DJHJR86

Just now, Conn said:

People are projecting a lot onto what Smith said. Clearly Arthur Smith is pissed—but a more generous reading of what he said would be: “Mariota has a chronic knee issue that’s been acting up but was worth ignoring while he was gutting it out and starting, and decided if he’s going to the bench he may as well get it checked out now and taken care of”. Which is kinda logical for someone who just went from battling for the playoffs and his future with the team to finding out he’s definitely hitting FA in a few months. 

"Nothing that's been an issue this season...but that's their prerogative", is not exactly a ringing endorsement.  

Just now, PolarExpress said:

I don’t know, I’d have to get the details on how it was handled.  But it looks bad.

Now he has people saying that they moved him to IR because he just had a kid and he wanted to be home with his family?  Seems really strange to do that considering there are 4 games left and the Falcons still have a shot to win their division.  There's also the chance that Mariota would have been able to play again this year.

That's the kind of guy I wouldn't want anywhere near this team.  At least Wentz took his benching in stride and has been a pro.  What a coward move to quit on your team because you were benched.  

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I thought Alex was decent.  Very average to sometimes slightly above.  IMO Heinicke is below average.  

Alex Smith was a below average starter in his 16 games with Washington.  Was he better than Heinicke in his prime?  Absolutely.  His QBR over his 16 game stretch averaged out to a measly 37.3.  In games where his QBR was below 50, the team was 7-3.  They won in spite of him much like the team is winning right now in spite of Heinicke's limitations.  I just think it's crazy that people are speculating about benching him when there's no better answer on the roster at this time.  

15 minutes ago, mhd24 said:

Alex Smith is 1000X the QB Taylor is.  A healthy Alex makes us a contender in the NFC.  He never made mistakes and knew where to throw the ball.  Sure, it. was boring, but we wouldn't have Taylor's constant turnover-worthy throws.  If we are going to run this ball-control offense, then Alex was a master at it.

Considering that an Alex Smith led team in Washington never beat a team that dropped 18 or more points, this current team would be 4-9 under that scenario.  And that was with a 16 TD to 13 INT ratio.  Smith was turning the ball over in his starts.  There is a bit of revisionist history when it comes to him because "WE WERE 6-3!"

14 minutes ago, redskinss said:

Why did you mention Logan Thomas with a question mark?

It was in response to someone who said "anyone but Heinicke".  

1 hour ago, FootballZombie said:

2018 Smith was never in a situation where his team week-in and week-out tried to minimize his impact.

The wheels were starting to fall off in that Texans game where he was injured.  He was terrible in that game.  Also, the team couldn't beat anyone who put up more than 17 points, and the first time there was a lead change came in that Texans game...when Colt McCoy entered the game.  

1 hour ago, redskinss said:

Are you suggesting that it would be wise to consider putting Logan Thomas in at quarterback before we considered going back to Wentz?

No.  I am suggesting that you do not go back to Wentz barring an injury to Heinicke. 

Alex Smith's offense in 2018 was averaging 19.7 points per game.  No one in their right mind would have uttered that he should be benched.  Not even at 6-4 had he not gotten injured.  If your argument to go back to Wentz is because you truly believe that no starter should lose their job to injury, that's fair.  I disagree, but it's fair.  But I see no real argument otherwise for going back to Wentz.  Their starting center is injured.  He is a statue.  Sam Howell is not ready.  Logan Thomas?

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

He has 9 TDs with 4 games to go.  24 TDs I gather factoring the games he didn't play when Wentz started.

Yeah it's averaging out the numbers over the course of 17 games.  

The Giants just got routed by the Eagles.  Last year after their bye week was when the team went on a 4 game win streak.  I think they win this one relatively easy.

Commanders: 24

Giants: 17

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Heinicke on pace for like 14 TDs that's pretty bad.  He's not rushing for TDs either.  

According to Pro Football Reference, Heinicke, over the course of a 17 game season, would be on pace to have 24 total touchdowns to 17 total turnovers.  Not good.  Wentz was on pace for 28 total touchdowns and 20 total turnovers.  Also not good.  There is no simple fix on this roster at this moment.  It might be Howell, but not this year.  

41 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The beat guys and national ones including people in the past who were very pessimistic about him selling -- i'd say give or take are about 90-95%. 

This is reassuring, but I can't shake the caveat that they have thrown in with the exploration of a sale: he could be looking for minority partners and not actually selling the team completely.  

23 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

So my thought was he read it as you being pessimistic about the idea that Dan is going anywhere.  that's my guess.  But who knows?

It was in reference to people positing that they could make and win the Super Bowl this year.  I was extremely optimistic that he was selling the team after the cheerleading scandal, then I thought there was no way he could survive the Washington Post bombshell, and now I'm at the point where I think it's a 50/50 shot that he's going to sell willingly or by force.  The NFL continues to point out that the team was hit with the largest fine for a team in NFL history, his suspension, etc.  I'm hopeful that the leaking of the Gruden e-mails is what does him in, but I am not in the "he's definitely selling" camp.

I think Wentz actually has a decent chance of a career resurgence somewhere, but it's going to have to be similar to Tannehill.  He's going to have to go somewhere as the backup and eventually earn his way back to the starting role.  Derek Carr might be able to do this as well.  I think they are very similar quarterbacks.  I think Rivera is going to do what he did last year: be very aggressive at getting a quarterback.  But I don't necessarily think he has to be.  We have Howell.  There's the draft.  I wouldn't mind taking the "safe" route if there was no QB in the draft that they loved: sign Gardner Minshew & Heinicke, and have them compete with Howell for the starting job in 2023.  I kind of wanted them to trade for Minshew back in 2021 to compete with Heinicke.

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

For me, I don't know what the point is to make this point unless it has strong relevance to a different point or there is more detail added to the point?  Because who disagrees?   

It just reinforces the fact that he has meddled with this team forever, and all of that talk about "no he's really stepped away from the football side of things" when Bruce was hired was all bull****.  Every player he has personally handpicked has been an unmitigated disaster...save RG3's rookie year.  

I got the thumbs down reaction in another thread for saying this team will never win a Super Bowl with Snyder.  How much more evidence do you need of his meddling over the last 23 years to convince you otherwise?  He can't pick quarterbacks.  He can't pick running backs.  He can't anything.  And when the football people actually do hit on people worth keeping...he lets them go for nothing.  

13 hours ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

The Raiders are rebounding. If they end up with a winning season and/or make the playoffs; they are keeping Carr.

Looks like Carr will be available.  Hell to the no for him coming here.  

Also, my favorite thing about the Snyder/GOP response is how they are trying to paint Allen as the one who ran the day to day operations...and then on the very last page they have Snyder's testimony where he is asked about Allen making hiring decisions...and Snyder tells them that Allen would call him before hiring or firing...meaning he was the one ultimately in charge of the day to day operations.  

Snyder keeps pointing the finger at Bruce Allen, saying he was the Team President when most of these allegations took place.  Okay, no argument from me on the merits of Bruce Allen being a scumbag.  He 100% is.  But is Snyder stupid enough to think we can't look up dates?  Most of the allegations that were printed in the bombshell Post story were before Allen was ever hired!  It does seem like most of the financial impropriety allegations against him are going to lead nowhere.  Hopefully the other owners grow spines and vote this little monster out next week.

Snyder torpedoing the Trent re-signing is yet another piece of evidence that this team will never (and you can use all caps) win a Super Bowl with Snyder.  

11 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Whether fans are delusional about it or not, that remains to be seen.  But the sentiment from the dude below isn't unique.  Most fans from what I can tell feel good about this roster

This team is not a quarterback away from winning a Super Bowl.  They will never win one with Dan Snyder as the owner.  Never.  

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Well what happened then?

They lost two of their starters going into this season?

32 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

But if we got the version of Wentz the Colts got, we wouldn’t be talking about Heinicke.  He took 32 sacks as opposed to 23 in 1/3 as many games.  3:1 TD/int ratio.  

Are we getting the offensive line from the Colts as well?  Because without them, Heinicke enters the conversation.

1 minute ago, mhd24 said:

He’s also insanely lucky.

Is he lucky...or as everyone continues to point out, just wildly inaccurate?