Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

MMQB: RG3 - It's Not Just the Knee


Hitman21ST

Recommended Posts

I'm sorry but I took this is paragraph as a thinly veiled racist comment:

 

What we don’t know is whether or not Griffin can consistently operate as a drop-back passer in a traditional NFL offense. If he can’t master downfield reads from the pocket, he’ll never be more than a likable version of Michael Vick, assuming the knee injury hasn’t already affected his athleticism.

 

I'm gonna print out this article then wipe my ass on it.

 

I don't see why it's racist. It's only OK to compare Griffin to white QBs? The fact is that Vick is a dangerous runner and inconsistent passer. In the author's opinion, if Griffin isn't a good passer, he'll be comparable to Vick (on the field). I disagree with him, but it's not racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is what they say about Robert I can't wait to see what's written about Russell Wilson. He was mediocre AT BEST until about mid way when they installed the RO. As others have mentioned, it's great that teams are preparing for what we did last year, but no mention that while teams are scheming for what we did last year, our coaches are coming up with plans for THIS year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I took this is paragraph as a thinly veiled racist comment:

 

What we don’t know is whether or not Griffin can consistently operate as a drop-back passer in a traditional NFL offense. If he can’t master downfield reads from the pocket, he’ll never be more than a likable version of Michael Vick, assuming the knee injury hasn’t already affected his athleticism.

 

I'm gonna print out this article then wipe my ass on it.

 

I don't see why it's racist. It's only OK to compare Griffin to white QBs? The fact is that Vick is a dangerous runner and inconsistent passer. In the author's opinion, if Griffin isn't a good passer, he'll be comparable to Vick (on the field). I disagree with him, but it's not racist.

He could have said a slightly better Tim Tebow that would have really gotten the people up in arms lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Late great Robin Harris once made a good joke in regards to Larry Bird. He(RH) said that Spike Lee said " Larry Bird doesn't have nothing but a 3 pointer" and that's the reason why Spike didn't like him. Robin responded back with "Hell, That's all he needs". I guess what Im trying to say is forget about what reason the doubters will have to say about RGIII. If he's (RGIII)  successful running the pistol I'll take that all the way to the H.O.F.. Smh Don't go out there trying to prove yourself to anyone. Just do what has been working for you IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny that RG3 is always criticized for having guys running open down field. I thought the point was to throw to the open man.

 

I don't see anyone criticizing Aaron Rogers... And his WRs are constantly opened. BTW thier offense uses the PA like crazy.. Peter is really reaching with this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His first year Ben Roethlisberger was only given one side of the field to throw to...boy,teams sure figured him out by his sophomore year.

The right side of our line isn't exactly stellar at pass protection, which might explain why RG3 isnst looking into his 3rd option from the pocket. RG3 is already better at reading defenses than Vick. There were a number of plays this last year where he could've run for the 1st down, but pulled up and threw it downfield; something Vick would not have done. In addition, look at how many different WRs/TEs caught passes, proving this is not a guy that just leans on one dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you have the best running game in the league. If you run play action a lot this makes life easier for your QB. Helps him keep turnovers to a minimum and helps him find open receivers. I must not know much about football because that sounds smart to me. The experts that write this stuff clearly know that it must be better to make life more difficult for your QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny that those who want to detract from RGIII's success can only do it by creating hypothetical situations for him to fail.

 

"we haven't seen if....."  automatically means he can't?

 

Look, when you have a 1600 yd rusher who just broke the franchise rushing record, it sort of helps dictate how you use your passing game.  The play-action becomes a weapon in itself. I don't care who your QB is, you will be using the play-action a lot more to keep the defense off balance. 

 

"a more likeable version than Michael Vick......?"  Are you kidding me?  RGIII's rookie season is arguably better than any season Michael Vick has ever had in the NFL, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of you just don't understand something and you get all upset about it. These guys who write these stories that appear to be opposite of logical thinking are doing this because it draws attention and readership. Not many people turn to articles that say "THE SUN CAME UP TODAY AND EVERYTHING SEEMS FINE". But all the attention will be focused on "METEORITE TO PASS NEAR EARTH"...even if that Meteorite is actually 17,000 miles away. Still, the headline grabs your attention.

 

So in closing...I think ARTICLES by humans means absolutely NOTHING 99 percent of the times because they are just opinion.
.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing RG3 to Mike Vick is a lazy bs comparison at best. Two black qb's who are great athletes...it stops there. RG3 in his first year was a much better passer with greater accuracy etc. than Vick is right now.. Why make a guy with this kind of athletic talent solely a drop back pocket passer? He can do it all, make every throw, buy time with his feet, and run for gain if necessary. He just has to be smarter, perhaps more judicious...along with getting out of bounds, slide sooner or throwing the ball away.

 

   I agree scheme wise it was a great plan for a rookie quarterback implemented by Kyle and Mike.  Does he have room to improve? without a doubt. He has the smarts, talent etc. to improve on what was already a crazy rookie campaign. hail!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of you just don't understand something and you get all upset about it. These guys who write these stories that appear to be opposite of logical thinking are doing this because it draws attention and readership. Not many people turn to articles that say "THE SUN CAME UP TODAY AND EVERYTHING SEEMS FINE". But all the attention will be focused on "METEORITE TO PASS NEAR EARTH"...even if that Meteorite is actually 17,000 miles away. Still, the headline grabs your attention.

 

So in closing...I think ARTICLES by humans means absolutely NOTHING 99 percent of the times because they are just opinion.

.

 

It's the offseason, unfortunately this is what ES turns into. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of you just don't understand something and you get all upset about it. These guys who write these stories that appear to be opposite of logical thinking are doing this because it draws attention and readership. Not many people turn to articles that say "THE SUN CAME UP TODAY AND EVERYTHING SEEMS FINE". But all the attention will be focused on "METEORITE TO PASS NEAR EARTH"...even if that Meteorite is actually 17,000 miles away. Still, the headline grabs your attention.

 

So in closing...I think ARTICLES by humans means absolutely NOTHING 99 percent of the times because they are just opinion.

.

 

Well, you're way off on several points:

 

1) RG3 is a click-generating monster regardless of the angle taken. I guarantee you that a headline saying "RG3 could contend for league MVP in 2013" will get a ton of hits, just as many (if not more) than "RG3 is Vick with a better personality". So there's no need to take a stance "opposite of logical thinking".

 

2) The logic in the article was fine. The conclusions drawn FROM that logic is another topic altogether.

 

3) The argument given is not negative, it's just simplistic. It trots out conventional wisdom as carved-in-stone fact that doesn't need to be explained or even researched. It's presented on the most superficial of levels. The negativity within the article is rather milquetoast, actually.

 

4) We ALL know clicks are the bottom line for guys who write this slop...but that doesn't mean that every single negative or illogical article was written only for that purpose. You give these writers way too much credit if you think they know what they're saying is bull**** but they write it anyway to guarantee clicks. The truth is actually that 50% of the guys writing this stuff are no better at writing or analysis than your average message board poster.

 

5) Going by your logic, though, I should assume that you only write the posts you write in order to get people to generate a response...because you seem far too fond of insulting the knowledge, intelligence and/or naivety of the posters on this board in every other post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of you just don't understand something and you get all upset about it. These guys who write these stories that appear to be opposite of logical thinking are doing this because it draws attention and readership. Not many people turn to articles that say "THE SUN CAME UP TODAY AND EVERYTHING SEEMS FINE". But all the attention will be focused on "METEORITE TO PASS NEAR EARTH"...even if that Meteorite is actually 17,000 miles away. Still, the headline grabs your attention.

 

So in closing...I think ARTICLES by humans means absolutely NOTHING 99 percent of the times because they are just opinion.

.

 

Well, you're way off on several points:

 

1) RG3 is a click-generating monster regardless of the angle taken. I guarantee you that a headline saying "RG3 could contend for league MVP in 2013" will get a ton of hits, just as many (if not more) than "RG3 is Vick with a better personality". So there's no need to take a stance "opposite of logical thinking".

 

2) The logic in the article was fine. The conclusions drawn FROM that logic is another topic altogether.

 

3) The argument given is not negative, it's just simplistic. It trots out conventional wisdom as carved-in-stone fact that doesn't need to be explained or even researched. It's presented on the most superficial of levels. The negativity within the article is rather milquetoast, actually.

 

4) We ALL know clicks are the bottom line for guys who write this slop...but that doesn't mean that every single negative or illogical article was written only for that purpose. You give these writers way too much credit if you think they know what they're saying is bull**** but they write it anyway to guarantee clicks. The truth is actually that 50% of the guys writing this stuff are no better at writing or analysis than your average message board poster.

 

5) Going by your logic, though, I should assume that you only write the posts you write in order to get people to generate a response...because you seem far too fond of insulting the knowledge, intelligence and/or naivety of the posters on this board in every other post.

you are even further off than you say I am. I never said these people write articles "they know what they're saying is bull****". You said that. I didn't. And you apparently find it difficult to have anyone express an opinion other than your own, so going by your logic, I should assume that you only write posts because you like to argue and read your own words. You also were way off when you stated that 50% OF THE GUYS are no better at writing or analysis than your average message board poster. I believe we have a whole lot of intelligent posters on this board who do a much better job at Redskins analysis. So you have just insulted at least half of this board.

 

QUIT INSULTING EVERYONE and then trying to shift the blame. You remind me of President what's his name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like if they really wanted to explain why we may have to shift our offense, he could look for a trend of our play-action being less successful later in the year, but I don't think that trend exists.  

 

He talks about the shots baltimore was putting on kaepernick.  Kaep threw for 302 yards at 10.8 ypa and ran for another 62 yards on 7 scrambles.  He put up 364 yards of offense, not to mention gore ran for 110 on 5.8 ypc, baltimore hardly shut down the read option.  This was a defense who limited luck, manning, and brady to 312 yards of offense on average.

 

I think it's lazy journalism to say defenses will counter the read option and PA passes from pistol, without really pointing to examples of it actually being countered.  It would be like saying that eventually new england will have to resort to a more traditional offense because a shotgun spread will never work in the nfl.  They've ran it the past 5 years, and the only thing that would stop them from running it is a lack of personnel, not anything defenses are doing to defend it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LB, I agree.

 

What people fall victim to is the "all you have to do" mentality without trying to understand if teams have the personnel to do it. Back in the 1980s and early-1990s, all teams had to do to stop the Eagles was put a spy on Randall Cunningham. Nevermind the fact that said spy had to be able to catch and tackle Randall if he happened to run, not to mention that this spy was no virtually taken out of pass coverage.

 

Players who mostly aren't quite as gifted as some of these young QBs are going to be asked to make plays. On paper, I'm sure it looks fine, but will your typical defensive end or outside linebacker really be able to make open-field plays against Griffin, Kaepernick, etc.? We'll see. Also, if one of your 11 defenders is simply taking himself out of run and pass support to attack the QB, won't that pretty quickly work to the offense's advantage?

 

In short, with QBs are talented as these guys, defenses can either opt to play 11 on 11 like they did last year (which is a paradigm shift from the traditional 11 on 10 they've been able to play for decades) or 10 on 10 if they assign one guy to attack the QB. Either way, offenses are going to exploit a one-man advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Casual fans and talking heads don't realize what they're saying....RG3 is a terrific QB, running or in the pocket.

 

He's not just about the read option or a scrambler....remember that dime he threw to Moss in the corner of the endzone to take the lead at MetLife with seconds to play?

 

He's a burgeoning superstar, a leader whose players only meeting swung the season, a winner who delivered a championship in his first season, he's not just a piece of a talented puzzle like other young QBs, he is the puzzle.

 

Anybody who criticizes him is first of all anti-Redskin b/c "we're baaaaaaack" or they're either just jealous or worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah blah blah it doesn't look like our traditional duck so we're going to say it's not a successful drop-back passing duck.

Low INT rate, high comp %, not a lot of dropped INTs, and just not a lot of bad throws... I dont care what type/tricks/style of offense they used to generate those passing numbers. I saw a wealth of good decisions made by Robert on pass plays and that's all I (and pundits should) care about.

I agree with the first paragraph. If it looks like a duck and taste like a duck just eat it and enjoy it by golly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...