When Can We Get Out of the Alex Smith Contract???

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

22 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Please read the original comments. The whole conversation was that the original poster was saying Alex's issues were due to Jay's offense - as they had seen plenty of other QBs struggle in his offense. So hence the request to list the other QBs that struggled. So my whole point was Alex's struggles were due to Alex not Jay. Not a sinlge comment was saying Alex was not struggling. 

 

Your hatred of Alex leads you to just jump on things without taking the time to understand any context. It's oh look another opportunity but say Alex sucks. It's really nauseating to be honest. 

 

 

 

I took what he said as a joke, not an indictment on what you were saying.  Relax.

[DJHJR86]

22 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

This is Alex being Alex. He's not really struggling from a numbers aspect. This is literally what I expected. A downgrade.

 

 

By the metrics imposed by Doug Williams (anyone can come in and throw for 4,000 yards in Jay's system), he's struggling.

[wit33]

If season goes off the rails (7-9/8-8), he’ll get to 4K easily. If teams does well and gets to 10-6, he’ll be at or just below. 

 

Funny how that works. 

[Morneblade]

29 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

By the metrics imposed by Doug Williams (anyone can come in and throw for 4,000 yards in Jay's system), he's struggling.

 

Yeah, well Doug is wrong.

 

Listen, I think my stance on things concerning Alex is pretty obvious. I don't think he's a great QB. I think he's average, and conservative.

Alex Smith had to ball out to barely crack 4k under Andy Reid, and I don't think anyone is going to say that Gruden has a better system than Reid. So, obviously "anyone" isn't going to throw for 4k in Grudens system.

 

Alex, right now is basically playing his KC 5 year average. He's looked shakier than I remember, but his numbers are in line. We also know that his 17' season was a anomaly, not the norm, and not a trending upward move. He's just a significant downgrade to what we had, even though he was touted as being a upgrade in so many way in the offseason. But that is on the FO, trying to pass off a marginal QB as a upgrade and paying the man like he was.

[Skinsinparadise]

25 minutes ago, wit33 said:

If season goes off the rails (7-9/8-8), he’ll get to 4K easily. If teams does well and gets to 10-6, he’ll be at or just below. 

 

Funny how that works. 

 

Another way to say the same point, if Adrian Peterson runs for 1200 yards plus this year and continues to have a big season, 10-6 and if not 7-9-8-8.

 

This game coming up is a monster game.  I know there is some doom and gloom here about the team now.   And I know some here think I am a doom and gloom guy just because I don't like Bruce.    But Bruce to me is not the team mascot.  I don't have a jersey of the dude.  As for the team itself.  I still like the defense.  I still Adrian Peterson.  The idea that Peterson can't run with a makeshift O line.  I get that logic.  but don't be surprised if he surprises people on that front.  I thought Alex was good before the season started, now I wonder.  But I still think he can and likely will play better. 

 

This Tampa game i think ironically is the 2nd version of a Code Red game in Jay's career.  A turning point.  If they win, they take away the sour feeling from the Atlanta game and show they can actually beat a team with an explosive passing game and can exploit a bad defense.  If they lose, my gut is the team might crumble.  And ultimately costs Jay his job in the long run.  Bruce, too.  I guess there is some irony that both of their fate might be tied to their old stomping grounds.  I think they can pull this one off.

 

But if they get through this one.  Trent will be back in a week or two.  Thompson as well.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/injuries-will-put-the-redskins-to-the-test-character-will-be-the-key-to-passing-it/2018/11/06/9977b208-e1f9-11e8-b759-3d88a5ce9e19_story.html?utm_term=.e1f4cda51471

Unlucky as they are with a second straight season of massive injuries to the offensive line, Washington has three factors working in its favor. First, the team’s strength is its defense, and that unit is in almost perfect health. Plenty of NFL teams have made the playoffs with a top-10 defense, passionate special teams play, a low-turnover offense, high team morale and, well, some luck.

 

Second, though few in the NFL would say such a rude thing, the easiest position at which to fake competence is offensive guard — the spot at which the Redskins are now auditioning any large person who walks in off the street with a semblance of a pro pedigree in his past.

 

The Atlanta Falcons have lost both of their starting guards for the season. When last seen, they were amassing 491 yards of offense against Washington in a 38-14 win at FedEx Field on Sunday, including 154 on the ground.

 

 

 

[wit33]

@Skinsinparadise

 

No doubt, this team is built on sum of its part and run game will be a huge part of it.  Injuries crush the average team with the average to above QB, especially with struggles Alex and Jay are having. Intangibles will have to play a role lol 

 

The elite offenses with elite QBs (exception Goff) can overcome bad defensive performances or injuries easier. Alex is not elite and won’t do this for Skins. The Skins will have to grind out wins, but fortunately, there are only 4-5 elite teams on offense and none are remaining on schedule. 

 

I put same level of importance on this upcoming game. With you 100%. The season wouldn’t be over obviously, but it will be a vicious blow. 

 

To beat any opponent this year it’s going to require production in all phases to win. I don’t get too caught up in the rankings, moreso a match up/scheme guy, but it appears Bucs offense has pieces to exploit weakness of Skins to date. 

 

Rankings have value, but key for Skins will be to control the LOS, sustain drives, allow zero big plays on defense. Overall the need is to dictate game flow. Small room for error, unfortunately. 

[bobandweave]

23 hours ago, ThomasRoane said:

 

Turnovers as a stat when measuring QB's are not a simple apples to apples comparison.  Matt Ryan took chances.  He had one turn over (really his receivers fault) yet he also threw for 350 yards and 4 TD's.  And he put on the brakes eating clock towards the end.  Hell, Alex could get 0 turn overs every game if he doesn't throw the ball beyond ten yards.  If you don't get chunk plays then you have a hard time winning today's NFL. 

 

I said team wins 80% of the time they win the turnover battle and never said anything about that being only on the QB did I? No that fact I posted is a team wins rate percentage and not the same as saying "When the QB wins the turnover battle over the opposing QB the team wins" which is what you implied I was saying which you are wrong in saying that. You missed my point. Turnovers are caused by the offense, defense, and special teams. Comparing turnovers from one QB to the other is stupid and makes no difference. Your QB could have 0 turnovers and the RB has 5 and they will lose the game.  

 

What your missing about what I said in regards to Alex Smith himself regarding turnovers specifically is that he is not that guy which should not be named here. That guy at the halfway point of his season this year has 6 fumbles and a 5 INTs. That's almost what he did here. If it's lost on anyone compare 2017 to 2018 Redskins QBs turnovers after 8 games 

 

2017 after 8 games the QB had 13 turnovers ( 4 INTs and 9 Fumbles) and the team went 4-4 in that span

2018 after 8 games the QB had 9 turnovers ( 3 INTs and 6 Fumbles)  and the team went 5-3 in that span

 

Less turnovers from the QB helps the team win more games. There isn't and shouldn't be any arguing about that.

 

If you think that TDs overrule turnovers and changes this know that after 8 games in 2017 the QB had 13 TDs. In 2018 the QB after 8 games has 9 TDs, More TD's doesn't make up for turning the ball over in regards to team wins. 

 

2017 after 8 games the QB had passed for 2147 yards. In 2018 the QB after 8 games has passed for 1867 yards. More yards in 2017, more losses in 2017. QB yardage doesn't help matters either in terms of team wins nearly as much as less turnovers = more wins. 

 

I have said that Alex is not turning the ball over as much as the last guy and that's helping them win games. That's the truth. Lots of people here have an issue with that but it's the truth. What you quoted was the team's recipe for winning football games. Recipes involve more than one ingredient. The QB not turning the ball over is just one ingredient to make the meal. 

 

 

 

 

[bobandweave]

36 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

This game coming up is a monster game.  I know there is some doom and gloom here about the team now.   And I know some here think I am a doom and gloom guy just because I don't like Bruce.    But Bruce to me is not the team mascot.  I don't have a jersey of the dude.

 

I would like one so I could post a video of burning it on social media. Same with Dan Snyder for that matter.

 

 

36 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Unlucky as they are with a second straight season of massive injuries

 

Jay Gruden is at the top of the list of head coaches where his players got injured after 5 seasons coaching. The most injured coach in NFL history is Jay Gruden. Over all other coaches. 

 

Other people can think that this is "unlucky" but that's due to them not understanding how long the injury bug has been the issue for this franchise. Every year they get "unlucky"? No I don't think so. Every year the same thing and it's all due to bad luck or curses? No I don't think so.

 

Only until Snyder does something significant to help his players avoid injuries and help his players recuperate will this end. Since people can't bring this up to Dan this will talked about like a "curse" and bad luck. Luck doesn't work that way and this isn't a curse issue. This is an issue that happens to teams when the owner refuses to address this. You would think that he would be sick and tired of this and do something but he's not gonna do anything until he gets his demand of a new stadium so the taxpayers foot the bill

[Skinsinparadise]

28 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

I would like one so I could post a video of burning it on social media. Same with Dan Snyder for that matter.

 

 

I feel the pain, too.  Good line.

 

28 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Jay Gruden is at the top of the list of head coaches where his players got injured after 5 seasons coaching. The most injured coach in NFL history is Jay Gruden. Over all other coaches. 

 

Other people can think that this is "unlucky" but that's due to them not understanding how long the injury bug has been the issue for this franchise. Every year they get "unlucky"? No I don't think so. Every year the same thing and it's all due to bad luck or curses? No I don't think so.

 

Only until Snyder does something significant to help his players avoid injuries and help his players recuperate will this end. Since people can't bring this up to Dan this will talked about like a "curse" and bad luck. Luck doesn't work that way and this isn't a curse issue. This is an issue that happens to teams when the owner refuses to address this. You would think that he would be sick and tired of this and do something but he's not gonna do anything until he gets his demand of a new stadium so the taxpayers foot the bill

 

I am ok with this thought, too.  I don't know if its luck or not.  But I've heard multiple times that the Redskins facility is one of the crappiest in the NFL and the field is one of the worst kept there is. 

[bobandweave]

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I am ok with this thought, too.  I don't know if its luck or not.  But I've heard multiple times that the Redskins facility is one of the crappiest in the NFL and the field is one of the worst kept there is. 

 

The issue goes back way further then just this season or this coach. To me that's not luck, it's a pattern. And maybe this year Snyder will bottom out and fix it. I've heard many players say the same dating back to Gibbs 2.0. I don't think that the root cause is well known, well to you and I it is but everyone? Nope

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

@Skinsinparadise

 

No doubt, this team is built on sum of its part and run game will be a huge part of it.  Injuries crush the average team with the average to above QB, especially with struggles Alex and Jay are having. Intangibles will have to play a role lol 

 

 

This is the perfect opponent for their type of injuries, a team with an atrocious defense.  Not saying it will be easy but if they can get through it, you got Trent and Thompson coming back soon.

 

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

The Skins will have to grind out wins, but fortunately, there are only 4-5 elite teams on offense and none are remaining on schedule. 

 

 

Texans and Tampa Bay can score.  They need to somehow IMO get through those games 1-1.  then I think Trent and Thompson are back.

 

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

 

 

I put same level of importance on this upcoming game. With you 100%. The season wouldn’t be over obviously, but it will be a vicious blow. 

 

 

It feels like a turning point game one way or another.

 

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

 

To beat any opponent this year it’s going to require production in all phases to win. I don’t get too caught up in the rankings, moreso a match up/scheme guy, but it appears Bucs offense has pieces to exploit weakness of Skins to date. 

 

to that point its a good test to this defense.  do they really have an achilles heel where explosive passing offenses (Atlanta, NO) can just boat race them?  And their thing is stopping teams who rely on the run but not so much passing games?  I don't know.   I suspect the defense will rise to occasion. This game will be telling. 

 

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

@Skinsinparadise

 

Rankings have value, but key for Skins will be to control the LOS, sustain drives, allow zero big plays on defense. Overall the need is to dictate game flow. Small room for error, unfortunately. 

 

The defense when they've been at their best, makes plays and cause turnovers.  Tampa Bay gives up turnovers like crazy.  So the defense which is relatively heathy will have to make plays. 

[Morneblade]

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

This is the perfect opponent for their type of injuries, a team with an atrocious defense.  Not saying it will be easy but if they can get through it, you got Trent and Thompson coming back soon.

 

I think even healthy was was the kind of team that could blow us out. Fitz will start, no more Winston. He'll throw some pick, but I don't think this offense has any chance to put up a significant point total. The Bucs have scored 26 or more points in every game but one.

 

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Texans and Tampa Bay can score.  They need to somehow IMO get through those games 1-1.  then I think Trent and Thompson are back.

 

I don't think it's going to happen. I think the wheels are coming off.

 

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

It feels like a turning point game one way or another.

 

 

to that point its a good test to this defense.  do they really have an achilles heel where explosive passing offenses (Atlanta, NO) can just boat race them?  And their thing is stopping teams who rely on the run but not so much passing games?  I don't know.   I suspect the defense will rise to occasion. This game will be telling. 

 

 

Yes, it will

 

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The defense when they've been at their best, makes plays and cause turnovers.  Tampa Bay gives up turnovers like crazy.  So the defense which is relatively heathy will have to make plays. 

 

I agree, but I still don't think the offense is going to score points. The defense might have to score a touchdown or to for us to have a chance. Offensively, with the OL issues, I don't see us scoring more that 10 points, even on a bad defense. Atlanta was bad as well, and we only managed 14.

[goskins10]

2 hours ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

I got the context.  It was a joke.  I was supporting your point.

 

And yes, Alex still sucks.  

 

First, thank you for the clarification. I mean that honestly. I know it sounds trite but a smiley face or something to indicate it was a joke would have really helped. But fair enough. I am doing a bunch of things at once. I may have gotten it had I slowed down.

 

Again, I appreciate the clarification. 

[ExoDus84]

40 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I am ok with this thought, too.  I don't know if its luck or not.  But I've heard multiple times that the Redskins facility is one of the crappiest in the NFL and the field is one of the worst kept there is. 

 

I agree the sports medicine aspect of this franchise and the recovery systems need to be audited thoroughly. Either we are signing every injury prone player we can, or our prevention protocols aren't anywhere near good enough.

 

Regarding the field causing injuries, I don't think that's been an issue this year. The field had nothing to do with Richardson hurting his shoulder, or Trent dislocating his thumb, or Scherff blowing out a pec. The issue is our offense (outside of Scherff) is full of injury prone players. Williams/Moses are always banged up, though Williams always plays at an elite level anyway. Reed and Thompson are always missing games. Richardson had a history of injuries before we signed him.

 

We need to prioritize finding healthy players in FA. We certainly can't sign a player with an injury history and then expect him to buck that trend here.

[Skinsinparadise]

33 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said:

 

I agree the sports medicine aspect of this franchise and the recovery systems need to be audited thoroughly. Either we are signing every injury prone player we can, or our prevention protocols aren't anywhere near good enough.

 

 

Sure, I don't pretend to have any idea how the injuries happen.  But to your point, I agree.  For example, Lauvao, has had a history of injuries for years now.  Not only did they double down on him being the guy but didn't really add a veteran C-G of note in case an injury happens.   I liked the Richardson signing but I did caution about his injury history, 2 ACLs among other things, and he's a small guy so he looks injury prone.

 

49 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

I think even healthy was was the kind of team that could blow us out. Fitz will start, no more Winston. He'll throw some pick, but I don't think this offense has any chance to put up a significant point total. The Bucs have scored 26 or more points in every game but one.

 

 

Agree.  That's why I think they are an interesting test.  If everything is about avoiding turnovers as some suggest -- Tampa is a train wreck by that standard.  Their defense is atrocious and their QB has a Rex Grossman like abandon style to go long and take chances.  

 

49 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

I don't think it's going to happen. I think the wheels are coming off.

 

Definitely a possibility and not a wild one.

 

49 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

I agree, but I still don't think the offense is going to score points. The defense might have to score a touchdown or to for us to have a chance. Offensively, with the OL issues, I don't see us scoring more that 10 points, even on a bad defense. Atlanta was bad as well, and we only managed 14.

 

I don't have an issue with this point either.  It's sort of a put up or shut up type of game.  The O line injuries are terrible.  But like the WP pointed out, Atlanta ran it down our throats with two back up guards.  Minnesota has played with 7 different O line ups and hanging in there.  Not saying its easy.  But if you have the perfect opponent to deal with it -- its the one that has given up an NFL record of points for the first 8 games. 

 

I gather your point is driven by you don't think Alex is up for a shoot out even under the best of circumstances let alone with more adversity even against an atrocious defense.  You could be right.  I got my doubts, too.  But I think Peterson could do it even with this O line.  Will see. 

 

[Morneblade]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Sure, I don't pretend to have any idea how the injuries happen.  But to your point, I agree.  For example, Lauvao, has had injury injuries for years now.  Not only did they double down on him being the guy but didn't really add a veteran C-G of note in case it happens.   I liked the Richardson signing but I did caution about his injury history, 2 ACLs among other things, and he's a small guy so he looks injury prone.

 

 

Agree.  That's why I think they are an interesting test.  If everything is about avoiding turnovers as some suggest -- Tampa is a train wreck by that standard.  Their defense is atrocious and their QB has a Rex Grossman like abandon style to go long and take chances.  

 

 

Definitely a possibility and not a wild one.

 

 

I don't have an issue with this point either.  It's sort of a put up or shut up type of game.  The O line injuries are terrible.  But like the WP pointed out, Atlanta ran it down our throats with two back up guards.  Minnesota has played with 9 different O line ups and hanging in there.  Not saying its easy.  But if you have  perfect opponent to deal with it -- its the one that has given up an NFL record of points for the first 8 games. 

 

I gather your point is driven by you don't think Alex is up to a shoot out even under the best of circumstances let alone with more adversity even against an atrocious defense.  You could be right.  I got my doubts, too.  But I think Peterson could do it even with this O line.  Will see. 

 

 

To be blunt, I don't think Peterson can do it alone. In 8 games, he was a non factor in 3. Moving forward I think that that going to trend upwards. By now, teams have to know that the offense moves through him, and with a decimated OL, both of those things are going to make it very difficult for him to get anything going.

 

That leaves the game in the hands of Alex Smith, which I don't think scares anyone. Stack the box, stop Peterson, and you almost can't loose.

 

Fitz will likely throw a pick, he's thrown 7 in 5 games. But even if he throws a couple more, we're still going to have a real tough time hanging in there. Offensively we're a bad football team that just got it's strongest area decimated with injuries. That's gonna leave a mark.

 

[wit33]

In FOs defense, they got hit with Arie K injury in mid May, after the draft. I’m assuming they felt Arie would be ready to compete and better than any mid to late round pick. Not completely absolving blame, but that was a hit team is now feeling even more now. 

[Skinsinparadise]

Just now, Morneblade said:

 

To be blunt, I don't think Peterson can do it alone. In 8 games, he was a non factor in 3. Moving forward I think that that going to trend upwards. By now, teams have to know that the offense moves through him, and with a decimated OL, both of those things are going to make it very difficult for him to get anything going.

 

 

 

 

 

Peterson somewhat famously ran well in Minny even though their O line wasn't always that hot and their QB not great.  Granted this is the 33 year old version of him but he seems to be a man on a mission.  Reading just how he goes about his business -- mind over matter, toughness, proving people wrong, etc -- he seems to bring special intangibles.  I think he's get off by showing people he can run behind a decimated O line and I'll bet with him versus against him on this front.

 

 

[goskins10]

4 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

I'll take you up on this because I've lost hope trying to explain my POV to some other folk, not worth my time to explain something over and over and end up in a Bruce Allen/Kirk Cousins fight because of how butt hurt they are he's gone and any opposing view is ridiculed.

 

But let's recap, since you also took the Bruce angle. One of my first posts in this thread was this:

In response to:

 

The point? Just a week ago I read over and over that Alex was not the reason we were winning games (I agree). Fast forward a week and I read the above and went hmmmm. How did we go from the team carrying the QB (now Alex), and if Cousins were here we'd be even better, to now claiming the FO didn't do a good enough job to set his predecessor up for success? See where I'm going with this?

 

Let me start with i was specifically addressing you not being as active in other threads to defend other players and your response of "That’s because those threads are 95% constructive criticism and fair points. They are good reads, even if harsh in some respects."   

 

The issue is you are saying that 95% of those posts are rational but the comments in the Bruce/FO threads are not rational. I would argue they are both about the same - depending on your view. And that's where this is going. You have a more favorable view of the FO (notice I didn;t say you liek them...  ? and appear to be willing to ignore some of things that bother many of us about them. That's your right. But it leads you to defending the FO much more than any other part of the team. You also were not a huge fan of Kirk's and thus are more tolerant of Alex. Again, it's your right. But it leads you to defend him when people get after him. 

 

The bottom line is you tend to agree with the positions on many of the others players so therefore feel they are more rational. You disagree with these opinions therefore they are in your mind not as rational or consistent. It's not a crime - just an observation. 

 

Next - can we please move on from the term "butt hurt". It's not only sophomoric it's homophobic also. More than that it's a lame and lazy way to express a point. So in a better way your point is that people are so angry about Kirk is it clouding their opinion of the FO. And that was exactly what I was addressing. While many are not happy with how Kirk went down, it's not the driving force in our anger toward the front office. Think of more the icing on the cake. Again, if it were truly the only reason people were pissed, I would be right there with you. But it really is not despite your continued insistence that the main reason. I can promise you, for me, and I know many others, there is a whole lot more than Kirk to be angry with Bruce and mainly Dan about. I will not list them yet again as they have been discussed in great detail. But it really is not just Kirk for most people. Are there a few? Sure. There always are. 

 

Ok, to the comment directly above. Your issue is that ;people was claiming the team was winning without Alex and then when the rest of the team doesn't play well, now it's that the FO did a poor job getting players but Kirk would still won. But I think the leap you are making is not what people are actually saying. Saying that the team is winning despite Alex is not saying the FO did a good job of getting players. It's saying ere are some better pieces and they are playing well. But there is still an overall lack of competence.   

 

So I disagree with your premise. To be clear no one has said the FO has done nothing good. In fact some of the people you have frequent discussions with - like @Skinsinparadise are pretty even handed when discussing the team. To me It means those guys played well enough to win despite Alex playing like garbage (not all games, but in general which I think we all agree.). Once they stopped playing well Alex was not enough to overcome those deficiencies where at least some people think Kirk could have done a better job of overcoming the deficiencies. He is a better passer - not sure anyone at this point can deny this. He also makes more mistakes that turn into TOs. So who knows. I am not sure we would be but I do not see the hypocrisy. It is more to do with Kirk vs. Alex than the FO. The FO has done some nice things. The Dline is much improved (only 4 yrs late, right @Morneblade). The running game has been better. How much is AP and how much is the oline? Not sure. I happen to think it's both. But it's clear they made a mistake going into the season counting on so many inured players. Signing a legitimate LG - did not have to be a pro-bowler, those are hard to come by as no one wants to let them go - but someone that's is a legit starter, would make the current Oline woes much easier to settle is one example. 

 

Quote

 

OK, so that was captured by part of my next post.

 

See, posters read that and go into ultra defense mode since they hate Allen so incredibly much and assume my point must be that I'm sticking up for Allen how could you possibly not like the guy. That's not the point, at all. And it goes right over their head over and over and over. What I called out was the moving of goal posts to suit an agenda. Seriously just last week there was a lot of chatter about team game, attributing wins to QBs is pointless, so throw Kirk and Alex's records out the window. Since last week Alex was coming off 3 straight wins and had the Redskins at 5-2 while articles were slamming Kirk for not being worth the money. Now fast forward a week and there are posts like the above asserting Kirk is genius for going to a team that supplies him the resources he needs. Yet still has that Vikings team with the same amount of wins, however we both ended up there.

 

There is really no way to defend Alex or the moves made without defending Bruce. I do get the issue of if you defend them you must like him. It's part of the nature of the board - not just this one - all boards. But in fairness your defense of Bruce and the FO is so vociferous at times, that there is really no other conclusion that can rationally be made. Now, maybe you are just reacting to what you see as irrational hate for Bruce - again to my point - while there may be some that just really hate Bruce, it's not more irrational than the dislike for any other player or person on the team. And in this case there are litany of reasons to not like the guy. 

 

I will finish this part with just as much as you defending a specific position or move of Bruce does not mean you love the guy, people being critical of certain moves does not mean they think everything he does is **** just because he did it. And just because they do not like Bruce does not mean it's all about Kirk.  

 

Quote

 

And to answer the chatter about why I post in the QB and Bruce threads. It's because there is a lot of inconsistencies in posting from week to week in those threads to fit personal agendas mostly slamming the franchise. Trust me, I read through every thread. If I really truly cared for sticking up for Bruce Allen I'd engage with the million other people who say he's an idiot on a daily basis. Again, it's not criticism that gets under my skin. It's twisting things to prove they were right all along. One week our team is so great any other QB can step in, Kirk would have this team in Super Bowl contention. The next, our organization is so inept that no wonder Kirk left for greener pastures! Exaggerating here, but you get the point. It's not consistent. To argue otherwise is pointless IMO. Both can't be true.

 

I think you are exaggerating here. No one has said Kirk would have this team in the SB. They have said he would have them being more competitive. Not sure that can be debated as he did move the offense - something Alex has struggled with mightily. The question is would that result in more wins? That I am not sure about. We could have had pretty much anyone at QB and probably still lost to NO - Atl too probably. The Colts? That is the one that may have been different. And it's fair to say that Kirk has a lot more weapons, yet the record is not much than ours right now. Is that on him? Some of it has to be. But how much? Same here, how much of the wins are on Alex and how much are not? That's probably a bit easier as outside maybe AZ Alex has not won us a game yet. But outside the Colts where the D gave him a chance, he has not really lost any games yet - by that I mean no back breaking TOs or just plain dumbass plays. He tried agaisnt dallast but got bailed out. So not sure it's twisting as much as seeing it differently.  

 

Quote

 

Edit I think if we collapse this year, it's obviously time for a change. Schaeffer as team President and Kyle Smith as GM I think would go a long way to reinvigorating the franchise. Depending on how we look down the stretch, I'd be in favor of Jay getting one more year and offseason under the regime change (not even sure much would be different than it is currently other than titles) to see if he can get it right. Alex is a tricky one because we are tied to his contract. I guess I just pray there's someone in the draft Jay has his eye on. He developed Dalton (2nd rounder) and Kirk (4th rounder) so I trust he can identify someone to run his offense outside of the top guys. And remember, Mahomes was never thought of as an elite prospect until later on in the process. Even he didn't go top ten, so it is possible to strike gold outside of the top guys. But QBOTF is imperative, so that by the time our DL is in their prime and on second contracts, we'll have a QB on a rookie contract still ready to step in. If I'm being honest, I don't think our contending window has quite opened yet. I think in 2-3 years you will really start to see the results of the last couple drafts and we'll be going places. But still think we end up in the playoffs this year.

I actually agree with most of this. My only concern is if we are picking a QB of the future, who is deciding who that player is. Will they actually let Jay get who he wants? If they do, I agree, I have confidence Jay can develop them. I have some problems with Jay but developing players is not one of them. He and the staff do a pretty decent job all things considered. 

[PlayAction]

I think it comes down to a talent deficit for the players that are available to play.  On Offense the Skins have not had good production out of their draft picks - some of it for injuries and some because the player isn't that good.  Alex's Smith's go-to WR was Richardson and he's been hurt and now is out for the season.  None of the other WRs has really stepped up.  Guice may have helped a lot but he and all the RBs have been hurt.  Skins relied upon an oft-injured left guard and he's out for the season.  The offensive woes really shouldn't be a surprise.

 

I like the Defense but it's young so it's not surprising that there will be growing pains.  ILBs are slower than I would like and the OLB (other than Kerrigan) aren't getting the needed sacks.  IMO - Skins are still an 8-8 type team.  Better than they were before but a big step below the competitive ones.    

[HardcoreZorn]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

Let me start with i was specifically addressing you not being as active in other threads to defend other players and your response of "That’s because those threads are 95% constructive criticism and fair points. They are good reads, even if harsh in some respects."   

 

The issue is you are saying that 95% of those posts are rational but the comments in the Bruce/FO threads are not rational. I would argue they are both about the same - depending on your view. And that's where this is going. You have a more favorable view of the FO (notice I didn;t say you liek them...  ? and appear to be willing to ignore some of things that bother many of us about them. That's your right. But it leads you to defending the FO much more than any other part of the team. You also were not a huge fan of Kirk's and thus are more tolerant of Alex. Again, it's your right. But it leads you to defend him when people get after him. 

 

The bottom line is you tend to agree with the positions on many of the others players so therefore feel they are more rational. You disagree with these opinions therefore they are in your mind not as rational or consistent. It's not a crime - just an observation. 

This is fair, that was an exaggeration on my part I guess, most likely because they aren't hot button issues for me so I probably turn my head the other way. We are all guilty of it, passionate about certain things so we post more on them. Ignore or unaware of some other things because we agree or just aren't as passionate. I'll concede this.

 

But I still believe there is a difference between the Gruden and Doctson threads and the QB threads for example. The QB is important, there's no doubt about it. But part of what I was getting at in here was that perhaps it's become a bit overinflated. There are three components of a football team, 53 guys. It's why a team like Denver won the Superbowl in 2015, when Peyton could barely even throw it. It's why Jacksonville rode Bortles pretty far last year. It's how the Eagles won a Super Bowl with Foles, Baltimore with Flacco. Yes those guys got hot at the right time. But does anyone think those guys light it up if the team around them isn't REALLY good? It's how Brady won some of his earlier super bowls, ditto with young Roethlisberger in Pitt. It's why one of the greatest arm talents of all time in Rodgers only has one lombardi.

 

What's my point in all of this? Sure, QB is important. But the QB thread and Allen thread on here project organizational dysfunction based exclusively on almost one position. And again, while a critical component, should not discount the decisions the team is making with the remaining 90% of the salary cap.

 

So while a Doctson thread may be critical of Doctson, or a Jay thread critical of Jay, the responses in those threads don't necessarily paint the picture of FO incompetence. Which is a hot button issue for me, and at the center of nearly all my exchanges on here. The rest of the team has shown more than enough glimpses in my mind at this point to disprove the notion that the previous QB here was not being given the resources he needed to succeed. That to me is simply not true.

 

Quote

 

Next - can we please move on from the term "butt hurt". It's not only sophomoric it's homophobic also. More than that it's a lame and lazy way to express a point. So in a better way your point is that people are so angry about Kirk is it clouding their opinion of the FO. And that was exactly what I was addressing. While many are not happy with how Kirk went down, it's not the driving force in our anger toward the front office. Think of more the icing on the cake. Again, if it were truly the only reason people were pissed, I would be right there with you. But it really is not despite your continued insistence that the main reason. I can promise you, for me, and I know many others, there is a whole lot more than Kirk to be angry with Bruce and mainly Dan about. I will not list them yet again as they have been discussed in great detail. But it really is not just Kirk for most people. Are there a few? Sure. There always are. 

Disagree here, and big time. If Kirk were still here locked up on a deal I don't think there is a fraction of the hatred toward the way we operate. Will never know for sure, but that's my gut. Of course there are mistakes made prior. Hell, I've brought them up at length on here because they provided the foundation for people to be as angry as they now are.

 

Quote

 

Ok, to the comment directly above. Your issue is that ;people was claiming the team was winning without Alex and then when the rest of the team doesn't play well, now it's that the FO did a poor job getting players but Kirk would still won. But I think the leap you are making is not what people are actually saying. Saying that the team is winning despite Alex is not saying the FO did a good job of getting players. It's saying ere are some better pieces and they are playing well. But there is still an overall lack of competence.   

Disagree. When you see countless posts articulating that the rest of the team has been great, which was the basis for being so frustrated with Alex because he's now holding us back, and that we are now winning in spite of the QB, you are conceding that the rest of the team is doing a damn good job. If you aren't saying the FO did a good job of getting players, then who the heck got the players that are picking up the slack for a crap QB? Where'd they come from?

Quote

 

So I disagree with your premise. To be clear no one has said the FO has done nothing good. In fact some of the people you have frequent discussions with - like @Skinsinparadise are pretty even handed when discussing the team. To me It means those guys played well enough to win despite Alex playing like garbage (not all games, but in general which I think we all agree.). Once they stopped playing well Alex was not enough to overcome those deficiencies where at least some people think Kirk could have done a better job of overcoming the deficiencies. He is a better passer - not sure anyone at this point can deny this. He also makes more mistakes that turn into TOs. So who knows. I am not sure we would be but I do not see the hypocrisy. It is more to do with Kirk vs. Alex than the FO. The FO has done some nice things. The Dline is much improved (only 4 yrs late, right @Morneblade). The running game has been better. How much is AP and how much is the oline? Not sure. I happen to think it's both. But it's clear they made a mistake going into the season counting on so many inured players. Signing a legitimate LG - did not have to be a pro-bowler, those are hard to come by as no one wants to let them go - but someone that's is a legit starter, would make the current Oline woes much easier to settle is one example. 

And to be clear, I've never argued we're perfect. It seems as if you've fallen in the same trap as some others do. Me questioning why SO much negativity doesn't indicate that I see all rainbows and butterflies. Me questioning why there is SO much hatred over losing Cousins doesn't mean I agree with everything we do. Me wondering how the board melts down when we are 5-3 at the top of the division half way through the year doesn't mean I don't think there are areas of improvement or that we are Super Bowl bound. That's a projection on you and others' part. 

Quote

 

 

There is really no way to defend Alex or the moves made without defending Bruce. I do get the issue of if you defend them you must like him. It's part of the nature of the board - not just this one - all boards. But in fairness your defense of Bruce and the FO is so vociferous at times, that there is really no other conclusion that can rationally be made. Now, maybe you are just reacting to what you see as irrational hate for Bruce - again to my point - while there may be some that just really hate Bruce, it's not more irrational than the dislike for any other player or person on the team. And in this case there are litany of reasons to not like the guy. 

Actually there is. O'Connell was rumored to be the guy behind the scenes pushing for Alex. Jay 100% was involved as well. So I can quite easily defend Alex (I actually haven't) without defending Bruce. But he's the dude that pulled off the trade and OK'd that extension though I presume. And as of now, that doesn't look too swell. So certainly not absolved of all blame. But yeah, I haven't really stuck up for Alex at all, other than saying there is some value to the way he plays the position when the run game and defense are going the way they are.

 

But your point directly below is exactly what you are doing ironically. I am questioning the level of hatred toward current organizational incompetence. Does not equal FO is perfect. Again, I don't see the level of hatred that permeates in the QB/FO threads. Already conceded that my 95% comment was an over exaggeration and a result of me not being quite as invested on those points. But will still stand strong that those are more critical of individual components of the team, which these threads are chalk full of hatred toward the whole team and direction of the team. I think that's the difference IMO.

Quote

 

I will finish this part with just as much as you defending a specific position or move of Bruce does not mean you love the guy, people being critical of certain moves does not mean they think everything he does is **** just because he did it. And just because they do not like Bruce does not mean it's all about Kirk.

Fair.

Quote

 

 

I think you are exaggerating here. No one has said Kirk would have this team in the SB. They have said he would have them being more competitive. Not sure that can be debated as he did move the offense - something Alex has struggled with mightily. The question is would that result in more wins? That I am not sure about. We could have had pretty much anyone at QB and probably still lost to NO - Atl too probably. The Colts? That is the one that may have been different. And it's fair to say that Kirk has a lot more weapons, yet the record is not much than ours right now. Is that on him? Some of it has to be. But how much? Same here, how much of the wins are on Alex and how much are not? That's probably a bit easier as outside maybe AZ Alex has not won us a game yet. But outside the Colts where the D gave him a chance, he has not really lost any games yet - by that I mean no back breaking TOs or just plain dumbass plays. He tried agaisnt dallast but got bailed out. So not sure it's twisting as much as seeing it differently.  

Too many variables to know, my only point really regarding Kirk and Alex thus far is that their teams currently have the same record. So why all the huff and puff (at this juncture) about losing him? Team game right? Right. So if Kirk>Alex, then Redskins supporting cast>Vikings supporting cast? I'm not even saying that's true, at all. But you can't play both sides. You can't talk Kirk up as this great franchise QB that we let walk out the door, and in the same breath talk about how he walked out the door to a franchise who gave him the tools to succeed. Doesn't mean we didn't botch the LG or Receiver position in hindsight. Doesn't mean we are a perfect team with zero holes. But what it does indicate, at least to me, is that Kirk Cousins wasn't worth what he wanted. And Alex isn't either right now, unfortunately, and hopefully he wakes up. So either way, I think the best path forward is to develop a young QB under Alex.

Quote

 

I actually agree with most of this. My only concern is if we are picking a QB of the future, who is deciding who that player is. Will they actually let Jay get who he wants? If they do, I agree, I have confidence Jay can develop them. I have some problems with Jay but developing players is not one of them. He and the staff do a pretty decent job all things considered. 

Agreed. And I will just end that it was super refreshing the way you responded back. Disagreement but healthy debate and I do appreciate it.

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

This is fair, that was an exaggeration on my part I guess, most likely because they aren't hot button issues for me so I probably turn my head the other way. We are all guilty of it, passionate about certain things so we post more on them. Ignore or unaware of some other things because we agree or just aren't as passionate. I'll concede this.

 

I still believe there is a difference between the Gruden and Doctson threads and the QB threads for example. The QB is important, there's no doubt about it. But part of what I was getting at in here was that perhaps it's become a bit overinflated. There are three components of a football team, 53 guys. It's why a team like Denver won the Superbowl in 2015, when Peyton could barely even throw it. It's why Jacksonville rode Bortles pretty far last year. It's how the Eagles won a Super Bowl with Foles, Baltimore with Flacco. Yes those guys got hot at the right time. But does anyone think those guys light it up if the team around them isn't REALLY good? It's how Brady won some of his earlier super bowls, ditto with young Roethlisberger in Pitt. It's why one of the greatest arm talents of all time in Rodgers only has one lombardi.

 

What's my point in all of this? Sure, QB is important. But the QB thread and Allen thread on here project organizational dysfunction based exclusively on almost one position. And again, while a critical component, should not discount the decisions the team is making with the remaining 90% of the salary cap.

 

So while a Doctson thread may be critical of Doctson, or a Jay thread critical of Jay, the responses in those threads don't necessarily paint the picture of FO incompetence. Which is a hot button issue for me, and at the center of nearly all my exchanges on here. The rest of the team has shown more than enough glimpses in my mind at this point to disprove the notion that the previous QB here was not being given the resources he needed to succeed. That to me is simply not true.

 

Hmm..   I have been in the Docston thread quite a bit. And it is full of the FO should have known he...  fill it in. Doesn't care, had injury issues, can;t run routes, has bad hands - all of which are not entirely true BTW. But maybe you just have not seen them (not a criticism, I know I can't and do not read every single comment on every single thread, I have work and well life.). I will say the complaints about the FO in this case are not realistic. It was a good pick at the time - and not just because Scot M was there. He knew they were letting Jackson and Garcon go after the next year and anted a replacement. Doctson and Treadwell were the top 2 WRs left when we picked - in fact they were the top 2 WRs going into the draft - so they took him but so far at least it has not worked out. WRs have only a 58% success rate when selected i nth 1st rd. You will miss almost as many as you hit. 

 

My point is, there has been plenty of criticism of the FO as being completely dysfunctional. So not sure I see your point. 

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

Disagree here, and big time. If Kirk were still here locked up on a deal I don't think there is a fraction of the hatred toward the way we operate. Will never know for sure, but that's my gut. Of course there are mistakes made prior. Hell, I've brought them up at length on here because they provided the foundation for people to be as angry as they now are.

 

In fairness this is probably true to some extent, but it depends on the timing. This would be more true the earlier he was signed. For example, sign him long term after 2015 he gets a lot of credit and people ignore much of the other stuff. Sign him after 2016 and it's not great but Ok, we get the idea Kirk was not good but for 9 gm in 2015. But once they did not sign him after 2016 and let him play on a 2nd tag, many fans were done with Bruce. Had he managed to somehow done the impossible and sign Kirk after this past season, it would be more like "You stupid POS, it's about time! What else are you going to screw up." 

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

Disagree. When you see countless posts articulating that the rest of the team has been great, which was the basis for being so frustrated with Alex because he's now holding us back, and that we are now winning in spite of the QB, you are conceding that the rest of the team is doing a damn good job. If you aren't saying the FO did a good job of getting players, then who the heck got the players that are picking up the slack for a crap QB? Where'd they come from?

 

I have not seen that many posts saying the rest of the team is "great". I have seen many saying they have played very well. But most if not all, including myself have never said the team around him is great. There are clear holes. Is the roster better? Absolutely. And they deserve credit for that. But is it great? Not sure any but a very very few would say that. Having said that, back to comment above, I do not have time to read every single comment on every thread. So it's possible I missed some of the "team is great" posts. But if so, I just do not see that I could have missed that many. That would catch my eye, not to mention it would bring a **** storm down from others to say - easy now. It's a few nice wins. But let's not get carried away. 

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

And to be clear, I've never argued we're perfect. It seems as if you've fallen in the same trap as some others do. Me questioning why SO much negativity doesn't indicate that I see all rainbows and butterflies. Me questioning why there is SO much hatred over losing Cousins doesn't mean I agree with everything we do. Me wondering how the board melts down when we are 5-3 at the top of the division half way through the year doesn't mean I don't think there are areas of improvement or that we are Super Bowl bound. That's a projection on you and others' part. 

 

Not sure how I fell into any trap. Never accused you of saying the team was perfect. I honestly do not see how you got that out of my comment. In fact I focused strictly on the other side that just because there is a lot of negativity does not mean everyone thinks all moves are ****. There is nothing absolute on either side of this conversation. You feel they have made more good moves than bad. Many of us feel they have made more bad moves tan good. Do I think you believe everything the FO does is awesome? Of course not. But don't assume that when someone is all over the FO for screwing up they hate everything they do. There are of course a few people on either side that do have those positions. But they are very small in numbers. 

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Actually there is. O'Connell was rumored to be the guy behind the scenes pushing for Alex. Jay 100% was involved as well. So I can quite easily defend Alex (I actually haven't) without defending Bruce. But he's the dude that pulled off the trade and OK'd that extension though I presume. And as of now, that doesn't look too swell. So certainly not absolved of all blame. But your point directly below is exactly what you are doing ironically. I am questioning the level of hatred toward current organizational incompetence. Does not equal FO is perfect. Again, I don't see the level of hatred that permeates in the QB/FO threads. Already conceded that my 95% comment was an over exaggeration and a result of me not being quite as invested on those points. But will still stand strong that those are more critical of individual components of the team, which these threads are chalk full of hatred toward the whole team and direction of the team. I think that's the difference IMO.

 

First, fair enough I should have said defending the team for trading for Alex. You have not had much defense for his play - I would recommend therapy if so - totally meant as a joke ?   My point was your defense of the FO sometimes is so visceral, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion. I know you like to send out qualifiers - and in fairness I believe you for the most part. But then someone gets on Bruce and again you come in so hard, sometimes to the point of appearing indignant that people don't give them a break, I can see why people reach the conclusions they do. Just as observation. 

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Fair.

Too many variables to know, my only point really regarding Kirk and Alex thus far is that their teams currently have the same record. So why all the huff and puff (at this juncture) about losing him? Team game right? Right. So if Kirk>Alex, then Redskins supporting cast>Vikings supporting cast? I'm not even saying that's true, at all. But you can't play both sides. You can't talk Kirk up as this great franchise QB that we let walk out the door, and in the same breath talk about how he walked out the door to a franchise who gave him the tools to succeed. Doesn't mean we didn't botch the LG or Receiver position in hindsight. Doesn't mean we are a perfect team with zero holes. But what it does indicate, at least to me, is that Kirk Cousins wasn't worth what he wanted. And Alex isn't either right now, unfortunately and hopefully he wakes up. So either way, I think the best path forward is to develop a young QB under Al

 

I agree, there are too many variables. But it's also why you can't really compare the records. I have been comparing Alex 2018 to Kirk 2017. It's about as close as you can get to a fair comparison - but still with many variables. Early, Alex was staying with him. But Kirk is pulling away. To be fair, Kirk had some really bad games at the end of the season - some of that due to injuries. But now Alex has the same excuse....  It will be interesting to see how he and the entire offense respond. 

 

The reason people are pissed is they had 5 yrs invested in Kirk. They saw him as the team finally having a franchise QB in their prime. Then Bruce ****s it all up. Yes, I know some of that is on Kirk. But it started and ended with Bruce - if he does not try so hard to win the deal and just signed Kirk, he would still be here and all of this would be moot. It's still a very fresh wound. It's compounded when you see Alex struggle so much in the same offense that you saw go up and down the field with Kirk - yes they had some RZ and TO issues - but you felt like there was a chance. Now, it's seems like we get behind 7-0, just pack it in. Top that off we have at least a semblance of a running game and pretty decent D coming along and it feels like a huge opportunity wasted. It's like ripping the scab off over and over again. It will be like this until either the team wins something significant ie: the D and at least a PO game, Alex is gone, or Bruce is gone. 

 

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Agreed. And I will just end that it was super refreshing the way you responded back. Disagreement but healthy debate and I do appreciate it.

 

Awe, you had to go and be nice...  now stop that!  ?   JK  Yes, good discussion. 

 

[wit33]

Well played @goskins10 & @HardcoreZorn

 

13min of high quality escapism. Thank you

 

6-3 here we come! For all of us, let’s hope Alex breaks through. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

@goskins10 I must hand it to you, sir.  You exhibit a level of patience and tolerance that escaped me years ago and I gather you’re much older than me.  You basically said everything I would say without being a dick about it. Well done.

[Burger35]

I believe after all these other qb’s were taken in the first last year, gmen only other team looking for a qb really...  this is the year skins need to get one...

heavy defensive draft nobody really looking for that qb besides maybe Miami..