBs who exceeded 4,000 yards, in 2016 there were 13 included one who threw for over 5,000. So even though he played in an era that didn't allow for the passing stats of today Trent Green still had better numbers than Keenum. And again 2 different teams picked him to be their long term starter, St Louis only moved on after the magic of Warner. Minnesota never felt Keenum was the long term answer, he was signed as a backup and discarded even after playing very well. So to me they were two totally different prospects, and the league apparently agrees.
  11. ? Brad was a good QB in Minnesota, he was not a journeyman who never played well. He was only good here for a year and a half, then regressed, then was only OK on a great team in Tampa. Trent Green had started 23 games when he arrived in KC but had shown a lot of promise in his limited action. That is not a journyman, he just hadn't had the opportunity yet.
  12. Again the point remains the Vikes didn't feel Keenam could repeat his one magical season and all indications, both from league history and Keenam's regression to who he has always been, has shown that they were correct. There is not much evidence to show that they made the wrong decision give that. As for your first paragraph Brees was coming off major surgery and had never shown to be the QB he later became. People love to forget that the Saints took a huge gamble that paid off. That does not mean the Chargers were wrong, and of course they had the ability to draft either Rivers or Eli. So these 2 situations are not even close to the same thing.
  13. Then why did the Vikes go in another direction? Because they knew he was a one hit wonder. We see that happen all the time, there are countless examples. Other than Rich Gannon in Oakland when did a journeyman NFL QB suddenly become good for more than a season?
  14. The only time I had any confidence that we would win the game was when Colt came in. And as it turned out that was justified, it's no coincidence they took the lead after he came in. Smith wasn't "subpar" yesterday, he was awful. The pick 6 and ensuing interceptions were absolutely killers, his QBR for the game was Heath Shuler territory. With that said he is a class guy and I hate to see this happen to anyone, especially a Redskin. Just awful.
  15. Of course I read your post and responded to each of your points. I guess I'll make it more clear this time: What?...What does that have to do with telling you to follow your own advice and concentrate on a "plan" at QB for the Redskins instead of focusing on what Skins fans think of "another team's QB" over here? As I explained my plan at QB was to keep the one we kicked out the door. As that topic is banned on the Stadium Board I posted it here. And that opinion is very simple: They threw away a good QB I believe there IS no viable plan to replace him. Is that clear enough? What?...The only Skins fans who would go to the Cousins thread to discuss Smith's INTs are ones who are still overly obsessed with Kirk to an unhealthy degree. And I somehow doubt you've checked the posting history of any of the above posters you reference to see if they commented at all about Smith's game yesterday. Not to mention the dude broke his leg and Colt will be starting for the foreseeable future. That takes a helluva lot more precedence over everything else. I am hardly over obsessed with Smith, I can clearly see however how many posters here are still obsessed with Kirk. I honestly have no idea why he gets so much hate but in a decade after we've been through another 10 years of Jason Campbell (or worse) I would think folks here would wise up but I know better. As the 2 are linked together whenever there is a discussion about them there is nothing what so ever wrong with discussing Smith as others continue to trash Kirk. I did take a quick look at the posters history before making my comment, it was pretty obvious that there won't be any critical of Smith. Since you were the one to challenge my claim it's up to you to prove me wrong. Exactly. He played a great defense and had picks, it's gonna happen. Those celebrating his interceptions appear to be immature and vindictive if you ask me, why the hate again? For trying to maximize his earnings? Isn't that what we are all have right to do in America? So strange to me that posters have so much hate for the guy but as we are about to find out we're sure gonna wish we had a QB this good moving forward but it's not gonna happen.