The Argument: Starting John Beck Would Give Us a Good Shot at Winning the Division

[TD_washingtonredskins]

You and ASF are missing the bottom line: Rex is easy to defend.

I don't think I missed that point at all. See post 83.

[Mahons21]

how many guys in the league can you just "lob it up" to and they'll come down with it?

Johnson, Johnson, Green, Plax in his prime, Randy in his prime, AJ Green 1 on 1, Roddy White 1 on 1,

and you say that like you or i could just out there and throw a ball into triple coverage and have a guy catch it. that's not true. there's a lot involved in placement of a jump ball, it's placing the ball where your guy catches it or no one catches it and that involves a lot of skill by the qb, and exponentially more on deeper throws.

you're overestimating the WR and underestimating the QB on "jump balls"

This discussion is over.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Very true, but in instances like Stafford/Dalton/Schaub/Rivers can just lob it up to their guy, I tend to believe it has more to do with the WR play than the passes which are even sometimes off target.

Even with those guys it's tough to judge just how dependent a QB is on that ability to lob one up to a reliable target. Phillip Rivers, for example, is having a rougher go of things this season with Vincent Jackson than he did last season without him. Matt Schaub hasn't put together great games without Andre Johnson but he's also played three pretty good defenses in that span and has had very few problems with involving other players in the passing game.

Manning Wayne/Harrison is a different deal, Manning has done quite well with Garcon/Collie as well, but would Manning have developed the same way without having those security blankets early in his career?

Harrison didn't explode until Manning's second year, so even that's not clear cut, and Wayne didn't emerge as a threat until Manning was already in his prime.

[Oldfan]

On an interesting related note: I wondered whether Santana had explained his support for Grossman further. I couldn't find a comment related to strategy. This was the reason he gave.

Santana ~“You don’t want to be given up on like that as a player,” Moss said. “That’s all I can say. If you’re the guy in that shoes, would you want to be given up on because you had a bad outing? No. Therefore, that’s why I feel the way I feel.”

It's empathy. Santana puts himself into Rex's shoes and doesn't want him to be treated unfairly. His support isn't related to winning football games. Santana's just a decent man.

[tiger187126]

..snip..

1) i think you overvalue WRs and undervalue QBs.

2) it does help my case because tom brady made his bones throwing to the worst receivers he's probably had since. so if this makes him a better QB because he has to be more accurate with lesser receivers, then what does that say about your reasoning? uh oh, logical opposition. tom brady's work with lesser receivers has made him the qb he is today and allowed him to put up eye popping numbers when he gets better weapons, but he was already polished when they got there. and yes, losing the super bowl with a feeble offensive performance when you have randy moss and tom brady is evidence whether you like it or not.

3) rogers (the D is silent, it's proper form to remove silent letters from super bowl winning quarterbacks. i like your implication that the assumed misspelling of his name in someway invalidates my opinion, good one) makes them look good when he throws a sideline pass over the head of the defender allowing them to take the pass 90 yards. we aren't talking screens here. rogers (doesn't it drive you nuts? the perfectionist in you must die reading that) is an example so you can get your head around qb's making wide outs better, as is brady, and manning.

4) how did ryan develop quickly? because he got a nickname from espn? he still looks lost in big games and has yet to prove he can win when something goes wrong, like losing michael turner or having to play a better QB. and now he has 2 dominant WRs and he's still not anywhere near the level that you can call him developed.

my point is, your logic is flawed.

dominant WRs aren't in the draft every year, and your definition of dominant is loose at best. have you watched a cincy game this year? i doubt it, because AJ Green is not doing a Megatron impression. i haven't seen a catch he's made that's not open or was a bad throw.

qbs have a lot more to do with dominant receivers than you give them credit for. that's pretty self explanatory.

young qbs become better passers by not having the crutch of a "dominant" wr that they can just "chuck it up to"

the ball is in your court sir.

[Oldfan]

I don't think I missed that point at all. See post 83.

#83 was close enough. I retract my statement in your case. Apologies.

[Mahons21]

Even with those guys it's tough to judge just how dependent a QB is on that ability to lob one up to a reliable target. Phillip Rivers, for example, is having a rougher go of things this season with Vincent Jackson than he did last season without him. Matt Schaub hasn't put together great games without Andre Johnson but he's also played three pretty good defenses in that span and has had very few problems with involving other players in the passing game.

Rivers safety blanket/dominant receiver has and always will be Gates, not Jackson. Gates has been injured all year more or less.

Are you suggesting Schaub is as good w/o Johnson? We both know that's not the case. In addition my point has been that while dominant WR's help all QB's they're especially helpful when a young QB is developing. They give the young QB is a safety blanket by making acrobatic catches that would in most instances be incomplete or even possibly an INT, Green has been doing this for Dalton all year. If you see the highlights a fair share of these passes are off target, Green is just playing the ball better than the DB in every instance. In my opinion this can help a QB's confidence in both themselves and the offense. Just my 2 cents, never thought claiming a dominant WR can help develop a young QB would be met with so much disagreement.

Harrison didn't explode until Manning's second year, so even that's not clear cut, and Wayne didn't emerge as a threat until Manning was already in his prime.

I don't find these cases to be as clear cut, as I stated in my first response to you.

[darrelgreenie]

We've gone back and forth enough on this for me to start thinking it seems like you have some pent up frustration at Shanny on the Qb position?

In a 'QB driven league' this regime has already failed once at thee pivotal position.

And based on the level of play at the QB position this year, short of Beck turning into Ryan Fitzpatrick or Trent Green (if he even gets the chance to play), it appears they're failing at the QB position again.

That would make 2 years of failed QB moves.

I expect a little better.

Especially since the other moves they made have put the team in a position to be competitive right now, and our bottom of the league level of QB play could be the reason we don't reach our potential.

If so, I can understand, McNabb was a screw up, I gather you liked some Qb prospects in the draft, and you liked some free agents and he bypassed them, and you wanted Beck to win the position so I am gathering you have built up frustration towards Shanny?

I'm a results driven person, I try not to judge on perceptions or predictions but on outcomes.

Are you happy with the decisions or level of QB play under this regime?

Its the results that leave me troubled not the process that lead to the results.

I find it troubling that they made mistakes at the most important position.

For me, I just don't care how they arrive to wherever they arrive as long as they get to the destination. The key for me is i don't expect them to win the Superbowl this year or next one

I don't care how we arrive either, but when the journey begins with 2 wrong turns I'm gonna get nervous.

It's life you aren't going to make good decisions all the time, and if you got the guts to correct a bad decision as opposed to ride it, I admire that

I admire people that don't repeat the same major mistakes.

I would be mad at myself if I did and I would hope would of my buddies would ask me: the eff is wrong with you?

Now we are assuming that Beck is the starter. I think there is still a shot that Rex starts this Sunday.

I'm not making any assumptions:

Rex could start in Carolina and it wouldn't shock me.

Starting Beck is an admission of a mistake.

If Rex is Kyle's guy then playing Rex against the Panthers weak defense is a no brainer.

Its a chance to save face or to lose even more credibility.

I have no reason to trust their thought process at this point

Then I'll share your frustration

I'm actually not frustrated its more like a mix of fear and dissappointment.

If you're into Matrix I feel like Morpheus: 'I dreamed a dream and know that dream has come for me'

I was a huge fan of Mike Shanahan and his Denver WCO and success with QBs.

I thought that was the offense we would get and I expected success/solid production from the QB position typical with QB 'gurus'.

Instead we have an imbalanced offense with repeated failures at the QB position.

did you hear Orkapo's comments, they were harsh -- implying that starting Beck means they are rebuilding and they aren't in rebuilding mode.

I heard Orkapo.(I've been listening to ESPN980 again). I was surprised to hear his view about Beck and I'm not sure if he realized what he was implying or maybe he did?

Not surprised to hear his view about the season.

Coaches and players are almost always in win now mode.

Like my old first sergeant used to say: Time now.

[tiger187126]

Even with those guys it's tough to judge just how dependent a QB is on that ability to lob one up to a reliable target. Phillip Rivers, for example, is having a rougher go of things this season with Vincent Jackson than he did last season without him. Matt Schaub hasn't put together great games without Andre Johnson but he's also played three pretty good defenses in that span and has had very few problems with involving other players in the passing game.

Harrison didn't explode until Manning's second year, so even that's not clear cut, and Wayne didn't emerge as a threat until Manning was already in his prime.

he said the argument is over because i said throwing a "lob" isn't just something anyone can do and it takes a good qb to properly throw a lob pass.

mahons is not good at the internet, maybe he can debate in real life, but he always just says the same stuff over and over again and takes arguments against him personally.

if the lob rule was true, CJ would have the same season with Stafford or Stanton because either one could just chuck it up.

---------- Post added October-18th-2011 at 05:42 PM ----------

Just my 2 cents, never thought claiming a dominant WR can help develop a young QB would be met with so much disagreement..

on this message board, you said something that you didn't think you would have to defend?

i'm sorry if you truly feel like you shouldn't have to defend your OPINION, but it's an OPINION.

hell FACTS get debated on here.

i would like you to rebutt my rebuttal to your dominant WRs help young qbs.

in case you didn't read it was: lesser WRs make a qb better by not bailing him out and forcing him to make better throws.

[Oldfan]

.

tiger, This is what you wrote that probably pissed off Mahons:

and you say that like you or i could just out there and throw a ball into triple coverage and have a guy catch it. that's not true.

That's a strawman argument and it wasn't your first. It's a common logical fallacy in debates in this forum.

The first rule of good debate is to try to understand exactly what your opponent is saying. Don't twist his words into something stupid.

This is another strawman:

on this message board, you said something that you didn't think you would have to defend?

[Mahons21]

it does help my case because tom brady made his bones throwing to the worst receivers he's probably had since. so if this makes him a better QB because he has to be more accurate with lesser receivers, then what does that say about your reasoning? uh oh, logical opposition. tom brady's work with lesser receivers has made him the qb he is today and allowed him to put up eye popping numbers when he gets better weapons, but he was already polished when they got there. and yes, losing the super bowl with a feeble offensive performance when you have randy moss and tom brady is evidence whether you like it or not.

This is all over the place and makes little to no sense. Tom Brady was a better QB with Randy Moss as WR, plain and simple. I never said he developed him, I referred to Daunte for that. In addition, I've never said every QB needs a dominant WR to develop, I've only said it helps.

3) rogers (the D is silent, it's proper form to remove silent letters from super bowl winning quarterbacks. i like your implication that the assumed misspelling of his name in someway invalidates my opinion, good one) makes them look good when he throws a sideline pass over the head of the defender allowing them to take the pass 90 yards. we aren't talking screens here. rogers (doesn't it drive you nuts? the perfectionist in you must die reading that) is an example so you can get your head around qb's making wide outs better, as is brady, and manning.

I can't even reply I'm laughing so hard.. Seriously...

4) how did ryan develop quickly? because he got a nickname from espn? he still looks lost in big games and has yet to prove he can win when something goes wrong, like losing michael turner or having to play a better QB. and now he has 2 dominant WRs and he's still not anywhere near the level that you can call him developed.

Any QB getting 28 TD's to 9 INT's in their 3rd year is developed in my book. Don't know what type of #'s you expect.

my point is, your logic is flawed.

Lol, so my logic that drafting a WR helps a young QB is flawed? You've got to be kidding me... I can't tell whether or not you're actually being serious at this point or just a lonely troll.

dominant WRs aren't in the draft every year,

No kidding...

and your definition of dominant is loose at best.

I was unaware I defined it.

have you watched a cincy game this year? i doubt it, because AJ Green is not doing a Megatron impression. i haven't seen a catch he's made that's not open or was a bad throw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ansp1OouJE&feature=related

qbs have a lot more to do with dominant receivers than you give them credit for. that's pretty self explanatory.

You have no idea how much credit I give them for, I've never stated it. I've stated that WR's help them develop, it's true. I never said it's not reciprocal.

young qbs become better passers by not having the crutch of a "dominant" wr that they can just "chuck it up to"

the ball is in your court sir.

That's your opinion, I think most NFL coaches would disagree, otherwise there would never be a reason to acquire a #1 WR unless you had a developed QB. That's silly to me, I'd rather give a young QB help, and then once the QB has established himself, a dominant WR core won't be as necessary.

---------- Post added October-18th-2011 at 06:57 PM ----------

.

tiger, This is what you wrote that probably pissed off Mahons:

That's a strawman argument and it wasn't your first. It's a common logical fallacy in debates in this forum.

The first rule of good debate is to try to understand exactly what your opponent is saying. Don't twist his words into something stupid.

Not but a few pages before you say that OF

The #1 reason I don't debate with you, you don't debate against what I say. Rather you create extreme straw-mans and argue against those. Sure is easy to argue against the idea that draft WR/QB and everything will be dandy. It might be more difficult to formulate an argument against how dominant WRs can help develop young QBs, which has been my point you choose to ignore.

I should have taken my own advice.

[tiger187126]

.

tiger, This is what you wrote that probably pissed off Mahons:

That's a strawman argument and it wasn't your first. It's a common logical fallacy in debates in this forum.

The first rule of good debate is to try to understand exactly what your opponent is saying. Don't twist his words into something stupid.

i apologize for that, but all he needed to say was what you said, and give me something to go off of. he hates me anyway so i don't read into when he huffs off. i'm glad you brought it up though and i'll try to avoid it in the future.

so that everyone is clear what i was trying to say is:

throwing a "lob" pass is not something that is easy to do and takes a skilled player to do it. i am sorry to mahons if he didn't imply the opposite, and i just misunderstood.

*side note: when the hell did you sneak in here oldfan, scrolling up to try to find the post i was going off of i saw you posted a couple times.

[Mahons21]

i apologize for that, but all he needed to say was what you said, and give me something to go off of. he hates me anyway so i don't read into when he huffs off. i'm glad you brought it up though and i'll try to avoid it in the future.

after the 2nd time you quoted me

The #1 reason I don't debate with you, you don't debate against what I say. Rather you create extreme straw-mans and argue against those. Sure is easy to argue against the idea that draft WR/QB and everything will be dandy. It might be more difficult to formulate an argument against how dominant WRs can help develop young QBs, which has been my point you choose to ignore

[TD_washingtonredskins]

#83 was close enough. I retract my statement in your case. Apologies.

Oh no worries...I just didn't want people to think I was excusing Rex. He's very limited. I just think that he, and any QB, would benefit from WRs and TEs who attacked the ball a little more aggressively.

[tiger187126]

after the 2nd time you quoted me

the phrase "straw man argument" is one of the most overused phrases on this entire board. everything you write on here is going to be translated and interpreted by multiple people and if you are misunderstood or taken differently then you have been intended then i think that there's some fault on the end of the author as well as the reader.

we have people on here that don't speak english as a first language, have different levels of intelligence (both football and just standard), different levels of grammar, etc.

i don't get accused a whole lot of misinterpreting what people are saying or putting up strawman arguments, but the night is young.

i would quote you directly and make my response, but the quote function is tedious and it gets convoluted to read an entire paragraph with footnotes.

so lets start this over and work on one thing at a time:

you say:

Just my 2 cents, never thought claiming a dominant WR can help develop a young QB would be met with so much disagreement.

and i say:

lesser WRs make a qb better by not bailing him out and forcing him to make better throws.

[Oldfan]

Oh no worries...I just didn't want people to think I was excusing Rex. He's very limited. I just think that he, and any QB, would benefit from WRs and TEs who attacked the ball a little more aggressively.

It's a problem on our team, no doubt.

[SkinsFTW]

Then in comes Beck with ZERO time w/ the starters since Preseason, and in 2 drives is able to orchestrate a TD drive. One QB is regressing, and the other is awaiting his chance to prove himself.

And his other drive was screwed by a penalty and several dropped passes. Take ASF's talent for manipulating stats and apply it to Beck and he goes 12-15 for 200+ yards a TD pass and his TD run in the 4th quarter. If those drops were catches we potentially win instead of lose the game.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

It's a problem, no doubt.

So...tomorrow's the big day. I have to say that I'm pretty excited to see what Beck can do for four quarters. I really believe we will see the ball spread around to a bunch of different receivers and the playbook opened up.

---------- Post added October-18th-2011 at 07:17 PM ----------

Take ASF's talent for manipulating stats and apply it to Beck and he goes 12-15 for 200+ yards a TD pass and his TD run in the 4th quarter. If those drops were catches we potentially win instead of lose the game.

of course. We all know that after throwing the tying TD, beck would have run another QB draw on the two point conversion.

[Oldfan]

So...tomorrow's the big day. I have to say that I'm pretty excited to see what Beck can do for four quarters. I really believe we will see the ball spread around to a bunch of different receivers and the playbook opened up.

My most dominant thought about John Beck is that, in the preseason, he made me realize how dynamic this offense can be when the stretch and the stretch boot are being run well. With Rex it was like watching a limited version of an excellent offense.

[tiger187126]

My most dominant thought about John Beck is that, in the preseason, he made me realize how dynamic this offense can be when the stretch and the stretch boot are being run well. With Rex it was like watching a limited version of an excellent offense.

is it just me or have we substantially cut back the boot action by the qb since the regular season started?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

My most dominant thought about John Beck is that, in the preseason, he made me realize how dynamic this offense can be when the stretch and the stretch boot are being run well. With Rex it was like watching a limited version of an excellent offense.

Assuming he gets the start, what are you expecting?

[Skinsinparadise]

Especially since the other moves they made have put the team in a position to be competitive right now, and our bottom of the league level of QB play could be the reason we don't reach our potential.

I like the moves they made, looks so far like a good draft, and free agent class, the team has gotten younger -- the win now mode to me was Shanny's first season, trade picks for a veteran, sign older players, etc. I always think heck if you can win while rebuilding all the better, sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. As long as the Redskins don't get giddy from some success during the season and do something foolish like trade a first and 2nd rounder for Carson Palmer ala the Raiders -- I can live with talk about the future is now as long as they build they roster with the long view . But I am absolutely convinced they are building for the future so we'd be spinning our wheels if we keep debating that.

I am picking up in our debate, that although we want the same thing, Beck starting. I am cool with however it unfolds, your thoughts seemed to be wrapped some in being frustrated by Shanny. So you kind of remind me of myself when I was frustrated and didn't like Zorn as our HC, so I'd feel edgy about some of his moves, my frustration with Zorn would become entangled with how I saw stuff going on. Is that the case with you and Shanny or I am i over reading this? None of this is to be argumentative, I am just curious because as me and you have gone back and forth on this it hit me we want the same thing, we like the same QB, so what are we debating? Seems like we perhaps are debating your frustration with Shanny?

If you're into Matrix I feel like Morpheus: 'I dreamed a dream and know that dream has come for me' I was a huge fan of Mike Shanahan and his Denver WCO and success with QBs. I thought that was the offense we would get and I expected success/solid production from the QB position typical with QB 'gurus'. Instead we have an imbalanced offense with repeated failures at the QB position.

The Matrix to me is very Zen. If you go Matrix -- believe in the outcome and you'll get there, no guarantee its a smooth ride. I can see Shanny and Allen learning from their mistakes and fast and they seem methodical about building their roster. They moved from trading picks, to adding picks. they thought the roster might be enough to be competitive in season 1 to overhauling it. they saw the McNabb move was bad they moved on. Their free agent and draft class seems very good right now. If they were making bad move after bad move it would be one thing. But for ME I'll let two things ride before I give them a hard time. 1. See if Beck fails. 2. If Beck fails see if they skip drafting a QB in the next draft. If Shanny indeed liked Dalton and Bradford, his instincts for young Qbs might be decent. If Beck flops and its May and Shanny didn't draft a QB, then I'd join your frustration with him.

I heard Orkapo.(I've been listening to ESPN980 again). I was surprised to hear his view about Beck and I'm not sure if he realized what he was implying or maybe he did?

Not surprised to hear his view about the season. Coaches and players are almost always in win now mode. Like my old first sergeant used to say: Time now.

Agree. That IMO is why you really never hear coaches use the word rebuilding even if they are indeed doing so -- players don't like to hear the idea that they are going to be winners LATER. I guess i can't blame them if I were a player I'd want to play every game/season with the expectation i am going to win it all now, not in 2013. Still I think Orkapo is out of line if he feels that way fine but don't express it publicly I think its disrespectful, go tell the coach.

[Oldfan]

is it just me or have we substantially cut back the boot action by the qb since the regular season started?

It's not just you.

Assuming he gets the start, what are you expecting?

Ball control, dink and dunk, loosen them up with a deep throw now and then, but move the chains consistently; we keep Cam sitting on the sidelines. We win by14.

What do you see?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Ball control, dink and dunk, loosen them up with a deep throw now and then, but move the chains consistently; we keep Cam sitting on the sidelines. We win by14.

I'll take it!

Edit: just saw your question...I see an efficient and impressive game on offense. I can't predict a win because their offense concerns me.

[tiger187126]

It's not just you.

that's something i think hurts the run and pass game. anything you can do to lock up a defender, even for a split second is a win.

btw, my bold prediction for the game this weekend is (if beck starts) beck has more rushing yards than cam newton.