Darrell Green Fan

But Mathew Stafford is not a big gamble, we know exactly what he is. And what he is is just the type of QB this team needs to elevate to the next level. This offense as it is now is not nearly good enough to compete for a title. Even with a low price tag Josh Rosen is a much larger gamble because the chances of him ever being good enough is like a 400 to one (and I'm still looking for that one example). Again I look at the league history of 1st round busts who were traded to back up that figure.

I understand this. But before that happened Jim Plunkett had shown more in New England than Josh Rosen has ever shown, which is nothing. And again you are pulling one example from the 70's and ignoring the hundreds of Blaine Gabberts that came after Plunkett. Mathew Stafford has been a very good QB on a bad team, had he been drafted by the Pittsburgh Steelers he would have been a great QB. This team with a few additions and Mathew Stafford would be instant contenders. QBs play well into their late 30's these days, he has a lot left in the tank. But at what cost? At least a 1st and a huge new contract. That is the price for a franchise QB.

And this does not even include the mobility upgrade with Kyle Allen. To believe Alex Smith will strengthen his rebuilt leg and become more mobile at age 37 is nonsense, he will never be mobile again. Someone mentioned the WFT's window for winning big is 3-4 years with all the young contracts that will expire. How bizarre is it that in 2020 we are discussing a window for competing for a title? But it's totally true. Plunkett in NE was not nearly the bust that Rosen has shown to be. He was traded from New England at a price of another QB, 3 firsts and a second if you can believe that. Teams, even stupid teams, don't give up that much for a player who was an obvious bust. But even if we use Plunket, who was in an equally crappy situation in NE and was much more productive than Rosen has been, that is one example from 2 generations ago. For every Plunket there are hundreds Heath Shulers.

Rosen and Mariotta have proven that they are not starting NFL QBs, as have players like Bisette. I don't see what is accomplished by investing any time or money into a QB like this. I've always been a Matt Stafford fan, he got a terrible deal when he was drafted by the Detroit Lions. He is going to be 33, the same age Alex was when Washington traded for him. But it will cost at least a 1 and I'm not for that. As I said the options on the list of vets is really not much better than just rolling with Kyle Allen, then they draft a QB to develop. I fully expect that Alex wants to return so he will probably be the starter. And yes after the inevitable playoff loss fans will realize that an old QB with no mobility is very very limiting.

This is what I keep posting. Kyle Allen would surely give them as much, with upside, as any vet who would be available. I keep hearing how Alex at least protects the ball where Kyle is a turnover risk. Kyle Allen had 1 interception in 4 games, Alex Smith has 6 in 7. Alex Smith is a great story and I'm thankful he is playing, but let's not pretend he is actually playing well.

Yes I am getting tired of the Darnold idea as he is compared to Tannehill. Tannehill was a 7 year starter who was never as bad as what we have seen from Darnold. He was never a disaster and then he went to a really good team with the most dominant run game we have seen in a while, so naturally he would do better there. I'm warming to the idea of drafting Lance for the future, then start Kyle with Smith as the backup. But it would not shock me if they had all 3 QBs back. There is no market for Haskins so why not hold on to him to see if maybe the light comes on may be what they are thinking.

I think what the article is pointing out is situations such as the Ravens getting lucky that Joe Flacco played like Joe Montana in the Super Bowl run, that sort of thing. Let's face it, Flacco can maybe win one and Grossman can get to one but those runs ended and were never repeated, both QBs were gone within a few years and the teams fell back into the pack. The odds of being a contender year after year with an average QB are just too long for this to be a long term plan IMO.

You need more than a great coach. You need a great GM and a great organization, which Gibbs had, for lasting success. Gibbs and his staff may have gotten the most out of the players but it was still Bethard's job to get those players and the owners job to just stay out of the way and support his people.

I was so pissed we didn't take a late round flier on Collins.

Man he has to be pissed. That cost him a lot of money.

Yeah I'm surprised there is not more discussion here about this article as the Snyder ownership obviously has far more to do with the success or failure of this team than anything else. So Snyder after claiming total transparency is now suing the league hired attorney to keep the settlement specifics sealed? That can't look good.

No I was a very infrequent posters here at that time. I was posting on other Redskins boards and the reaction to Sean Taylor there was mostly all positive. I had an issue with his attitude early (walking out of the rookie thing set up by the league, not returning Joe Gibbs' phone calls) but I never had a problem with his play.

Yeah I have no idea why that poster propped up Mark Brunell as the example of the most consistent QB here. He was consistently bad, that's about it.

So can I just kiss goodbye the idea of a second direct payment of $1,200?

Your memory of how the fans embraced Sean Taylor from Day 1 differs from mine.

Oh I totally agree on your Cousins take. It was my only argument for retaining him while understanding his limitations. The numbers make it clear that Kirk was the best QB they've had here in decades, and better than anyone who has played here since. But Mark Brunell was not good here. Fans were begging Coach Gibbs to put in Patrick Ramsey, when he failed they turned to drafting Jason Campbell because it was clear Brunell was not the answer.

Mark Brunnell? He was pretty bad.

I don't know what you are so worked up about. The poster is simply explaining that after over 20 years of miss-management and losing by Snyder fans have grown apathetic. And that's obviously true. We have a poster here recently saying he/she was unaware that every team in the division has a losing record. This is a poster on a team message board, so this is not a casual fan, who has obviously tuned out because this is common knowledge to most fans. What does that tell us?

I agree that Matt I is the best lineman on this team but he will be surpassed by the DEs. I too would like to see more snaps for Settle. What a great, deep group this is but still without a dominant player. For now anyway.

He has played well obviously but I have no interest in Alex Smith as a future starter. That is the road to nowhere. I'd be better with Allen, he gave about the same production and at least has upside.

I honestly have no idea how they can retain all of these players, you can't sink that much into one position group without it having major effects on the rest of the roster that is still full of holes. And I too am in the camp that believes Matt I is the best interior DL and Settles will get a monster deal if he hits the market. If he had played 10 years ago he would have been our best DL, now he is a backup. IMO Allen is the first guy I would shop. But coaches don't want to trade productive players, and he's a leader, so I don't see that happening. But they have to figure it out soon.

I've pulled out and let others take my argument, several clearly see it the same way as I do. But this is what I'm talking about with regard to this board. None of these posters are claiming Chase be the "best of all time even as a rookie", they said nothing even remotely close to that.

Thanks to @OVCChairman for supplying the screen captures. I really can't explain this, OK I was stoned but I'm pretty sure that even stoned I can count. All I can say is many of the double teams I saw, as I described, were a guard or back sliding over late. But that does not explain the difference between my count of 4 and the count of 16. This would make me the first person in the history of this site to admit that he was wrong. Well about the double teams anyway. I still don't see how wrong it was to have expected more impact plays from such an impactful player. Again every great player gets double teamed. But I've been out of gas on this for a while now. I still love Chase and have no doubts he will be great. A good MLB and a good FS (I'm having my doubts this team will ever find a good FS) will change this defense completely.

I'd like to get this thread back on it's rails now that this sidebar is over (hopefully). I can't wait to see Chase on Thursday. With the nation watching I hope he blows up big time. It's kind of all I have to look forward to on game day, I watch him almost exclusively.

I don't recall the screen captures and I'm getting a bit tired of being called a liar. I'm telling you I watched the entire Detroit game and saw 4 designed double teams. If you don't believe me I suggest you watch the game and get back with me.