Vince Young an option at QB?

[megared]

He showed up to camp late. He failed a relatively easy conditioning test. He didn't buy into the scheme and get behind Haslett while the other players did. He flopped on the field against Philly. What more do you want? While he didn't bad mouth his teamates or coaches, his failure to "buy into" the team mentality that Shanahan wanted is being a lockeroom cancer. All 53 guys need to be on the same page. He was acting like the bookmark.

Did Haynesworth tangibly lose us any games this season? This is the psychoanalysis I was speaking about. Did Haynesworth laying down on one play really prevent Philly from beating us down? How has anything Haynesworth done had a direct effect on the team? All you can do is speculate...

Big effin deal. Trent Dilfer wants you to know he won 15 out of 19 games one year with the Ravens. Again with the winning percentage? He did it all himself? He was the sole reason they won those 19 games? Child Please.(to quote Chad Ochocinco).

No. Trent Dilfer would like you to know that he won 15 of 19 games on the back of one of the best defenses in NFL history. There was no other QB present to directly compare his record to, with the same personnel with a dramatic disparity.

[SonnySide]

No. Trent Dilfer would like you to know that he won 15 of 19 games on the back of one of the best defenses in NFL history. There was no other QB present to directly compare his record to, with the same personnel with a dramatic disparity.

In other words, the Ravens won DESPITE Dilfer, same way the Titans won DESPITE Vince Young's bad QB play....difference: Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring, Young never will...

The other difference: Trent Dilfer doesn't have an army of spinners and conspiracy theorists to try and convince the world he is anything other than mediocre....

[Buck812]

Big effin deal. Trent Dilfer wants you to know he won 15 out of 19 games one year with the Ravens. Again with the winning percentage? He did it all himself? He was the sole reason they won those 19 games? Child Please.(to quote Chad Ochocinco).

I havent thought about that.... Imagine if VY had the Ravens D that year. Now you have me really excited!

[megared]

Maybe because they ran more with Young because he didn't know the route combos, so passing would be a lost cause?

:whoknows:

Or maybe they ran more because it was more effective and they're a conservative run first offense?

[SonnySide]

I havent thought about that.... Imagine if VY had the Ravens D that year. Now you have me really excited!

Or imagine if the Ravens had a REAL QB that year not named Young or Dilfer!

[megared]

SOMEHOW being the key word.

There is no EVIDENCE to suggest that Young was the catalyst for those wins....unless you count "wishful thinking" as evidence......

You only saw Young on Sundays (that is if you ever really watched him play as opposed to supporting him for other reasons), but Fisher saw him 7 days a week.

Why would you trust a guy with a bad work ethic who has trouble mastering a playbook?

Jeff Fisher, one of THE most respected coaches in the league did NOT trust Vince Young.....of course with Vince supporters, it's always someone else's fault and there is always a conspiracy.....I've had this argument before and discovered the root cause for Young's endless parade of spinners....

Can't say I really trust Fisher. To me he's insanely overrated...He is after all the same guy that hasn't won a playoff game since 2003. He also wanted Leinhart over VY and never got over Bud Adams overriding that decision. He was forced to start VY in '09...and with him being the only difference, they go from 0-6 with Collins to 7-2. How exactly is that a coincidence?

In 2009 Young had the 5th best win probability...and Collins was not among the top 4.

[SonnySide]

Can't say I really trust Fisher. To me he's insanely overrated...He is after all the same guy that hasn't won a playoff game since 2003. ?

And Vince Young has NEVER won a playoff game.

Fisher is better at his job than Young is at his...

Again, look at the game log for Young's career and you will see all too many of HIS wins coincidentally occur when there is a huge game from the D, special teams and/or running game....

[pjfootballer]

Did Haynesworth tangibly lose us any games this season? This is the psychoanalysis I was speaking about. Did Haynesworth laying down on one play really prevent Philly from beating us down? How has anything Haynesworth done had a direct effect on the team? All you can do is speculate....

As you also. You can only speculate that he didn't cause problems. Every example I gave you was true. I never said he caused us to lose games, I was saying his actions could be construed as a problem in the lockroom when the other 52 guys are on one page and he's on another. How would you feel if you saw one of your teamates dogging it on the field, for even one play while you busted your ass. Him doing the worm against the Eagles didn't lose us the game, it sealed his fate with this team. Could you imagine DeAngelo just stop running when the receiver catches a ball on his own 30 yard line and races 70 yds for a TD? That's essentially what Fatass did.

No. Trent Dilfer would like you to know that he won 15 of 19 games on the back of one of the best defenses in NFL history. There was no other QB present to directly compare his record to, with the same personnel with a dramatic disparity.

See Sonny's post above, which is what I was going to say. The Titans defense and running game has been no slouch with Vince under center. Call me when you can say that Vince put the Titans on his back and single handedly carried the team to wins much like Brady, Rodgers and Peyton do week in and week out.

[megared]

And Vince Young has NEVER won a playoff game.

Fisher is better at his job than Young is at his...

Again, look at the game log for Young's career and you will see all too many of HIS wins coincidentally occur when there is a huge game from the D, special teams and/or running game....

So why did the stars never align for Kerry Collins? In 09 with Young not playing, they went over 20 points twice (out of 7 games). With him starting, they failed to do this three times (out of 9 games).

[SonnySide]

So why did the stars never align for Kerry Collins? In 09 with Young not playing, they went over 20 points twice (out of 7 games). With him starting, they failed to do this three times (out of 9 games).

Easy: Vince Young fairy magic.....that's about all the PROOF that Young apologists have...

BTW, that was a cue to post the Vince shirtless photos....

[megared]

As you also. You can only speculate that he didn't cause problems. Every example I gave you was true. I never said he caused us to lose games, I was saying his actions could be construed as a problem in the lockroom when the other 52 guys are on one page and he's on another.

"Could be construed as a problem" and "are a problem" are two totally different things. And there weren't 52 guys on the same page...what about Carlos Rogers? Rocky? Portis? McNabb? Carter? etc, etc. These guys are professionals that are expected to do their job. All of the locker room cancer talk is strictly talking heads chattering.

See Sonny's post above, which is what I was going to say. The Titans defense and running game has been no slouch with Vince under center. Call me when you can say that Vince put the Titans on his back and single handedly carried the team to wins much like Brady, Rodgers and Peyton do week in and week out.

Wait, so none of those guys had good defenses? Really?

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 04:45 PM ----------

And Vince Young has NEVER won a playoff game.

Fisher is better at his job than Young is at his...

Again, look at the game log for Young's career and you will see all too many of HIS wins coincidentally occur when there is a huge game from the D, special teams and/or running game....

Isn't that true of most QBs? And this is circular...as the running game is somehow better with him under center. I already gave an explanation as to why that is. Not sure how you can see it consistently occur, with the same supporting cast, same defense, same coaching, same stadium, same fans, yet somehow over the course of several games it's just a coincidence? That's beyond a coincidence...and it's too great of a sample size to be an anomaly.

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 05:04 PM ----------

Easy: Vince Young fairy magic.....that's about all the PROOF that Young apologists have.

And to refute this, there's a logical explanation as to why the run game was more effective with VY in the game: (jacked this post from the Titans Board, which was jacked from the Jags Board)

I was just watching "Put up your Dukes" NFL network and he showed how the Jags were so worried about VY running or rolling out that it just killed their run support...

He showed a few plays were both the Safety' date=' DE and LB were frozen everytime VY made a move like he was rolling out...

It turns our run game into a 9 vs 11 instead of 11 vs 11...

Here is a post I found on the Jags board....from a jags fan.

I've been as guilty as anyone else of claiming that Vince Young was overrated...he's an average passer, he's really just a running back...etc., etc., etc. Watching this Sunday's game completely changed my perspective on Vince Young. Vince Young's job is not to just be a quarterback; it's to be a WEAPON. Our linebackers spent all day glancing at Young to see if he was rolling out, or running a QB draw, or just doing something completely unpredictable in general. Half the Titans' running plays were draws and counters based off of Young taking off in one direction and then Chris Brown darting back the way he came from. The entire defensive line pursued Young's direction, and the Titans' line LET them, then sealed off the cutback when Brown took the ball. It was a masterful game plan by Norm Chow, and this is the perfect way to use a guy like Vince Young. Young is a throwback...he can pass if he needs to, but his main job is to be the catalyst. He can roll out and either run or throw. He can start to roll out and then hand the ball to the RB for a cutback run like they did all day on Sunday. He can pretty much have his way in terms of offense if the Titans play like they did on Sunday. I hate Tennessee as a Jaguars fan, and I wasn't impressed by their offseason moves, but I will say this: if their lines on both sides of the ball and their offense play like they did on Sunday, the Titans will be in the AFC playoffs. To all Tennessee fans, you didn't draft the best QUARTERBACK in the 2006 NFL Draft, but you definitely drafted the best offensive weapon. You officially have my respect.

Here is another..

Why did the Titians beat us...

Simple

4 guys on defense against 5 or 6 or 7 on offense, with Mike P spying on young, young would just go oppostie way then the running back and the LB was out of postion. Fault lies in Coaches who could not see this when most the fans at the game could.........

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

I didn't get to watch the game because on an emergency, what does everyone think... I'm going to watch the game tomorrow..

If so I bet teams quickly switch to trying and make VY beat them with his arm in the very near future.... That might not last long if he takes off on a long run or two...

I know Vick has this effect but the big difference between Young running an Vick running is that Vince is tough to bring down one on one and you can't corral him because he attacks when he runs...

When Vick ran you just tried to corral him because he depended on pure speed and if you stay patient he will just run out of bounds..

Vince breaks and runs through tackles... Vick went down very easy if you got a hand on him... That won't work with Vince everytime... Kind like the difference in tackling a kick returner instead of a giant runningback..[/quote']

[Conn]

This is going to be an unpopular opinion.

I watch the Redskins for entertainment purposes. It's in my blood, it's my biggest passion...but at the end of the day, it's entertainment.

And if we're going to be mediocre or lose anyways, there's a decently-sized portion of me that wonders if I might not enjoy watching that happen with Young under center (assuming he won the job in TC).

I want us to build a dynasty as much as anyone else...but I wonder if some of the staunch opposition to Young coming here stems from the subconscious fear that he'll actually make us better. Not SB-good, mind you. But good enough where deep down, many fear he'd make us "lose" the chance at a top QB in the draft. Not that there aren't very legitimate and well argued reasons for not wanting Vince here. But i think this might be one that's not being discussed.

Part of me agrees with it, honestly. Part of the appeal of Beck is that even if he falls flat on his face, we know our consolation prize is a highly-drafted franchise QB.

But that other part of me, the homer who wants to see wins and wants to be entertained, wonders if it's a little selfish to pass on a guy who is only in his mid-late 20's, who could help us win, on the naive hope of a shot at Andrew Luck.

This is not directed at anybody in particular. It's mostly just my inner dialogue on the subject, really, because I fall on both sides of this.

None of this is taking into account the "head-case" questions regarding him. But I'm done speculating on that. We'll see what happens.

If he's a guy capable of putting up 3-4 more wins than Beck, or maybe Grossman, and be more exciting at the same time, are we so intent on this need to look ahead to the next draft, that we forget about our inner fanatic, that wants to see wins every Sunday? I think in some ways, winning has happened so rarely in the last decade here that it's become more of an abstract idea, than a concrete event, and feeling. So we create these grand designs, these perfectly assembled ideals representing what winning SHOULD feel like, and how it SHOULD happen. So much so that we forget to enjoy the moment and revel in the winning as it happens. I'm not saying to go all in and sacrifice the future of the franchise to win now with Vince Young.

I'm just saying that as often as not, picking in the top 5-10 isn't the only place to draft a franchise QB. So we can in fact bring in a guy that could entertain, and maybe, with an improved D, bring us more wins, while not losing out on that dream.

Now, if you don't think he's talented or good enough to get us those extra wins, I'm fine with that. I'm not here to argue that point, and I wont criticize anyone for not liking his game or his fit here. That's a fair position to hold.

I'm just typing my thoughts, and wondering if maybe there's a segment of the population here, however small, who opposes the idea BECAUSE it might make us better, in a more reliable way than Beck might.

Because I think there's a group who supports Beck, and is vey optimistic about it, precisely because deep down they're willing to give him a real chance to sink or swim..mostly because they believe that if he does sink, it will win us the Luck Lotto. So, that's their security blanket. I don't know who I think belongs to that group--I just know I think it exists.

And I think that's extreme, and might be preventing a fair look at this possibility. We can draft a QB even if we do strive for a decent season. Maybe that's what Young could contribute towards, for once.

Just my thoughts. And again, they aren't even fully formed. I don't necessarily want Young here (though I believe, still, that it's low-risk) now...but I'm approaching it with an open mind.

[darrelgreenie]

Part of the appeal of Beck is that even if he falls flat on his face, we know our consolation prize is a highly-drafted franchise QB.

But, if Beck or whichever QB Mike/Kyle they choose fails it mean that 2 years in a row they chose their QB and failed to develop/have success with them.

That's essentially 2 lost years at the most important position.

[Boston Skins]

This is going to be an unpopular opinion.

I watch the Redskins for entertainment purposes. It's in my blood, it's my biggest passion...but at the end of the day, it's entertainment.

And if we're going to be mediocre or lose anyways, there's a decently-sized portion of me that wonders if I might not enjoy watching that happen with Young under center (assuming he won the job in TC).

I want us to build a dynasty as much as anyone else...but I wonder if some of the staunch opposition to Young coming here stems from the subconscious fear that he'll actually make us better. Not SB-good, mind you. But good enough where deep down, many fear he'd make us "lose" the chance at a top QB in the draft. Not that there aren't very legitimate and well argued reasons for not wanting Vince here. But i think this might be one that's not being discussed.

Part of me agrees with it, honestly. Part of the appeal of Beck is that even if he falls flat on his face, we know our consolation prize is a highly-drafted franchise QB.

But that other part of me, the homer who wants to see wins and wants to be entertained, wonders if it's a little selfish to pass on a guy who is only in his mid-late 20's, who could help us win, on the naive hope of a shot at Andrew Luck.

As interesting a point as it is, I am not on that train of thought. I want to be entertained with performance, improved performance, on the football field. I don't want 2011 to have yet another excuse for providing the forms of "entertainment" that we've suffered through for countless years now. Will there be controversey in the Redskins 2011 season? No doubt. But this is the kind of controversey I want to see this team moving away from. I have had enough of the "me-first" players.

As I said before, if the Redskins sign Vince Young, I hope he freaking lights it up out there. But until they do, Rex or Beck are my guys.

Hail!

[Wyvern]

Vince Young = Jason Campbell plus a good running ability . . . but minus the maturity and a professional mindset.

Unless Grossman leaves and Beck is revealed to be a complete flop in training camp I suggest the Skins pass on Vince. Even as second string, Young has the potential to become a big headache/diva on a team with coaches who don't handle divas well.

[mtruslow]

I don't want this headcase/idiot on my team PERIOD.

[KDawg]

But, if Beck or whichever QB Mike/Kyle they choose fails it mean that 2 years in a row they chose their QB and failed to develop/have success with them.

That's essentially 2 lost years at the most important position.

Disagree. Beck isn't a hand picked QB. He was acquired in a steal of a trade that was essentially a no brainer. The lockout has made it so Beck may be our absolute best option, even if we resign Grossman. The hand picked QB that failed was McNabb. I agree there. But Beck more or less is falling into the role. There are no free agents that are going to be the long term answer, especially Vince Young.

The beauty of Beck starting is two fold. If he succeeds, we have 3-6 years with a quarterback that can get the job done (he's no spring chicken) if he fails, we're in position to draft a highly graded quarterback prospect. There is no shame in starting Beck in a lockout year. None.

[addicted]

SOMEHOW being the key word.

There is no EVIDENCE to suggest that Young was the catalyst for those wins....unless you count "wishful thinking" as evidence......

You only saw Young on Sundays (that is if you ever really watched him play as opposed to supporting him for other reasons), but Fisher saw him 7 days a week.

Why would you trust a guy with a bad work ethic who has trouble mastering a playbook?

Jeff Fisher, one of THE most respected coaches in the league did NOT trust Vince Young.....of course with Vince supporters, it's always someone else's fault and there is always a conspiracy.....I've had this argument before and discovered the root cause for Young's endless parade of spinners....

Great post, wanted to point out that we have the same crap going on in this forum from some of the most respected members of the forum in regards to Beck

Some just want to blame everyone else except the player

It makes no sense and it's not true but who doesn't love a good conspiracy?

[grego]

.

The beauty of Beck starting is two fold. If he succeeds, we have 3-6 years with a quarterback that can get the job done (he's no spring chicken) if he fails, we're in position to draft a highly graded quarterback prospect. There is no shame in starting Beck in a lockout year. None.

i agree with this. i'm a little intrigued by VY, but i have no problem with seeing what we have in beck. the man was released by miami for a reason, and traded by the ravens for a reason. one was a regime change and the other was a team desperate for a CB. if cameron had his way, beck would be in b more.

[addicted]

Disagree. Beck isn't a hand picked QB. He was acquired in a steal of a trade that was essentially a no brainer.

Oh hell

Why was that a steal of a trade?

Because McNabb flopped? Really? You think that we knew McNabb was going to be crap when we traded for Beck and this was all planned out?

What in the hell has Beck ever done to make anyone actually believe he is any good?

The only good thing about that trade is in the end we ended up with both Doug Dutch and John Beck but really who cares?

Beck made it up from 3rd on the depth chart to 2nd only when McNabb was benched, he didn't earn the promotion it was handed to him

And Grossman is going to get re-signed and take the starting job ending all of the Beck talk

Beck did jack crap in his only game time action of the year - meaningless preseason game and he's done nothing ever on the three teams he's been on

So how exactly do you say at this juncture that he was a "steal of a trade that was a no brainer" with nothing to back that up other then some fantasy that Baltimore gave away a stud QB and our player back and we made them look like suckers?

[KDawg]

Oh hell

Okay?

Why was that a steal of a trade?

Because we got him for Doug Dutch?

Because McNabb flopped? Really? You think that we knew McNabb was going to be crap when we traded for Beck and this was all planned out?

No. Not even sure where you're getting that from. You're awfully confrontational and reading into things that don't exist. The McNabb trade sucked from the beginning in my opinion, but the Shanahan's obviously wouldn't have traded for him if they didn't think he was going to work. We needed a third QB and we acquired Beck for Doug Dutch. That's not a steal?

What in the hell has Beck ever done to make anyone actually believe he is any good?

Nothing. But why's that matter?

The only good thing about that trade is in the end we ended up with both Doug Dutch and John Beck but really who cares?

Beck being a prototypical fit for our offense as a third string QB was a steal. I never said trading for him to become the starter was ever the plan. Holy cow you're an angry person

Beck made it up from 3rd on the depth chart to 2nd only when McNabb was benched, he didn't earn the promotion it was handed to him

Okay?

And Grossman is going to get re-signed and take the starting job

You think I'd be mad about that? I couldn't care any less. Yeesh.

Beck did jack crap in his only game time action of the year - meaningless preseason game and he's done nothing ever on the three teams he's been on

You contradict yourself. It's a meaningless game but somehow his performance is meaningful. Makes sense. But again, I'm not even sure why this is being brought up

So how exactly do you say at this juncture that he was a "steal of a trade that was a no brainer" with nothing to back that up other then some fantasy that Baltimore gave away a stud QB and our player back and we made them look like suckers?

Stud QB? :ols: :ols: Suckers? :ols:

The trade fit both teams, and for us, it was a steal. When you get a QB who fits your system for a CB who wasn't going to make the squad, you got a steal of a trade. Whether he's the 3rd QB on the depth chart or not. Any other anger issues you need to work out?

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

The beauty of Beck starting is two fold. If he succeeds, we have 3-6 years with a quarterback that can get the job done (he's no spring chicken) if he fails, we're in position to draft a highly graded quarterback prospect. There is no shame in starting Beck in a lockout year. None.

I think the best thing, is that even IF Beck succeeds, we still get to and should be drafting a good QB who then could sit and learn the system for a bit. If Beck succeeds, then he gives us a window to build a solid team with pieces that we know work, and then we can groom a QB to take over for Beck with a team that fits what we want to do.

If Beck succeeds (he doesn't have to make the Pro Bowl to qualify as a success), I wouldn't have a problem drafting a QB next.

I qualify Beck succeeding as being able to:

- Run the offense

- Avoid making stupid mistakes (AKA, don't think like Sexy Rexy)

- Be decent enough so we can really evaluate how good/bad our receivers are

- Keep the team competitive enough to where we can see how are defense fares with the game on the line

[Mad Mike]

Did Haynesworth tangibly lose us any games this season? This is the psychoanalysis I was speaking about. Did Haynesworth laying down on one play really prevent Philly from beating us down? How has anything Haynesworth done had a direct effect on the team? All you can do is speculate...

Really? SO you are saying that if he had put his ego aside and done what the coaches asked, come into camp in shape, played more downs in more formations... We wouldn't have been any better?

Good. Then cut his fat ass loose. He sucks.

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 06:29 PM ----------

I think the best thing, is that even IF Beck succeeds, we still get to and should be drafting a good QB who then could sit and learn the system for a bit. If Beck succeeds, then he gives us a window to build a solid team with pieces that we know work, and then we can groom a QB to take over for Beck with a team that fits what we want to do.

If Beck succeeds (he doesn't have to make the Pro Bowl to qualify as a success), I wouldn't have a problem drafting a QB next.

I qualify Beck succeeding as being able to:

- Run the offense

- Avoid making stupid mistakes (AKA, don't think like Sexy Rexy)

- Be decent enough so we can really evaluate how good/bad our receivers are

- Keep the team competitive enough to where we can see how are defense fares with the game on the line

You missed one. If Beck succeeds, we still draft a QB for the future and if he works out maybe we can trade Beck for more picks.

[darrelgreenie]

But, if Beck or whichever QB Mike/Kyle they choose fails it mean that 2 years in a row they chose their QB and failed to develop/have success with them.

That's essentially 2 lost years at the most important position.

Disagree. Beck isn't a hand picked QB. He was acquired in a steal of a trade that was essentially a no brainer. The lockout has made it so Beck may be our absolute best option, even if we resign Grossman. The hand picked QB that failed was McNabb. I agree there. But Beck more or less is falling into the role.

I wasn't speaking specifically about Beck.

And I don't see how the lockout made Beck the best option, that implies that Mike/Kyle had no choice.

If they felt they had a need at QB they could have drafted a QB or signed a QB in the short span prior to the lock-out or they still might trade or sign a QB.

My point is that they are making a choices by omission or commission that will lead to our starting QB.

I'm not sure what there is to disagree about with this statement it seem pretty self-evident to me *shrugs*

If the starting QB for the Burgundy and Gold fails that makes 2 years in a row that Mike/Kyle would have failed to develop/have success with a QB of their choosing.

There are no free agents that are going to be the long term answer, especially Vince Young

Maybe, maybe not.

There is no way to tell, but there are other options then Beck and Shanahan's decision on the QB will reflect their choice.

The beauty of Beck starting is two fold. If he succeeds, we have 3-6 years with a quarterback that can get the job done (he's no spring chicken) if he fails, we're in position to draft a highly graded quarterback prospect. There is no shame in starting Beck in a lockout year. None.

I agree on the first part and I think that is the mindset of the coaching staff: this years QB will be the starter going forward for 3-6 years.

But, IF the QB fails that means we probably have a bad season because of poor QB play.

Which would call into question the decision makers/coaches.

For me at least, whomever is undercenter is facing a no fail mission.

Never said, nor do I believe there is any shame to starting Beck.