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

[HardcoreZorn]

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Not according to multiple sources including Football Outsiders.  But that's fine.    

PFF rates us number 6 going into the season in the pass rush department, yet your opinion is that we are "good" when it comes to the front 7. Just curious, when do you use sources for your opinion and when do you form your own opinion? 

 

A few other thoughts based off thoughts on recent posts:

 

- If Bruce Allen is head of personnel, he shouldn't be fired. Let's hire a GM who oversees the big picture and let Bruce work under him. Cause we are doing a hell of a job in the personnel department, but definitely could see some improvement when it comes to piecing it all together. Though don't think we are far off, and think Doug may play a bigger role in that department than we think.

 

@Sandy Monk I know what you are trying to articulate, although think you are taking it a little too personally. Years of ineptitude and bad decisions will inevitably take its toll on a fan base. Especially for a once proud fan base. So it's no surprise you pick up on the negative tone of some posters here. Though don't think that's not normal or makes them less of a fan.

 

But narratives are true and present for any fanbase I'm sure. There's a segment that im sure doesn't present Alex in the most favorable light because they can't stand the fact Kirk is gone and that Bruce fudged it all up. And Kirk being good, Alex being bad means Bruce was wrong, they are right, and it will lead to a change at the top.

 

I personally see a lateral move. Which is not a bad thing. I think Kirk is a fine QB. But I see someone limited when the stakes are highest, and a bit of an empty stat padder. I think Alex is a better situational QB even if he's not able to dissect a defense like Kirk has at times. His legs don't hurt either. 

 

Last, I don't see why it's crazy to present schemes and recent successes as a reason to be optimistic Smiths last year was an outlier. Could see it both ways, but certainly don't think it should be dismissed since he has played in some notoriously conservative passing schemes with not great weapons. Until last year when he played at a near MVP level at times... Yet some just assume it's an outlier and don't truly analyze why it potentially isn't. 

 

If we stayed healthier around Kirk last year we were a double digit win team IMO. 

 

 

[Temper11]

7 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Not according to multiple sources including Football Outsiders.  But that's fine.    

 

IMO he has other strengths.  My point is if he's the perfect conservative dude when he needs to be, the RO-RPO dude -- and is some let it fly risk taker that just connects when he needs to without even making turnovers -- I'll be buying my SB tickets this week since the dude is then flawless.   The dude does it all well.  I'd say the descriptions puts him over Brady because Brady doesn't have wheels.   The players who picked the top 100 guys this year are going to look like fools -- ditto many of the KC beat guys and their fans. 

 

Brady has started in virtually every game for New England for the past 18 seasons with the 2008 season being the outlier.  In those years, he's never missed the playoffs - not once.  He has been short of at least a 10 win season, only one time in 17 seasons.  So... no, I'm not saying Smith is better than Brady.  There may not ever be another Brady.

 

However - he is indeed plenty capable of being both conservative with the football when the situation calls for it, or aggressive with the football when the situation calls for it... regardless of what "multiple sources" say.  "Multiple sources" have been getting Smith wrong for years. 

[goskins10]

5 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

PFF rates us number 6 going into the season in the pass rush department, yet your opinion is that we are "good" when it comes to the front 7. Just curious, when do you use sources for your opinion and when do you form your own opinion? 

 

@Skinsinparadise does more analytical study than most anyone on this board - maybe more than anyone - and you know that. You may not have meant it that way but it comes off as a cheap shot. Not to mention it's pretty nit-picky to question someone saying the front is "good" when they are ranked - without playing a down - 6th. What are really are looking for? Spectacular? Elite? Great? I am as bullish on the potential of the Dline as any but let's see them play a few downs in a real game at least before deciding they are elite or great or whatever you were looking for. 

 

Quote

 

A few other thoughts based off thoughts on recent posts:

 

- If Bruce Allen is head of personnel, he shouldn't be fired. Let's hire a GM who oversees the big picture and let Bruce work under him. Cause we are doing a hell of a job in the personnel department, but definitely could see some improvement when it comes to piecing it all together. Though don't think we are far off, and think Doug may play a bigger role in that department than we think.

 

I actual do not completely disagree here, although saying they are doing a "hell of a job" is a bit of a stretch. On paper and especially the draft they appear to have done a very good job, and I have said so more than once. I definitely agree Doug is having more influence and input that I thought when his position was announced. Also I was not sure even if he had more influence it would be a positive. I appear at least to this point to be wrong about that. You can see Doug's hand prints all over this roster and how the team is operating. Either he has been given more of a role than we thought and is good at it or Bruce is listening more than we (I) thought. But again, I need to see some wins a playoff run or two. If that does happen i will be more than happy to say I was wrong and this current FO configuration is working. 

 

Quote

 

@Sandy Monk I know what you are trying to articulate, although think you are taking it a little too personally. Years of ineptitude and bad decisions will inevitably take its toll on a fan base. Especially for a once proud fan base. So it's no surprise you pick up on the negative tone of some posters here. Though don't think that's not normal or makes them less of a fan.

 

But narratives are true and present for any fanbase I'm sure. There's a segment that im sure doesn't present Alex in the most favorable light because they can't stand the fact Kirk is gone and that Bruce fudged it all up. And Kirk being good, Alex being bad means Bruce was wrong, they are right, and it will lead to a change at the top.

 

This may be true for a very small portion of the fan base, but the much larger portion just does not think this way at all. To me while they are not completely separated they are not inextricably linked either. There is a lot that goes into the team being successful. Although QB is the most important position, it is still just one position. The vast majority of the fans, especially on this board are football savvy enough to know that and can separate the two. I think you short change them by making that kind of generalization. 

 

Quote

 

I personally see a lateral move. Which is not a bad thing. I think Kirk is a fine QB. But I see someone limited when the stakes are highest, and a bit of an empty stat padder. I think Alex is a better situational QB even if he's not able to dissect a defense like Kirk has at times. His legs don't hurt either. 

 

A stat padder is one of those empty narratives that people like to throw out there to trash him. I was hoping we were getting better than that. Kirk had to do a lot on his own with little run game and not much D - especially run D. I think one of the things both QBs are accused of shows many peoples lack of understanding of the WC offense is that they check down to the safe play too often. Well the fact is you take what is there. If the deep stuff is covered you are supposed to hit guys underneath and make teams pay for covering the deeper stuff and get them to make adjustments. The only issue I had with Kirk is I think he got to the check down a little late a lot of the time negating much run after the catch. Alex seems to be more decisive. But Kirk was willing to take more chances and is also part of why he did not hit th check downs quite as much as Alex (again negates the whole stat padding thing). Alex has progressively become a little more of a risk taker. More on this later. But both guys are doing what the offense is designed to do. I really do not see much difference in their abilities overall - Alex is a little more careful and Kirk is a little less decisive. 

 

Quote

 

Last, I don't see why it's crazy to present schemes and recent successes as a reason to be optimistic Smiths last year was an outlier. Could see it both ways, but certainly don't think it should be dismissed since he has played in some notoriously conservative passing schemes with not great weapons. Until last year when he played at a near MVP level at times... Yet some just assume it's an outlier and don't truly analyze why it potentially isn't. 

 

This is just not a true for the vast majority of those that are concerned about if last year was really where Alex is or he had a good year. And it's not just an assumption. There is a decade of data that suggests last year was not the norm. I can promise you I have analyzed his performance intently. And BTW I am excited to see what he can do in Jay's offense. Both have a lot they want to prove and Jay is a very underrated offensive mind (well at least to some Redskins fans). If you look at Alex over the years, he has slowly become a bit more aggressive. Last year though was a jump shift. He also had the tools. If Paul R can be his Tyrek Hill then it is very possible he could continue. But it will take more than a fast guy running long to make that happen. I believe that's why many of us were so bummed when Guice went down. Not that the team cannot survive without a rookie who never played a down - but the potential he provided with his skill set was exciting as hell. A good run game is a good catalyst for Alex being able to be more aggressive. 

 

Quote

 

If we stayed healthier around Kirk last year we were a double digit win team IMO. 

 

 

 

I would agree with this. Injuries were devastating. The same will be true for Alex. If the team is as injured as last year it will be very difficult for the team to win very many games. If they stay healthy, I like their chances to be competitive, regardless of the schedule. I know it's supposedly really tough. But all you can do is play the team in front of you. My only issue with schedules has been timing like too many short weeks and unfair advantages for division games, them coming off byes when we have a short week, etc. But that is a different conversation. 

[Skinsinparadise]

11 hours ago, Sandy Monk said:

 

Imagine how flawless one would speak of Aaron Rodgers, if asked to explain all the strengths. (and yes, Rodgers is superior to Smith)

 

Would you flippantly say the same thing?

 

 

Assume you are referring to the Superman reference?  If so, I would flippantly say the same thing in fun just like my other point and in Aaron's case I would mean it.  

 

6 hours ago, volsmet said:

 

I’ll not try to convince a gentleman who is as well studied as you, I know your opinions are formed objectively by watching hours & hours ..... & hours .....& hours ...(well, point made) of football. I wouldn’t want to change your mind, I enjoy consuming the views of others, the players will show us who they are. Even when I disagree with someone’s thoughts, I don’t believe my perspective to be better, superior or more likely to be proven accurate. The discussing is what’s valuable, you bring more worthy redskins content to digest than anyone at the post or any of the local redskins programming.

 

Thanks, and I am not suggesting otherwise.  My opinion is no more valuable than anyone here of course.  It's just an opinion.  I used you actually as an example in another post as to how you explained Payne.  I liked Payne when the college season began, lost the love and it turned to like, loved how the season though ended for him.  Didn't love the pick.  You showed clip after clip of the dude and explained why he'd be really really good.  I thought that was convincing and I plugged your enthusiasm on that thread.  I showed some of my own of the DTs weakness and how Payne could potentially help fix some of that.  I wasn't completely convinced from your clips but appreciated the substance and it made me think.  And I said so.

 

On the same token, if people wan't to (I don't see that being your angle) convince me Alex is just a let it fly risk taker in particular versus Kirk, I'd need for someone to either show me (like you did with Payne) or I'd need to see that happen during the season.  Because yeah, I don't even mean this part even a whit sarcastically though am sure it feels that way to some -- and that is, if Alex is BOTH a take care of the ball type and doesn't throw interceptions AND he just sprays the ball around the field and loves to take his risks then in my book the dude would be elite based on that description.  That would be a dynamite player -- that's Bradyish plus.   

 

6 hours ago, volsmet said:

 

I think Kirk is a talented guy who processes the game slowly, I think Alex will get to things Kirk isn’t able to. I believe that the nfl gets more Jay Gruden friendly every year, he wants to throw the ball & Alex Smith is a perfect guy to distribute it. 

 

 

I don't want to drag this into a Kirk-Alex debate so I'll go cliff notes -- I think Kirk hangs with his reads better, throws with better anticipation and has better arm strength.  Alex is better with ball security, has better wheels and like him more as to the RPO-RO and he what he brings to the run game.  If I had to pick one, it would be Kirk because I am an arm strength guy and because of his age and upside.  But like I've said I got no issues with anyone who likes Alex a little more.  I think they are close.

 

6 hours ago, volsmet said:

 

Your opinions are every bit as valuable as any scouts. What separates good scouts from useless ones is humility & obsession. You have to love what your eyes see, not what you hoped they’d see. A lot of people let expectations & feelings cloud their objectivity. Great scouts love every snap they see, they only care about the football. I am too often guilty of rooting for my opinions rather than being objective, it can be tough to let go of the Johnathan Ballard’s I loved. :/

Keep it coming, you’re a phenomenal asset to the site. 

 

Thanks for all the complements  and back at you like I said your posts on Payne are classic level good stuff.  But yeah to me a scout knows a heck of a lot more than me, naturally.  They are professionals.  I am not.  It's tough for me not to form a hard opinion once I watch coaches tapes of games and then combine it with narratives.  I've watched a ton of Kirk and less so of Alex.  But i am not just running with narratives on both.  When you slow everything down and watch frame by frame its interesting to me and you can see a lot more IMO than watching the game alone.  You catch things like how good Kirk for example was at selling play action, how his receivers weren't always hot at getting open but when Jordan Reed was on the field, wow, does that dude know how to get open, etc.

 

If its purely about buying into narratives, I'll put money that I've heard as many of them as anyone here on this subject.  I work from home, I got sports radio on all day long.  I must have listened to at least 10 people who either covered Alex in KC or is a national reporter and covered Alex. I've listened to the PFF guys talk about him versus Alex, the Football Outsiders guys, Cooley, you name it I've heard it.  I think I have a handle on the narratives.  And I'll just say this the typical narrative is much closer to what I think than the Alex is better than good narratives -- yes there are outliers on both sides, Riddick thinks he's great, Beniot thinks he will be bad here -- he just predicted us to go 5-11.   , 

 

My point is its tough for me to be convinced based on narratives that I've already digested -- coupled with watching some games and doing my best to pay attention.  But if people approach it like you did with Payne -- that would interest me, that would get my attention.  Otherwise I'd need to be convinced when the season starts.

 

It's not as if I am not rooting for it to happen.  I'll be in the stands for the Arizona game -- so look if I am watching this game with my kids and it turns into some electric Alex Smith show with him spraying the ball all over the field without making mistakes and he turns into this dude who is all things that is described here by some -- I'd love it with 100% conviction.  I wouldn't care one whit coming on here saying hey some of you guys are right, this dude is better than just good, we got a great one.  I've been right before about players, I've been wrong.  My ego isn't invested in an opinion about a football player.  I'd all an odds guessing game anyway.   I like Alex but I am trying to stay medium about the dude.  Anything is possible, not saying otherwise.  But until the craps game opens -- we can just guess how it unfolds.  That's my guess for now. 
 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

5 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

PFF rates us number 6 going into the season in the pass rush department, yet your opinion is that we are "good" when it comes to the front 7. Just curious, when do you use sources for your opinion and when do you form your own opinion? 

 

 

OK if its PFF with the final definitive word -- it would also mean this:

 

Zach Brown who you compared to on another post to a Fletcher Cox caliber player -- is rated a "poor" player 58.8 by their system Cox a 90.7 which ranks him elite.  They would think its laughable to even mention them in the same breath let alone compare them as similar ilk.   And I like Zach by the way, he was my guy last year in the FA thread.  But if you are just going with PFF, then.... And if we ran with your all these Redskins players are right up there with Fletcher Cox argument -- PFF scores shoot you down, every example you gave.   But I didn't even mention PFF in my discussion with you because to me its a variable not the be all end all. 

 

I liked the Paul Richardson signing, I touted it on the FA thread -- PFF grades him as a poor player.  If you want another example that my position isn't just based on one variable or I just see the glass half full because its a move made by FO - hence ties to Bruce.

 

I like Doctson who is fashionable to trash on the board -- PFF backs the haters, he got a poor rating. 

 

PFF thinks Lauvao is one of the worst OGs in the league, they aren't high on Roullier judging by his score

 

PFF recently wrote an article ranking the QBs and put Kirk just above Alex.

 

I can go on and on and put a dagger in yours and plenty of theories using PFF.  And actually I can run with multiple positions I have that has the FO's back versus what PFF thinks.

 

Now as your point about why I think the D line will be good and not great.  Let me start with this because its a running theme on this very thread -- again, GOOD is not a criticism.  Good isn't a secret code word for bad.   Good means good.    My theory is mostly based on past is prologue -- units rarely turn around overnight from bad to great.  It happens.  But I am just being more measured about it. I got to see it.  And I've said so.

 

Other reason for it -- worries about health -  Jonathan Allen who I think is their biggest stud is coming off of injury.  Payne already has been banged up, Ionnaidis, too.  But I've said many times -- great is possible.  And like I've told you directly why the heck should it bother you if I think a unit is more likely good as opposed great.  What the heck do I know, I am just guessing.  So are you.  It's football where anything is possible that's part of why the sport is fun.   

 

I told you in a recent exchange, if I was that enamored with the roster it wouldn't bother me one whit of someone wasn't as enamored. Who cares if they aren't the same level of enthusiasm?  I said then to you and I'll say it again, I got no interest in popping your ballon.  Enjoy basking in the idea that the D line is great.  I don't think its an outlandish position.  I am just not fully sold its that level great, yet.   But your position on it is fine -- I don't think its crazy.  I am just not as sold, yet. 

 

 

5 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

- If Bruce Allen is head of personnel, he shouldn't be fired. Let's hire a GM who oversees the big picture and let Bruce work under him. Cause we are doing a hell of a job in the personnel department, but definitely could see some improvement when it comes to piecing it all together. Though don't think we are far off, and think Doug may play a bigger role in that department than we think.

 

 

I typically say reassigned as opposed to fired.  I'd be totally cool with him gone though but I catch myself usually from saying fired not because I don't want him gone but because I don't like saying anyone should be fired.  So I'll double down on reassigned.  Not because I want Bruce around but because I think its jerkish to want anyone canned. 

 

5 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

But narratives are true and present for any fanbase I'm sure. There's a segment that im sure doesn't present Alex in the most favorable light because they can't stand the fact Kirk is gone and that Bruce fudged it all up. And Kirk being good, Alex being bad means Bruce was wrong, they are right, and it will lead to a change at the top.

 

I get this point.  But I think you can accomplish this with simply Kirk being great regardless of how Alex does.  I think it would have to be a very small segment if that rooting for any Redskins player to play poorly.  Heck I disliked Cerrato even more than Bruce but I rooted for every move to work out.  I don't think Bruce is here for long regardless of what happens with Alex. 

 

 

[bobandweave]

14 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Not about you directly.

 

Thank you for clarifying 

 

14 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

It's about the idea that one side of the discussion is the sunshine side about the team in a macro way and the other side is the opposite.  My point was I wouldn't define some of the ones who are gushing about Alex as just people who are brimming with sunshine just in general about everything -- they certainly weren't that way about Kirk.  As you acceded yourself in your post to me.

 

Only thing I wish to respond about this was that when we draft KC in 2012 I loved the idea, it was the same method that the Cowboys used in 1990 when looking for a QB. To me if a team is looking for a QB they are best suited to double down on the chances they give the team to find one over just going with a single guy. If I was managing a team I would demand multiple guys were drafted in that situation. Then I was excited about Kirk's first start in 2012 against Cleveland and thought he looked good. Then the end of the 2013 season last three games occured and Kirk looked horrible and I lost hope in him. Then the end of the 2015 season happened and he looked great again and he won me over again. At the time in the 2016 offseason I personally wouldn't have signed him long term and liked them making him prove it, now I admit that didn't work out for the team but I put that blame on Kirk wanting Free Agency not that the team low balled him as others expressed. In the 16 and 17 seasons I really thought Kirk meant what he was saying  - that he wanted to be on this team and would sign long term - then the embarring shrinking violet moments against NY happened and his contract demands kept getting more and more expensive and I moved from being a fan to thinking they could get the 8-8 and 7-9 seasons from someone else cheaper and that's where you picked up on me being against him. Truth is I gave him many chances and it was always Up then Down, and a rollercoaster with him. 

 

Its not so much that I think that Kirk isn't talented, he does has his moments. My issue with him was his bi-polar play. One game he looked great, the next he's losing games to a 2-14 team and throwing boneheaded INTs. I don't think that he was worth the most money paid in the league and see him as a Jay Cutler, someone with stats that look good but lacks the substance to ever win anything meaningful. We just disagree on how good Kirk is I think. If he proves me to be wrong and he ends up better then Jay Cutler I will admit I was wrong, he hasn't shown that yet.  

 

 

14 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

And yes, I'd group you among those people as an example.  But my point was that's fine.   I think the positive-negative camp label is unfair if painted just based on this issue. In some context, its hard to get more positive than me.  In another context -- Bruce/Management I am negative.   Positive -- Derrius Guice.  Negative -- Robert Kelley. Depends on the subject.  

 

Me too brother, I'm anti Bruce, pro recent drafts, anti Snyder, pro Jay Gruden, and I think we are that way just because we are both educated smart fans who don't wear the B&G glasses and are realist. 

 

 

14 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I recall the last disagreement I had wasn't about you having a different position but that you misrepresented my position (at least in my book you did) and then hammered me on that false position.  But that hasn't happened of late.  So I got no quarrel with anything.

 

My apology for doing that, I was not aware I was and won't do it again

 

 

14 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I give you two things on the Alex Smith dynamic that's unique to you compared to most others and that I like from that perspective

 

A.  You liked the idea of making this trade BEFORE it happened.  So I respect that.  Plenty of people jump on a position after it goes down and sometimes that position can come off as bandwagon or driven by feelings about the FO.  More interesting to me to land on a position before it went down like you did it versus after it happened.  I landed on a position on this myself before it went down, too. 

 

B.  You are uniquely one of the people who really dig the trade and also don't dig Bruce.   Many of (again not all) the ones who dig the trade also dig Bruce or they are at least ok with him.   My biggest beef with this team is Bruce as head of personnel so anyone who shares that concept with me -- isn't a mile away from my global mindset about the team.

 

My biggest beef about the team is Snyder but not because of reasons most have stated before. The biggest problem this teams had year over year is injuries. This is directly a result of the way below average training and recovery services that the team owns and utilizes. Until those are addressed and upgraded the injuries issues will continue to mount and grow (already happening this year). The decision to ignore and not address this comes down to ownership.

 

Since Snyder doesn't put money into facilities and upgrades to help the players he is a bigger issue then an inept team manager. I don't think Snyder can see the correlation between way below facilities and injuries. If Snyder understood why the guys keep getting injured and how that affects the team results he might do something about this. He has done nothing about building new training buildings because its expensive. The last NFL team to put money into this cost them over 500 million dollars. Snyder just doesn't either have the money to do this or the care for doing it and his team suffers for it and the fans suffer. 

 

 

14 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

And i don't think Alex is better than Kirk.  I'd take Kirk over Alex.  But i think they are close. So I got no issue with anyone who gives the nod to Alex.  But this version of risk taking let it fly Alex to me is likely a fantasy -- not impossible that he plays that way for Jay but I'll believe it when I see it. 

 

Give me Alex all day. To me I'd put it another way. If you could have a starting RB that may get you negative yards on one rush but on another rush for 25 yards VS. a RB who gets you 4 yards everytime he carries the ball which guy would you pick over the other? To me I'd much rather have the 4 yards per carry player over the other guy. One guy is consistent the other is a maybe consistent maybe not. I think it's just a difference in tastes. Same for Kirk and Alex. One guy wins 50 games in 5 years, has a 13 game win record for a different team and always seems to be winning. The other guy is up and down. His ups are exciting but his downs are demoralizing. I would rather have the consistency over the rollercoasters. Take care, appreciate the conversation  HTTR!!!

[Morneblade]

8 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

PFF rates us number 6 going into the season in the pass rush department, yet your opinion is that we are "good" when it comes to the front 7. Just curious, when do you use sources for your opinion and when do you form your own opinion? 

 

There are 2 issues with this. First, it's not really based on anything concrete. It's based on what was done some of last year and what they think guys like Payne will add, so, it's conjecture. The second issue is........it's only pass rush. Is there one for Run defense, you know, the very thing that has been killing us for nearly a decade? Basically, we won't know anything until they start playing. I hope we got it right this time, but I need to see it. I need to see a huge improvement in run defense before this is "elite". When we can start stoning Zeke to the tune of 18 carries for 44 yards consistently, I'll believe.

 

Quote

A few other thoughts based off thoughts on recent posts:

 

- If Bruce Allen is head of personnel, he shouldn't be fired. Let's hire a GM who oversees the big picture and let Bruce work under him. Cause we are doing a hell of a job in the personnel department, but definitely could see some improvement when it comes to piecing it all together. Though don't think we are far off, and think Doug may play a bigger role in that department than we think.

 

I don't like Bruce being involved in personnel looking at his history here, Tampa Bay and Oakland. I do like him as a Cap guy, and he's a nice nod to our past. I don't know how much pull Doug has, but I like Smith being promoted.

 

Quote

@Sandy Monk I know what you are trying to articulate, although think you are taking it a little too personally. Years of ineptitude and bad decisions will inevitably take its toll on a fan base. Especially for a once proud fan base. So it's no surprise you pick up on the negative tone of some posters here. Though don't think that's not normal or makes them less of a fan.

 

But narratives are true and present for any fanbase I'm sure. There's a segment that im sure doesn't present Alex in the most favorable light because they can't stand the fact Kirk is gone and that Bruce fudged it all up. And Kirk being good, Alex being bad means Bruce was wrong, they are right, and it will lead to a change at the top.

 

There is some of this, to be sure. I hope it's not a prevalent as you might think, but I think you have people that think like this. Fact of the matter is that both are good QB's and do some things a little better than the other. Alex might be a better fit the way the team looks to be built now.

 

Quote

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Temper11 said:

Brady has started in virtually every game for New England for the past 18 seasons with the 2008 season being the outlier.  In those years, he's never missed the playoffs - not once.  He has been short of at least a 10 win season, only one time in 17 seasons.  So... no, I'm not saying Smith is better than Brady.  There may not ever be another Brady.

 

However - he is indeed plenty capable of being both conservative with the football when the situation calls for it, or aggressive with the football when the situation calls for it... regardless of what "multiple sources" say.  "Multiple sources" have been getting Smith wrong for years. 

 

It's really hard to give you much credibility. I know you're a Smith fan, as in you're a fan of Smith, and that is the only reason you're here. You're not actually a Redskins fan. And that's fine, I was a huge Peyton Manning fan as well. Went to my school (UT) was great there, classy as hell and went on to have a pretty good NFL career. Games where he wasn't playing us, I wanted him to win, and have great stats.

 

Never registered on the Colts or Broncos message boards though to tell people how great I thought he was though. So it's really hard to take you seriously.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, bobandweave said:

I put that blame on Kirk wanting Free Agency not that the team low balled him as others expressed. In the 16 and 17 seasons I really thought Kirk meant what he was saying  - that he wanted to be on this team and would sign long term -

 

To marry this position with another position you have -- at least according to some beat guys who covered the story there is a management component to the story that went beyond the basic negotiation.  I've heard enough that part of Kirk's problem with the FO is the low balling was accompanied by some douche like behind the scenes things that were said/done over the course of the negotiation with the press release that Bruce read being the kicker. He didn't like Bruce ultimately and didn't think he's the guy to take him and the team to the promised land -- so if he can escape that for greener pastures, why not do it?  

 

1 hour ago, bobandweave said:

 

Its not so much that I think that Kirk isn't talented, he does has his moments. My issue with him was his bi-polar play. One game he looked great, the next he's losing games to a 2-14 team and throwing boneheaded INTs. I don't think that he was worth the most money paid in the league and see him as a Jay Cutler, someone with stats that look good but lacks the substance to ever win anything meaningful. We just disagree on how good Kirk is I think. If he proves me to be wrong and he ends up better then Jay Cutler I will admit I was wrong, he hasn't shown that yet.  

 

I think Kirk has to work out some kinks.  I think he's a good to very good QB.  He seemed like a different dude with Jordan Reed in the line up.  He never had a running game.  I always thought you give him some weapons he will soar.  Not Brady-Brees level soaring.  But in that next group -- Matt Ryan, etc.   My favorite Kirk moments in games I was at was his comeback against the Eagles in 2015 and the Saints game last year where a Saints fan turned to me and said your guy is as good as our guy.  I don't think Kirk is as good as Brees but I know where he was coming from, Kirk was on fire until the Thompson injury.

 

1 hour ago, bobandweave said:

 

Me too brother, I'm anti Bruce, pro recent drafts, anti Snyder, pro Jay Gruden, and I think we are that way just because we are both educated smart fans who don't wear the B&G glasses and are realist. 

 

No disagreement on any of this. 

 

1 hour ago, bobandweave said:

 

My biggest beef about the team is Snyder but not because of reasons most have stated before. The biggest problem this teams had year over year is injuries. This is directly a result of the way below average training and recovery services that the team owns and utilizes. Until those are addressed and upgraded the injuries issues will continue to mount and grow (already happening this year). The decision to ignore and not address this comes down to ownership.

 

Since Snyder doesn't put money into facilities and upgrades to help the players he is a bigger issue then an inept team manager. I don't think Snyder can see the correlation between way below facilities and injuries. 

 

It's not my main beef with Snyder but its in the soup.   It's the biggest mystery to me about him -- for a dude who is willing to spend big money on FA -- why be cheap on everything else?  Scouting (until recently), the facility, changing the grass at Fed Ex.  On and on.

 

1 hour ago, bobandweave said:

One guy is consistent the other is a maybe consistent maybe not. I think it's just a difference in tastes. Same for Kirk and Alex. I would rather have the consistency over the rollercoasters. Take care, appreciate the conversation  HTTR!!!

 

Like I said, I don't see the two being that different -- different QBs but I think similar caliber.  My issue with the trade is exclusively this I see Kirk's age as the prime period for excellence typically for a QB.  I see Alex's age as being a bit more of a wild card.  And losing Kirk for just about nothing.  Can you imagine the Eagles for example getting just a third rounder for one of their starting QBs -- look at their trades as a contrast?

 

As I've said many times on this thread, my issue with the trade is it in my book creates a more win now mindset.   And if that's the road we are going on -- don't do it half way, go for it in full.  Play the full deck of cards because of you are going on a 9-7 ride as for roster building then it was a waste of a trade unless the goal was just about saving Jay's job, then all right.  

 

That's why to me their FA season was disappointing -- give Alex more tools and more depth on offense.  Hopefully, Peterson has something left.  That to me isn't on Alex its on Bruce.  If you are going to play this card, really play it and give him the best chance.

 

That's why like I said on this thread, I'll have Alex's back which is a different song than is the dude good or great.   I am not convinced at the moment, we've given him the best shot to excel.  Hopefully he gets a good amount of reps this Friday and Peterson looks good.  That would make me happy.  But the dude right now hasn't gotten much reps -- heck he's not really even playing with Crowder and Reed and Thompson.   It's a tall order IMO for it to just all come together fast in the beginning of the season. 

 

I think for a QB to be great, he needs some parts to help him out.  That's why I saw it as more of a possibility with Guice and hopefully a healthy Reed and or Thompson.  But not loving the Thompson won't be 100% healthy until Nov rap, Guice out for the year, Reed not ready to play yet, etc.

 

Good discussion, ditto.

 

[Temper11]

2 hours ago, Morneblade said:

It's really hard to give you much credibility. I know you're a Smith fan, as in you're a fan of Smith, and that is the only reason you're here. You're not actually a Redskins fan. And that's fine, I was a huge Peyton Manning fan as well. Went to my school (UT) was great there, classy as hell and went on to have a pretty good NFL career. Games where he wasn't playing us, I wanted him to win, and have great stats.

 

Never registered on the Colts or Broncos message boards though to tell people how great I thought he was though. So it's really hard to take you seriously.

Take me seriously?  As if this were a serious conversation?  I'm not trying to convince you or anyone on here of anything.  I'm just giving my opinion of the guy - just like everyone else.  My credibility, for whatever it is worth, lies in the fact that I've watched every snap of his professional career.  Take that information and do with it whatever you want.  Is my information more or less credible than others who are formulating their opinions from stats and other sources?  Dunno... it's just a different opinion.  Take it as "seriously" as you want.

 

I however don't think saying that he is both capable of being conservative with the football when the situation calls for it, and more aggressive with the football when the situation calls for it should be shocking news to anyone.  Every coach who he's played for talks about how incredibly smart he is, so knowing the situation and adjusting to meet it would seem to be in line with his most non-controversial strength - if you believe those coaches.

 

And yes, I'm not a Redskins fan.  I'm a Niners fan which is how I got locked onto Smith in the first place.  He was done dirty in SF, by the organization and the fanbase alike, and it embarrassed me as a fan of that team.   For whatever reason it caused me to take an usual interest in his career even after he left SF (unusual for me that is - never followed a player like this post his time with my team).  I want the guy to have success - because I think in some fantasy world where life is fair, he deserves it.  So you're stuck with me, at least as long is he is here, and my crazy informed albeit biased "he's pretty darn good at a lot of things relating to quarterbacking, but short of elite" takes.  Nothing would make me happier than if he won a few Superbowls with the Redskins and then retired so I can go back to just being a Niners fan.  Which I understand to some is blasphemy.  I said the same thing on KC's fan forum site.  I'm not here to troll, I just enjoy the conversation.  The guy is nothing else, if not polarizing.  For what it's worth, the folks here (redskins fan forum) are generally much much more cordial to each other than KC's fan forum - as no one has wished me to die painfully in an aids infested dumpster fire.  So that's nice - but I realize, the season hasn't yet started.         

[bobandweave]

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

To marry this position with another position you have -- at least according to some beat guys who covered the story there is a management component to the story that went beyond the basic negotiation.  I've heard enough that part of Kirk's problem with the FO is the low balling was accompanied by some douche like behind the scenes things that were said/done over the course of the negotiation with the press release that Bruce read being the kicker. He didn't like Bruce ultimately and didn't think he's the guy to take him and the team to the promised land -- so if he can escape that for greener pastures, why not do it?  

 

I have no issue with Kirk wanting out. These guys have a responsibility to themselves and their families to get the most money possible while they can when they can. They have every right to do that. The difference with Kirk situation then others besides his position was the way he went about getting out. Kirk betrayed his team. That's why imo we all saw the negativity towards him when he moved on. Kirk told his teammates that he was gonna stay. Kirk told Peter King that he was gonna re-sign. Kirk didn't do what other men in his position did and look out for the team. Jimmy G's agents went directly to the Patriots told them he was gonna leave and to get something done before the trade deadline or they were gonna get nothing for him so they moved him to San Fran. Now it's not a question of "if he had to do that" or not, nor is it an issue of "Kirk doesn't owe anyone anything" or not to me. The issue to me is what was the right thing for Kirk to do in the situation he was in? Sure he may hate Snyder/Bruce and for good reasons I'm sure but did Kirk hate all his fans and this team too? Because the way he kept his intentions silent only to admit what they were after the season was over on Radio Row the week of the Superbowl was unprecedented. That was slimy. And what Bruce did with the statement after the window closed for them to sign him was also unprecedented and slimy. But two wrongs don't make a right. And the fans of Kirk should have been a thought on his mind and he not decide to present an illusion to everyone that wasn't his intention. His own words "My goal for the last two seasons was to hit Free Agency" was said in his Vikings opening press conference. If that was how he truly felt why not be open and honest about it and lookout for his fans and this team like others did? It left everyone with a sour taste in their mouths about the whole ordeal and he could have used other options for getting what he wanted. 

 

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

It's not my main beef with Snyder but its in the soup.   It's the biggest mystery to me about him -- for a dude who is willing to spend big money on FA -- why be cheap on everything else?  Scouting (until recently), the facility, changing the grass at Fed Ex.  On and on.

 

I think it comes down to ignorance, greed, and being cash strapped. Ignorance because I'm not sure if Dan even understands this at all. Greed because investing in the foundation isn't splashy and that's money spent that is not going to get paid back to him in any way so he doesn't do it. Cash Strapped because I think if he had the funds he would do something. They are doing little things and not completely ignoring the problem. This year they announced they were installing a cryo machine in the building for healing. Now that's been a mainstay in most football facilities for almost a decade and it's an improvement to the Redskins but this is old news, not cutting edge technology, and not enough. So much more is needed but goes ignored. It's an embarrassment 

 

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Like I said, I don't see the two being that different -- different QBs but I think similar caliber.  My issue with the trade is exclusively this I see Kirk's age as the prime period for excellence typically for a QB.  I see Alex's age as being a bit more of a wild card.

 

The age of QB decline is a pretty interesting topic. Most of the articles you will find on this subject are dated in the sense that the past ten years the NFL has gone way out of its way to protect the bodies of these men more than ever before. That extra layer of protection is only going to help QBs play longer then they could before. Now for a rebuttal to this "wild card" aspect I would recommend checking out this in depth article about the age of QB decline:

 

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2011/08/how-quarterbacks-age.html

 

In short QB's peak age is 29 years old. Then they slowly decline over the next 7-8 years on average. That was published in 2013 without the data of the rule changes protecting them in it.

 

So while I don't disagree that Kirk's age is "better" then Alex's age, I would question if this is even anything to consider. QBs decline usually happens in a year. When Father time calls it's over for them. Peyton Manning went from throwing 39 TDs to throwing only 9 the next season. Brett Favre went from 33 TD passes one year to 11 the next. Dan Marino 23 one year to 12 the next. All career lows and the end of the careers for these men.

 

Its like these guys are outstanding one season and then the next they are completely washed up. The ages of QBs playing in the NFL has increased since the rule changes. More protection, the longer they can play. I don't think that at 34 years old that Alex is washed up or going to wash out of the league anytime soon. He's younger then 

 

Aaron Rodgers
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Phillip Rivers
Ben Roethlisberger
Eli Manning
Drew Brees
Tom Brady

 

To name just a few of the starting 2018 NFL QBs playing today. The NFL QB ages ranges from 22 to 39 playing today. Alex just turned 34 years old. Will he play 5 more seasons? Idk but I would not put it past him. Same for Kirk. Both I think are still starting in this league 3 maybe 5 years from now. If I'm right and lets be honest this topic is almost all guessing then does Kirk's age mean that much here? I don't think so because in 3 to 5 years time I doubt that either guys starting for the teams they are on now. I think that so I think this is a non issue for either guy. 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

As I've said many times on this thread, my issue with the trade is it in my book creates a more win now mindset.

 

I don't think that Alex over Kirk means win now more then other way around it. I think they are both win now signings. If the Redskins gave a fully guaranteed deal like the Vikings gave Kirk they certainly are in a win now mode. With that sort of money no matter what team these guys are on it's win now mindset all around. If Kirk fails in Minnesota the coaches and GMs will be fired. No owner wants to spend 90 million dollars and thinks winning next year is okay with them or continue operating with the guys that cost the owner that much money. The owners want to see it happen now and get something from the investment. Both of these QBs are win now moves imo, simply saying that since Kirk is younger so that means the Vikings aren't in a window of winning now doesn't make much sense to me when he's only on contract for three seasons. After those three years who knows where he or his coach or his GM are. Same for Alex here. 

 

I don't disagree at all about going all in to win now if I'm the Vikings or the Redskins. Not doing that is stupid. The windows are open, they must do everything they can to win now. Or jobs will be lost no doubt. It would have been the same with either guy. The only QBs that aren't in win now mode are the rookies and 22 year olds like Jamies Winston. Being that both of these guys are 30 years old + and are on short contracts its all win now to me

 

[mudpig]

I stand by his side.  Getting behind a dude though...  not anything wrong with it of course, just not my thing OP.  

[Sandy Monk]

17 minutes ago, mudpig said:

I stand by his side.  Getting behind a dude though...  not anything wrong with it of course, just not my thing OP.  

 

hehe

[Skinsinparadise]

4 hours ago, bobandweave said:

 

The difference with Kirk situation then others besides his position was the way he went about getting out. Kirk betrayed his team. That's why imo we all saw the negativity towards him when he moved on. Kirk told his teammates that he was gonna stay. Kirk told Peter King that he was gonna re-sign. Kirk didn't do what other men in his position did and look out for the team.

 

We are entirely on different pages on the contract.  And I don't feel like reliving it all.  I'll just say 2 last things on this in this exchange.  Scot admitted that the FO (including when he was there) screwed up -- and he's not the type to say things he doesn't believe.  There is a narrative from people close to the action that it was the Redskins before Kirk who decided to move on in 2017.  If you read Mike McCartney's narrative about the behind the scenes that went on leading to the deal with the Vikings which includes the agent making a list of teams he knew that were serious about locking in Kirk long-term (from back before the season even ended).  The Redskins were not even on that list.  Even if you run with its all on Kirk, plenty of narrative is out there that they could have traded him.  So if they don't want to be proactive with the contract and for the matter proactive as to trade him then the FO earns a big fat F from me.   But I am tired of the Kirk contract debate so I'll end that here

4 hours ago, bobandweave said:

 

I think it comes down to ignorance, greed, and being cash strapped. Ignorance because I'm not sure if Dan even understands this at all. Greed because investing in the foundation isn't splashy and that's money spent that is not going to get paid back to him in any way so he doesn't do it. Cash Strapped because I think if he had the funds he would do something. They are doing little things and not completely ignoring the problem. This year they announced they were installing a cryo machine in the building for healing. Now that's been a mainstay in most football facilities for almost a decade and it's an improvement to the Redskins but this is old news, not cutting edge technology, and not enough. So much more is needed but goes ignored. It's an embarrassment 

 

 

 

To add to that point, it would be nice to be first for a change.  Where its hey the Redskins are the ones who are advanced on this or that versus chasing behind everyone else.  Dan IMO is too much of a reactive guy when it comes to management not proactive and forward thinking enough.  It's part of my beef too by the way as for the Kirk contract and if was not coming together then see it and trade the dude.  It's about being one step ahead.  Not his forte IMO.

 

4 hours ago, bobandweave said:

 

 

The age of QB decline is a pretty interesting topic. Most of the articles you will find on this subject are dated in the sense that the past ten years the NFL has gone way out of its way to protect the bodies of these men more than ever before. That extra layer of protection is only going to help QBs play longer then they could before. Now for a rebuttal to this "wild card" aspect I would recommend checking out this in depth article about the age of QB decline:

 

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2011/08/how-quarterbacks-age.html

 

In short QB's peak age is 29 years old. Then they slowly decline over the next 7-8 years on average. That was published in 2013 without the data of the rule changes protecting them in it.

 

  

I read it, thanks, the point below sounds about right. To recite the position I've made on this thread many times -- I got faith that Alex will be the same this year and next.  But once he reaches 36 it becomes a wild card.  I am not saying good, not saying bad -- just don't know.  The fact that his athleticism IMO is a key component to his game adds to that.  That article while interesting and thanks for sharing doesn't really dispute anything for me.  Years ago, you can almost count on a 36 year old QB to be done or close to it.  Now, its a wild card IMO -- its not a slam dunk he will still be at his peak or slam dunk he won't remain at his peak.  I agree that QBs are lasting longer but in my book that's already cooked into my point.  If I was going on years ago, I'd say he's likely off his peak at 36.

 

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2011/08/how-quarterbacks-age.html

A lot goes into the decision to retire, and it's not always completely the player's choice. Older QBs are checking out of the league after a down year, but there's no guarantee that the downward trend would continue. Although it's unlikely they'll reach the highs of their peak years, regression to the mean says that the following season is more likely going to be an up-year, at least relative to the previous one. At some point, a QB has absorbed enough sacks, had enough surgeries, made enough money, won enough thrillers, and lost enough heart-breakers for a lifetime. If the prospects for future success aren't very good, it's time to hang up the cleats, even if those prospects are somewhat of a statistical illusion.

The bottom line is that very successful quarterbacks like Manning aren't going to become bad slowly. All of sudden one year, they'll have significant drop-off in performance. If they were 26 and had the same kind of season or had a similar injury, they'd no doubt be back at camp the following July. But at 36, that job in the broadcast booth will seem quite enticing. Successful, established QBs will generally continue to be successful until one day they're not. We won't see it coming. But of course, everyone will pretend they did.

 

4 hours ago, bobandweave said:

 

In short QB's peak age is 29 years old. Then they slowly decline over the next 7-8 years on average. That was published in 2013 without the data of the rule changes protecting them in it.

 

 

This really sums up my point even better, I'd rather have a QB in that 30-34 year range.  Then 34-38.  

 

I think I'd sum up my differences not just with you but some others is these two points:

 

1.  I don't judge a QB by their record with an occasional exception depending on context.  To me if everyone is healthy including Guice, Alex is an 11-5 QB.  If he has the same number of injuries that we had last year, Alex would IMO likely be a 7-9 QB.  I don't buy the whole this QB is a winner or loser argument.  I think Alex is capable of dong his part to make this team a playoff team -- but its not all about him. 

 

2.  I like to play the odds typically when it comes to players with some exceptions.  I don't think any of us can say with absolute certainty or even close to certainty as to what's going down.  Yeah maybe Alex is good, great, or whatever.  Plenty of opinions are out there about him -- as one observer said depending on the source Alex is either the most overrated QB in the NFL or the most underrated.  I sort of find myself somewhere in the middle of these two divergent view points.      I am not negative like Spector who covered him in KC or Benoit and I am not as giddy as Polian and Reddick.  I am somewhere in between the two points.  I think he's good.  I wouldn't be shocked if he's great.  But I got to see it first. 

[Morneblade]

4 hours ago, Temper11 said:

Take me seriously?  As if this were a serious conversation?  I'm not trying to convince you or anyone on here of anything.  I'm just giving my opinion of the guy - just like everyone else.  My credibility, for whatever it is worth, lies in the fact that I've watched every snap of his professional career.  Take that information and do with it whatever you want.  Is my information more or less credible than others who are formulating their opinions from stats and other sources?  Dunno... it's just a different opinion.  Take it as "seriously" as you want.

 

I however don't think saying that he is both capable of being conservative with the football when the situation calls for it, and more aggressive with the football when the situation calls for it should be shocking news to anyone.  Every coach who he's played for talks about how incredibly smart he is, so knowing the situation and adjusting to meet it would seem to be in line with his most non-controversial strength - if you believe those coaches.

 

And yes, I'm not a Redskins fan.  I'm a Niners fan which is how I got locked onto Smith in the first place.  He was done dirty in SF, by the organization and the fanbase alike, and it embarrassed me as a fan of that team.   For whatever reason it caused me to take an usual interest in his career even after he left SF (unusual for me that is - never followed a player like this post his time with my team).  I want the guy to have success - because I think in some fantasy world where life is fair, he deserves it.  So you're stuck with me, at least as long is he is here, and my crazy informed albeit biased "he's pretty darn good at a lot of things relating to quarterbacking, but short of elite" takes.  Nothing would make me happier than if he won a few Superbowls with the Redskins and then retired so I can go back to just being a Niners fan.  Which I understand to some is blasphemy.  I said the same thing on KC's fan forum site.  I'm not here to troll, I just enjoy the conversation.  The guy is nothing else, if not polarizing.  For what it's worth, the folks here (redskins fan forum) are generally much much more cordial to each other than KC's fan forum - as no one has .  So that's nice - but I realize, the season hasn't yet started.         

 

 

Well, at least you admit you're biased, that is better than most. I can respect that.

 

And I do have some good news, I don't think there is anyone here that is going to "wished me to die painfully in an aids infested dumpster fire". We're pretty decent, and if anyone gets out of line, they get a "Hi there" and they disappear. This thread is about as hot as it gets, so if you don't think this is too bad, you'll be fine.

 

With the exception of the Gameday Thread. That one can get brutal, but usually just towards the Redskins.

[Temper11]

3 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

 

Well, at least you admit you're biased, that is better than most. I can respect that.

 

And I do have some good news, I don't think there is anyone here that is going to "wished me to die painfully in an aids infested dumpster fire". We're pretty decent, and if anyone gets out of line, they get a "Hi there" and they disappear. This thread is about as hot as it gets, so if you don't think this is too bad, you'll be fine.

 

With the exception of the Gameday Thread. That one can get brutal, but usually just towards the Redskins.

 

 

[Sandy Monk]

8 minutes ago, Temper11 said:

 

 

 

Yes, I'm new here, but agree that any outsiders with insights and interest in the Redskins should be welcome, and treated with respect! All the more so, if you are here wanting good things for us.

 

By the way, congrats on landing Jimmy G. I have seen him in plenty of the SF games last year, and man, he's going to really have a big career there, imho. I think I will watch them a lot this year, as well. Something about that team has almost always been strong with me, dating back to the Joe Cool glory. I didn't really like that Kapsernick fellow for long though. Glad he's out in the street.  

 

13 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

Well, at least you admit you're biased, that is better than me. I can respect that.

 

Agreed with this, and good on you too, sir.  

[Morneblade]

4 minutes ago, Sandy Monk said:

 

Yes, I'm new here, but agree that any outsiders with insights and interest in the Redskins should be welcome, and treated with respect! All the more so, if you are here wanting good things for us.

 

By the way, congrats on landing Jimmy G. I have seen him in plenty of the SF games last year, and man, he's going to really have a big career there, imho. I think I will watch them a lot this year, as well. Something about that team has almost always been strong with me, dating back to the Joe Cool glory. I didn't really like that Kapsernick fellow for long though. Glad he's out in the street.  

 

 

Agreed with this, and good on you too, sir.  

 

Don't put words in my mouth, it's making your agenda show.

[skinny21]

38 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

 

Well, at least you admit you're biased, that is better than most. I can respect that.

 

And I do have some good news, I don't think there is anyone here that is going to "wished me to die painfully in an aids infested dumpster fire". We're pretty decent, and if anyone gets out of line, they get a "Hi there" and they disappear. This thread is about as hot as it gets, so if you don't think this is too bad, you'll be fine.

 

With the exception of the Gameday Thread. That one can get brutal, but usually just towards the Redskins.

Who are you kidding.  We’re not decent... we’re just forced to pretend to be (per the board rules).

 

[Morneblade]

38 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

Who are you kidding.  We’re not decent... we’re just forced to pretend to be (per the board rules).

 

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

 

[HardcoreZorn]

On 8/22/2018 at 4:59 AM, goskins10 said:

 

@Skinsinparadise does more analytical study than most anyone on this board - maybe more than anyone - and you know that. You may not have meant it that way but it comes off as a cheap shot. Not to mention it's pretty nit-picky to question someone saying the front is "good" when they are ranked - without playing a down - 6th. What are really are looking for? Spectacular? Elite? Great? I am as bullish on the potential of the Dline as any but let's see them play a few downs in a real game at least before deciding they are elite or great or whatever you were looking for. 

Yeah re-reading that I guess I could see how it comes off that way but truly wasn't my intention at all. SIP to his credit breathes Redskins football. I am not as plugged in when it comes to listening to the beat guys, national guys, KC guys about Smith etc. Don't get me wrong, I watch every game, will be going to AZ this year, read about camp religiously etc. But I'm too busy surfing out here in San Diego to be AS plugged in when it comes to the other stuff ?

 

Anyway, the intention was not at all to question his take that we are "good" not "great," but rather how he formulated that opinion. PFF was just an example but there has been quite a bit of pieces out there and takes that I personally have read in the front 7 thread that I actually am a little surprised SIP isn't as higher on the Redskins front 7. But that's his take, and that's cool.

 

See for me, the front 7 isn't about projection. Because I've already seen it, and I do not at all believe it was a fluke. Game 1 last year vs the Eagles I couldn't stop saying to my old man and my buddy who is a Skins fan "Wow, we are absolutely smothering up front." Now, the main takeaway from that game was that we lost, and just couldn't quite get to Wentz. Then again, I also came away from that game thinking Wentz was going to be a super star. But yeah, it was very apparent that we were not making it easy on Wentz, at all. Held a Rams team who averaged 120+ on the ground and 20 first downs to less than 100 and 14 first downs. We absolutely smothered Carr and the Raiders. To the point where we made an NFL team look like Alabama does to some far inferior college program. I mean Oakland had 5 offensive first downs all game. They were 0-11 on third down and had 120 total yards of offense. The very next week the Chiefs offense certainly got the best of us, though to be fair they were getting the best of everybody at the time. They threw up 540 on the Patriots in week 1.

 

So were we dominant last year, nah we weren't. But there were certainly shades of it pre Allen injury. Even after Allen was lost, there were shades of Ioanidis, Smith, and Kerrigan being too much to handle. Add Allen back in his second year? Add Payne next to him? Smith in a contract year. I mean sure, have to let it play out, but projection is a natural part of the off season I feel like. PFF backs up the eye test. Smith and Kerrigan being so high in pressures matches what I saw on Sundays last year. Baldinger's breakdown of the game the other night just reaffirms my excitement. I just don't see how you block all those guys we have up front.

 

On 8/22/2018 at 4:59 AM, goskins10 said:

 

 

I actual do not completely disagree here, although saying they are doing a "hell of a job" is a bit of a stretch. On paper and especially the draft they appear to have done a very good job, and I have said so more than once. I definitely agree Doug is having more influence and input that I thought when his position was announced. Also I was not sure even if he had more influence it would be a positive. I appear at least to this point to be wrong about that. You can see Doug's hand prints all over this roster and how the team is operating. Either he has been given more of a role than we thought and is good at it or Bruce is listening more than we (I) thought. But again, I need to see some wins a playoff run or two. If that does happen i will be more than happy to say I was wrong and this current FO configuration is working. 

Yeah this is fair. Although I think comparatively if you look around the league, we are certainly on the high end of the spectrum in terms of draft pick impact. Wasn't there some stat on that where we ranked really high?

 

I think Norman, Swearinger, Brown, Richardson, Davis, Foster (6 starters and a key weapon in the passing game) is a reasonable number of FA's to augment the homegrown guys.

 

You have to see it play out, I get that. I just firmly believe it's really starting to come together from a talent standpoint. Smith has what he needs to win with this team.

On 8/22/2018 at 4:59 AM, goskins10 said:

 

 

This may be true for a very small portion of the fan base, but the much larger portion just does not think this way at all. To me while they are not completely separated they are not inextricably linked either. There is a lot that goes into the team being successful. Although QB is the most important position, it is still just one position. The vast majority of the fans, especially on this board are football savvy enough to know that and can separate the two. I think you short change them by making that kind of generalization. 

I think if you made a poll on here and asked would you take Alex Smith being OK, while Kirk Cousins goes on to be elite and win SB's, if it meant Bruce Allen was exposed for the buffoon that he is and being fired, you would find mixed responses. Meaning there is some element of that for a segment of this fan base. QB is the one position that has such a tangible impact on wins/losses. Of course it's not all the QB, but there are a lot of examples of teams that have lost their QB only to do a nosedive in the wins department. The market and draft for QB's backs that thinking up, so it's natural for fans to place much more weight on that position than others.

 

 

On 8/22/2018 at 4:59 AM, goskins10 said:

 

 

A stat padder is one of those empty narratives that people like to throw out there to trash him. I was hoping we were getting better than that. Kirk had to do a lot on his own with little run game and not much D - especially run D. I think one of the things both QBs are accused of shows many peoples lack of understanding of the WC offense is that they check down to the safe play too often. Well the fact is you take what is there. If the deep stuff is covered you are supposed to hit guys underneath and make teams pay for covering the deeper stuff and get them to make adjustments. The only issue I had with Kirk is I think he got to the check down a little late a lot of the time negating much run after the catch. Alex seems to be more decisive. But Kirk was willing to take more chances and is also part of why he did not hit th check downs quite as much as Alex (again negates the whole stat padding thing). Alex has progressively become a little more of a risk taker. More on this later. But both guys are doing what the offense is designed to do. I really do not see much difference in their abilities overall - Alex is a little more careful and Kirk is a little less decisive. 

It's not empty at all. Kirk was very good on first and second downs, not so much on third. Very good in between the 20's, not that great in the red zone. Unfortunately, third down and red zone are much more important. First and second down, and working the 20's will often times lead to a nice looking stat line. But there is more to being a QB than stats show. So really, empty stat padder is just a way to say their stats are inflated for how much worth they bring to the table. Gruden's offense is also known as very QB friendly. That can pad some stats as well.

 

 

On 8/22/2018 at 4:59 AM, goskins10 said:

 

 

This is just not a true for the vast majority of those that are concerned about if last year was really where Alex is or he had a good year. And it's not just an assumption. There is a decade of data that suggests last year was not the norm. I can promise you I have analyzed his performance intently. And BTW I am excited to see what he can do in Jay's offense. Both have a lot they want to prove and Jay is a very underrated offensive mind (well at least to some Redskins fans). If you look at Alex over the years, he has slowly become a bit more aggressive. Last year though was a jump shift. He also had the tools. If Paul R can be his Tyrek Hill then it is very possible he could continue. But it will take more than a fast guy running long to make that happen. I believe that's why many of us were so bummed when Guice went down. Not that the team cannot survive without a rookie who never played a down - but the potential he provided with his skill set was exciting as hell. A good run game is a good catalyst for Alex being able to be more aggressive. 

Alex's career is nearly unprecendented. He went from David Carr bad to MVP candidate last year. So if anything, I would say that nothing is the norm with him. There are also some stats out there that show an upward tick in downfield passing from 2013 on. Who knows if it continues, just not ruling it out is all. I do agree about Alex and the run game, I guess I just didn't envision Guice as a 1500 yard back his rookie season in a Gruden offense. I saw maybe 900-1K, certainly a dynamic player and someone we would be excited about for years to come. Maybe I was short-selling him, I dunno. But while a large step down, I didn't think it was impossible for a RBBC with Perine, Thompson, Marshall etc. to be enough to still accomplish what this offense does best, which is throw the football. Though I do agree that the mere threat of Guice's talent would have made it much easier on Smith and the offense. Don't think that's really debatable.

 

On 8/22/2018 at 4:59 AM, goskins10 said:

 

 

I would agree with this. Injuries were devastating. The same will be true for Alex. If the team is as injured as last year it will be very difficult for the team to win very many games. If they stay healthy, I like their chances to be competitive, regardless of the schedule. I know it's supposedly really tough. But all you can do is play the team in front of you. My only issue with schedules has been timing like too many short weeks and unfair advantages for division games, them coming off byes when we have a short week, etc. But that is a different conversation. 

Agreed.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Yeah re-reading that I guess I could see how it comes off that way but truly wasn't my intention at all. SIP to his credit breathes Redskins football. I am not as plugged in when it comes to listening to the beat guys, national guys, KC guys about Smith etc.

 

On my end, its just fluke circumstance since I work from home, so I got the radio on all the time.  When I go for my morning run, take my dog out for a walk -- I'll replay things I've missed.  It's a nerdy thing and while it might help me in some of these discussions here -- my wife doesn't always love it. ?

 

But its rare to surprise me with a narrative.  I got espn insider, I got PFF subscriptions.  I buy Football Outsiders thick season guide every year.  I get Warren Sharp's guide book.   I try to rewatch as much as I can on coaches tape.   None of it makes me an expert on squat.  There are plenty of people on the board that can talk X and O's much better than me and know a lot more about football than I do.  However, I think am at least average on that count as a fan and I put plenty of time into it to educate myself on as much as I can because its fun for me.

 

So when we start talking players and I've already digested who we are talking about -- its tough to convince me with a narrative because the odds are I've heard it and plenty more.  And usually I try to watch it for myself.  For me to be convinced it would have to be like Volsmet did with Payne -- going clip after clip and we went back and forth and discussed actual college games.  That's compelling to me.  He did a great job IMO selling his enthusiasm with meat behind it.   

 

But trading narratives doesn't move me.    Not saying that people can't cling on to whatever narrative moves them -- they can cling to whatever they want, its all cool -- but its simply rare to move my opinion that way.  For me to change my opinion I got to see it.  

 

I've changed my opinion on players.  Heck I've changed opinions as I've said many times on coaches -- I loved Shanny initially but became disillusioned with him and conversely I didn't like Jay in year 1 (though I opposed the idea of firing him) but liked what I saw after that.  Heck I was even up and down on Kirk before being sold.   And plenty of players I've had man crushes on from day 1 -- some of them have proven to work out and some not.

 

Its well known that personnel guys who are great at what they do still get 50% of their moves wrong give or take.  I don't think anyone of us here is beating that otherwise we are in the wrong profession.  So like anyone else, I am likely going to get some of my predictions right and some will be wrong.  I am not vested in any prediction. 

 

 

2 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 I watch every game, will be going to AZ this year, read about camp religiously etc.

 

Maybe I'll run into you.  I am going to Arizona, too.

 

2 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

See for me, the front 7 isn't about projection. Because I've already seen it,

 

If you think its reality based on what you've seen in the preseason then we just got a philosophical difference about the preseason.  I think EVERYTHING you see in the preseason and camp is projection.   

 

Payne for example having a sack is great, I liked watching it, does that mean he's going to destroy it all the time?   Maybe.  But I got to see it with live bullets in the real season.  And I not skeptical that he won't.  But I still got to see it.  If you think otherwise, cool.  For me, I've seen enough preseason studs not being the same players in the season -- to just pause about it now where I curb my enthusiasm just a little until I see it during the season. 

 

We've seen our share of studs in the preseason where it doesn't bear out.  I follow all the teams in the NFC East pretty closely -- spend some time for example reading about Nate Sudfeld.  Many Eagle fans and reporters think he's a stud and the Redskins are total dolts for letting him go -- he's burning it up in the preseason.  Maybe they are right.  But for me for example to buy in that the Eagles got a find in Sudfeld I need to see him do it in a real game.  So for me its not a Redskins thing -- its an NFL thing. 

[desertbeagle85]

You know I was high on Alex. I mean he had a great year last year and i was all about him coming here. After seeing tonights performance I don't know now. 

 

I know its preseason but man he looked bad in the pocket and after looking at his career stats. I've got a really bad feeling about this offense with him as QB. 

 

 

[HTTRDynasty]

 

[HardcoreZorn]

7 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

So when we start talking players and I've already digested who we are talking about -- its tough to convince me with a narrative because the odds are I've heard it and plenty more.  And usually I try to watch it for myself.  For me to be convinced it would have to be like Volsmet did with Payne -- going clip after clip and we went back and forth and discussed actual college games.  That's compelling to me.  He did a great job IMO selling his enthusiasm with meat behind it.   

 

But trading narratives doesn't move me.    Not saying that people can't cling on to whatever narrative moves them -- they can cling to whatever they want, its all cool -- but its simply rare to move my opinion that way.  For me to change my opinion I got to see it.  

Maybe you don't mean it this way, but it's really starting to come off as if you think people are actively trying to change your opinions. And that you only appreciate people who spend time digesting film or predicting things before they happen. If I disagree with something, I'm going to say it as you know. But that's not me telling you to change your mind, it's just me saying I disagree and here's why I think you're wrong. Maybe our front 7 will be elite this year and one day you'll recognize me for convincing you of something before it actually happened.

7 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

If you think its reality based on what you've seen in the preseason then we just got a philosophical difference about the preseason.  I think EVERYTHING you see in the preseason and camp is projection.   

 

7 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Payne for example having a sack is great, I liked watching it, does that mean he's going to destroy it all the time?   Maybe.  But I got to see it with live bullets in the real season.  And I not skeptical that he won't.  But I still got to see it.  If you think otherwise, cool.  For me, I've seen enough preseason studs not being the same players in the season -- to just pause about it now where I curb my enthusiasm just a little until I see it during the season. 

Trust me, I didn't watch a single snap tonight but got a good chuckle from the preseason reactions. Trust me when I say I could literally care less about the pre season from a record and team performance standpoint.

 

First, if you took my post on the front 7 and took pre season as the main take-away that's telling me you are either skipping over parts of my post or focusing in on specific points you disagree with. But yeah, my entire point was based on my eyes last year. I saw something different  early on last year pre Jon Allen going out and Ionaidis breaking his hand. They weren't quite there but there were flashes of dominance. That's only backed up by the advanced stats, many of which have been posted in that thread. And while pre season is worthless on the whole, you can glean certain things about individual players from it IMO. Just like tonight, after reading about it, it appears Peterson looks decent at least. I don't think that means he's a lock to be a starter and good RB, but i also don't believe it means nothing at all. Just like when I watched Payne play last week, I saw top 15 pick and impact DL. Training camp reports are largely positive. Baldinger certainly saw something good. Does that mean Payne and the front 7 are destined to be elite? Of course not. Regardless, pre season and training camp performance was a minor point in my overall point. Subtract Payne and I still would be very excited to see what a healthy Matt I and Jon Allen do with Kerrigan and Smith coming off the edge. Add another potential impact DL next to them? I think that could be extremely difficult to handle.

7 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

We've seen our share of studs in the preseason where it doesn't bear out.  I follow all the teams in the NFC East pretty closely -- spend some time for example reading about Nate Sudfeld.  Many Eagle fans and reporters think he's a stud and the Redskins are total dolts for letting him go -- he's burning it up in the preseason.  Maybe they are right.  But for me for example to buy in that the Eagles got a find in Sudfeld I need to see him do it in a real game.  So for me its not a Redskins thing -- its an NFL thing. 

Nate Sudfeld went 11-21 for 70 yards with 4 sacks against a team that has won 1 game in the last two years combined. He stinks worse than Alex Smith, who after tonight, might no longer be the answer. Eagles fans are dumb, I think we definitely agree on that.

[Going Commando]

We gave up assets to downgrade from Kirk, who walked for no return, because our front office horribly botched the contract extension negotiations.

 

If we manage to do anything at all this season, it'll be because Adrian Peterson found a time machine and carried us and the defense came together very suddenly and played inspired football.

 

Alex is the quintessential game manager.  We lose the deep out with him.  We lose deep crosses.  We lose the ability to press safeties over the middle and keep them on their back foot deep.  He is a low upside QB who can't go off script and make something out of nothing.

 

But he's a nice guy who wants to be here and he will manage games effectively and is a reasonably effective leader whom his teammates and coaches trust.

 

But again, the ghastly bungling of assets that led to us giving up a pick and player to let Kirk walk for nothing and replace him with an older, less talented player should have gotten every single senior personnel man fired.