Let's All Get Behind Alex Smith! Or Not!! (M.E.T.) NO kirk talk---that goes in ATN forum

[Califan007 The Constipated]

3 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Agreed - I think both things can be true...the teams were justified in moving on but it's also not an indictment of Smith. 

 

In SF, they had Kaep and felt like that was the direction the league was going. Think about what had just happened...Griffin was ROY, Wilson had just beaten him in the playoffs, and Kaep was killing it in SF. 

 

In KC, they had a young guy waiting in the wings and Smith is going to be 34. It was time to move forward while they have their strong offensive skill players still developing together. 

 

Also in KC, they were in serious cap hell and Smith was taking up a lot of cap space for a guy they would eventually be moving on from anyway due to his age and the much cheaper rookie QB on the roster. They also did what the Skins' FO did not, and got something in return for their starting franchise QB. They wait another year and that might not be the case.

[The Hangman- C_Hanburger]

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

Its not out of the realm of possibility that Smith's best football is ahead of him. Guys like Brees and Brady are still dominating in their late 30s. Warner did too. Gannon won an MVP at age, what, 37? 40 is the new 30 for QBs.

With the relatively new "No Contact" rule given all these guys are pocket passers..yea..longevity should result. It's the guys like Wilson, RG3..maybe Dak that are at risk with the way they play. Alex can play both ways WELL...escapability is a big upper...If he can keep his wheels...3 years is easy

[wit33]

1 hour ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I've been hearing about the NFL being full of mobile starting QBs since Randall Cunningham revolutionized the game. I don't think we are about to see a huge paradigm shift in that way anytime soon. 

 

Offensive Systems are changing and younger coaches are adapting to new schemes. There’s layers to it all. It won’t render the pocket QB obsolete, but it’s now becoming more expected for a QB to be able to move the pocket, scramble at times etc.. 

 

It’s just my guess that the position will continue to have become more athletic. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

5 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

Offensive Systems are changing and younger coaches are adapting to new schemes. There’s layers to it all. It won’t render the pocket QB obsolete, but it’s now becoming more expected for a QB to be able to move the pocket, scramble at times etc.. 

 

It’s just my guess that the position will continue to have become more athletic. 

 

Sure, I just think things are cyclical across all of sports, so I never see a true revolution happening. The fact is, the pocket passing QBs (at least the good ones) will have longer careers. If you get someone like Manning or Brady, he'll be entrenched for a decade at least. If someone like Steve Young played in 2018, he'd probably have taken far too many concussions to last more than 6-7 years. 

 

Just as we're seeing RBs come back in a huge way (less than a decade after it looked like teams would never draft a RB in the first round ever again), I think any tick toward mobile/athletic QBs will quickly shift back. 

[wit33]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I'm not allowing myself to be setup for disappointment though.  I think Alex is a fine quarterback and given the fact that this team won 7 games last year with an atrocious running game, bad defense and a an injury list a mile long, this team should certainly win significantly more games this season. 

 

My point was that if Alex is and I'll use what you said as an example and it's not even as complimentary as a lot of the stuff that's been posted here:

 

 

Personally, I think saying Alex is Kirk + wheels and winning leadership is saying a whole hell of a lot.  Kirk won 7 games with a scab squad last season.  If Alex is Kirk+, then there is absolutely no excuse for this team not to win 11 games this season.  If Alex is what some here have made him out to be, than this team should be 13-3.  That's taking into account the return of the key injured players and assuming Guice is a difference maker in the run game and I don't think either of those are a stretch.

 

Its a simplistic view to say Kirk won 7 games with a team ravaged by injuries and “bad” defense. 

 

I prefer looking at each game as it’s own entity. For example, 5 of the 7 wins, the defense gave up 10, 10, 11, 14, and 15 points. In the win versus the Rams, the defense gave up 20 points and the team rushed for 230 yards. 

 

In no way stating Kirk didn’t play a significant role in the wins, but support was there in those games. 

 

And again, to say “Alex” should win 11 games or 13 is tough for him to live up to. 

 

 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

7 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

Its a simplistic view to say Kirk won 7 games with a team ravaged by injuries and “bad” defense. 

 

I prefer looking at each game as it’s own entity. For example, 5 of the 7 wins, the defense gave up 10, 10, 11, 14, and 15 points. In the win versus the Rams, the defense gave up 20 points and the team rushed for 230 yards. 

 

In no way stating Kirk didn’t play a significant role in the wins, but support was there in those games. 

 

And again, to say “Alex” should win 11 games or 13 is tough for him to live up to. 

 

 

 

 

Yep, last year was bizarre. In the games we won, Cousins didn't have to do a whole lot. Granted, that should be what every team strives for...

 

Outside of his grit down the stretch against the Seahawks, I was most impressed by Cousins in some of our losses. I thought he played incredibly well in the Saints game. I also was impressed with him in the loss to the Chiefs. 

[Sandy Monk]

I would be comfortable predicting that Washington wins 12 or more games, if the run game can get 80 or more yards, and if the defense stops opponents to 20 in each of them.  

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

 

Its a simplistic view to say Kirk won 7 games with a team ravaged by injuries and “bad” defense. 

 

I prefer looking at each game as it’s own entity. For example, 5 of the 7 wins, the defense gave up 10, 10, 11, 14, and 15 points. In the win versus the Rams, the defense gave up 20 points and the team rushed for 230 yards. 

 

In no way stating Kirk didn’t play a significant role in the wins, but support was there in those games. 

 

And again, to say “Alex” should win 11 games or 13 is tough for him to live up to. 

 

 

 

 

This isn’t my first rodeo with how you view games.  We’ve been over this in the past, so it’s not worth it to revisit that argument for anybody. 

 

That said, you still aren’t accounting for the lack of run game that one would think we should have now.

 

For the record, I’m not saying Alex has to win 11–13 games.  I’m saying that if Alex is literally Kirk+ as you’ve stated, given the state of the roster now vs. last season, they should be winning at minimum double digit games.  If Alex is as good as some of these charts and plucked stats have led some to believe, than they should easily win double digit games moving towards the 13 win mark.  

 

The entire point is that if he’s as good as some of you think he is, this team should win a lot more games.  The roster is in much better shape.

[Sandy Monk]

10 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

The entire point is that if he’s as good as some of you think he is, this team should win a lot more games.  The roster is in much better shape.

 

It takes a team effort for a team game. Smith was very good last year, but it only gets him so far. The Chiefs defense really failed in the end, and from the way they played much of the year, they should have won even less than they did. 

 

A better point is, there is only so much a QB can do. Everyone talks about how incredible guys like Rodgers and Brees are, and they are very good, but they sure don't win in style each year on their own merit. Team game. Yes, the current roster has a lot going for it, but so much of it right now is unproven potential. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Just now, Sandy Monk said:

 

It takes a team effort for a team game. Smith was very good last year, but it only gets him so far. The Chiefs defense really failed in the end, and from the way they played much of the year, they should have won even less than they did. 

 

A better point is, there is only so much a QB can do. Everyone talks about how incredible guys like Rodgers and Brees are, and they are very good, but they sure don't win in style each year on their own merit. Team game. Yes, the current roster has a lot going for it, but so much of it right now is unproven potential. 

 

You’re telling the wrong guy.  I’m well aware that it’s a team game and the QB is only going to do so much.  It seems that argument doesn’t hold any weight to folks that don’t like the QB though.

 

The roster is still unequivocally in better shape than the roster that played most of last season. Much better.  There is no reason an upgrade at the QB position shouldn’t result in several more wins.  

[Anselmheifer]

Is it just me, or does Alex seem to look a lot better in training camp than KC has the past couple of years? I don’t really remember KC starting hot as much as hearing about how defenses are always ahead at the start of the year. 

[Veryoldschool]

I just want the season to start so we have games to discuss and better than that victories.  Even preseason games would be something to talk about, I am tired of last season Skins or KC Alex talk.

[Sandy Monk]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

You’re telling the wrong guy.  I’m well aware that it’s a team game and the QB is only going to do so much.  It seems that argument doesn’t hold any weight to folks that don’t like the QB though.

 

Well, is this not an admission on your part that you dislike Smith then? Or are you sinking to the exact level of people you disagreed with from prior arguments? 

[Morneblade]

3 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

Offensive Systems are changing and younger coaches are adapting to new schemes. There’s layers to it all. It won’t render the pocket QB obsolete, but it’s now becoming more expected for a QB to be able to move the pocket, scramble at times etc.. 

 

It’s just my guess that the position will continue to have become more athletic. 

 

There have been mobile QB's since the league was born. We had the Fran Tarkingtons in the 70's and the Joe Theisman's in the 70's and 80's. The Randall Cunninghams in the 80's and the Steve Youngs in the 80's and 90's. And the Micheal Vicks and the Vince Youngs more recently. You go back as far as the game has been played, and you have your smattering of athletic QB's. But they have not been a mainstay since the forward pass because a weapon. There are 2 things that really matter for a QB, the ability to make quick reads, and being accurate. Arm strength is next. Basically, Chad Pennington>Jeff George. Legs are down on the list. Dan Marino would still murder opposing defenses, and he was a statue. Tom Brady is the best QB in the game, and he isn't mobile. Being mobile is "nice". It usually gets you sacked more, and it opens you up to a lot more punishment, but it's nice. And that is why it's a safe bet it's never going to catch on in the league. A good QB cost WAY too much to just have him getting hit a bunch of times..................like RGIII. And we know how that ended up.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

24 minutes ago, Sandy Monk said:

 

Well, is this not an admission on your part that you dislike Smith then? Or are you sinking to the exact level of people you disagreed with from prior arguments? 

Just because I’m not convinced he’s an upgrade at the QB position, doesn’t mean I dislike him.

[mistertim]

2 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

You’re telling the wrong guy.  I’m well aware that it’s a team game and the QB is only going to do so much.  It seems that argument doesn’t hold any weight to folks that don’t like the QB though.

 

The roster is still unequivocally in better shape than the roster that played most of last season. Much better.  There is no reason an upgrade at the QB position shouldn’t result in several more wins.  

 

Wait, you are saying that it's a team game and the QB can only do so much yet you just said "Kirk won 7 games" and then attacked a poster for pointing out that it wasn't all the QB.   

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 minute ago, mistertim said:

 

Wait, you are saying that it's a team game and the QB can only do so much yet you just said "Kirk won 7 games" and then attacked a poster for pointing out that it wasn't all the QB.   

 

Attacked?

 

I didn’t think for a second we were arguing about the context of “Kirk won 7 games”.  I wasn’t implying that Kirk won 7 games by himself.  

 

My point was the team around Alex this year should be significantly better than the team around Kirk was last season.  Add to that, if Alex is better than Kirk one would think the Redskins should win a lot more games this season.

[Sandy Monk]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Just because I’m not convinced he’s an upgrade at the QB position, doesn’t mean I dislike him.

 

You either missed the direct correlation from your own words, or you are tap dancing in order to evade your own words. 

 

your direct words:

The entire point is that if he’s as good as some of you think he is, this team should win a lot more games.  The roster is in much better shape.

 

So, was Kirk not as good as you thought he was? or was the team around him eventually not good enough to push through a double digit win season? and with that question, is it fair to blame Smith for not being good enough, while knowing all the more now that it is a team game, and it is very possible his team has failures similar to what Kirk endured? 

 

 

 

 

[wit33]

1 hour ago, Morneblade said:

 

There have been mobile QB's since the league was born. We had the Fran Tarkingtons in the 70's and the Joe Theisman's in the 70's and 80's. The Randall Cunninghams in the 80's and the Steve Youngs in the 80's and 90's. And the Micheal Vicks and the Vince Youngs more recently. You go back as far as the game has been played, and you have your smattering of athletic QB's. But they have not been a mainstay since the forward pass because a weapon. There are 2 things that really matter for a QB, the ability to make quick reads, and being accurate. Arm strength is next. Basically, Chad Pennington>Jeff George. Legs are down on the list. Dan Marino would still murder opposing defenses, and he was a statue. Tom Brady is the best QB in the game, and he isn't mobile. Being mobile is "nice". It usually gets you sacked more, and it opens you up to a lot more punishment, but it's nice. And that is why it's a safe bet it's never going to catch on in the league. A good QB cost WAY too much to just have him getting hit a bunch of times..................like RGIII. And we know how that ended up.

 

 

The decision makers are now adjusting,  adapting, and being more open minded to schemes that highlight the mobile QBs skill set. 

 

Sure, there have been mobile QBs who’ve come and gone, but imagine if they had schemes to highlight their skills versus coaches trying to fit them into offenses suited for pocket QBs. 

 

In my opinion, there will be backups someday that mirror the starting athletic QB. Imagine that. 

 

I don’t think pocket QBs will be obsolete in the least bit though. 

[Morneblade]

3 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

 

The decision makers are now adjusting,  adapting, and being more open minded to schemes that highlight the mobile QBs skill set. 

 

Sure, there have been mobile QBs who’ve come and gone, but imagine if they had schemes to highlight their skills versus coaches trying to fit them into offenses suited for pocket QBs. 

 

In my opinion, there will be backups someday that mirror the starting athletic QB. Imagine that. 

 

I don’t think pocket QBs will be obsolete in the least bit though. 

 

But the thing is, coaches HAVE adapted their schemes for them. You think we started running the pistol for Kirk?

 

Also, even if you have a backup that is the same type of player, you really don't want to have to go to him, right? And you don't want to have your $25 million dollar QB taking a large number of hits because he's running a lot, even if you have a guy that is making $3 million a year that plays like him.......because he's not as good.

 

It's a risk/reward thing. The risk is far to high and the reward is not nearly enough. And that is not even taking into account the extra protection a QB has in the pocket as opposed to being a runner.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

8 minutes ago, Sandy Monk said:

 

You either missed the direct correlation from your own words, or you are tap dancing in order to evade your own words. 

 

your direct words:

The entire point is that if he’s as good as some of you think he is, this team should win a lot more games.  The roster is in much better shape.

 

So, was Kirk not as good as you thought he was? or was the team around him eventually not good enough to push through a double digit win season? and with that question, is it fair to blame Smith for not being good enough, while knowing all the more now that it is a team game, and it is very possible his team has failures similar to what Kirk endured? 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that football is a team game isn’t some new revelation to me.

 

I’m not sure what’s so hard to get about the idea that having a better ‘team’ and a better ‘qb’ should equate to more wins.

 

Barring a second consecutive year of the injury plague and Guice busting, I think it’s fair to say that this years team is significantly better than last years.  I don’t see why then it’s unfair to assume that Smith should be expected to win more games.

[Sandy Monk]

10 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

The fact that football is a team game isn’t some new revelation to me.

 

I’m not sure what’s so hard to get about the idea that having a better ‘team’ and a better ‘qb’ should equate to more wins.

 

Barring a second consecutive year of the injury plague and Guice busting, I think it’s fair to say that this years team is significantly better than last years.  I don’t see why then it’s unfair to assume that Smith should be expected to win more games.

 

Not unfair at all. You simply didn't add this conditional prefix.. or even suggest other team failure around him that contributes.. until now. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

21 minutes ago, Sandy Monk said:

 

Not unfair at all. You simply didn't add this conditional prefix.. or even suggest other team failure around him that contributes.. until now. 

I explained that a few times and you simply didn’t absorb it. I didn’t think it was necessary to provide an injury ‘condition’.  Sure it’s possible but very unlikely to experience the level of injury the team had last season. This years team is undoubtedly better than the last, so this team should win more games.  Also that if Alex is as good as some are making him out to be, they should win a lot more games.  Seems pretty easy to put together to me.

 

[Sandy Monk]

5 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I explained that a few times and you simply didn’t absorb it. I didn’t think it was necessary to provide an injury ‘condition’.  Sure it’s possible but very unlikely to experience the level of injury the team had last season. This years team is undoubtedly better than the last, so this team should win more games.  Also that if Alex is as good as some are making him out to be, they should win a lot more games.  Seems pretty easy to put together to me.

 

 

Yes. It all does seem very easy to understand. 

[wit33]

3 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

But the thing is, coaches HAVE adapted their schemes for them. You think we started running the pistol for Kirk?

 

Also, even if you have a backup that is the same type of player, you really don't want to have to go to him, right? And you don't want to have your $25 million dollar QB taking a large number of hits because he's running a lot, even if you have a guy that is making $3 million a year that plays like him.......because he's not as good.

 

It's a risk/reward thing. The risk is far to high and the reward is not nearly enough. And that is not even taking into account the extra protection a QB has in the pocket as opposed to being a runner.

 

Your thinking falls in line with traditional thinking and not wrong. The mobile QB hasn’t broken through with multiple Super Bowls to date, so not entirely wrong to this point.

 

The injury risk is true and tough to argue. Tried to think of every angle, but couldnt lol. I do feel players are becoming better with handling situations and protecting themselves. Also, rule changes continue to help the potentially mobile QB. 

 

Will be curious how the Ravens situation pans out with Jackson and. They’re are always credited with being a smart FO and it seems they agree with the direction the game is going. Other examples exist, but it seems the Ravens have really decided to make a dramatic change to most likely support a run heavy offense with a mobile QB and a dominant defense. 

 

The mobile QB in my view will allow for run first schemes to comeback. You can’t line up and the run the ball any longer and win against better teams consistently. With a mobile QB you can.