PCS

Welcome to the Redskins Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

The Payne vs James conversation is a different one than what I'm talking about. There was a lot of speculation last year about Payne's overall value because he couldn't pass rush. That's more of what I'm referring to now. I mean, I get the whole draft profile thing where they say "whose game is his most like" and they try to determine the perfect system for the guy. But what we know right now is that OSU redid their offense because he was so much of a better thrower than their previous QBs, and we saw their WRs all have great years partially because of it. 

 

But its like the Payne pick because just like with Payne where we had one or two games with Payne rushing the passer, there wasn't a lot of tape. So people projected to say he couldn't and were proven wrong (at least in his first year). There's not a lot of tape of Haskins scrambling or running for first downs or doing bootlegs, or even throwing under pressure. There's some but people kinda dismiss this evidence and say that the more accurate story is that its not a part of his game. And I just laugh at that because what do we know about the guy. We don't know much about the OSU system, what his reads were, when he was told to "not run", how much he trusted his WRs to get open and thus not forcing him to run. What we know is that he ran a bad 40 time which I think is the least important thing for a QB because I don't want my QB running 40 yards down the field, I want him to take whats there and slide or run out of bounds. 

 

But your thing is about the "meh" offseasons. I think by definition, you take a first round QB and its no longer a "meh" offseason because it has the potential to transform your franchise. And Skins fans recognize this and we're seeing this place as excited as its been since KC left. 

 

 

That isn't exactly true - at least not for me. There was a lot of film on him. There were only a few games where he had a good game rushing the QB. From what I saw - and i was not alone, he got stood up too much. His get off was excellent - still is. But in college he did not get low enough sometimes to get leverage relying on his quickness and raw athleticism. Against better Oline he would get stood up and seemed to quit on the play. It's clear he has been coached and has improved his game - good for him and for us. But the concern was fair. 

 

Further, the concern about the pick overall had more to do with who could make the biggest impact on the team. Payne is nice player - but not a transformational player like a James is. even reaching his highest ceiling he will not have as much impact as say Derwin James.

 

The issue with Haskins, at least for me is more about should the team have taken a QB at 15 period - any QB, not just Haskins. I personally wanted them to stay away from QB. I do not like any of the 4 well enough to take with a 1st rd pick. Each of them has some significant flaws. 

 

I am glad however that they did not trade up for him. And since they have him, I hope he does well. And there is a lot to like. But the concerns some are bringing up about his footwork, lack of experience, and for me his struggles outside the numbers are fair. It's not just that he does not have enough film, it's what he has exposes some flaws. That does not mean he can't learn and over come them. But again, it's also fair to point those issues out and be concerned about them. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this - don't draft a QB thing next year is going to be awesome narrative kind of skirts round the obvious. 

 

Our QB room consisted of.... 

 

Case Keenum and an AAF regect 

 

Alex isn't coming back - I would be happy if he could just walk following that injury and rehab 

 

Colt had a bad recovery from a bad injury and might not be 100% 

 

Haskins might not be the guy but when you need a QB that trumps everything. It might have been the plan when trading for Smith to wait for 2020 but things change and the Smith injury was huge 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite frankly, it doesn’t preclude the team from drafting another QB in top of first round next year either. Particularly, if Smith retires and or is cut to get rid of his contract. It’s one of the benefits of not trading up.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

I think this - don't draft a QB thing next year is going to be awesome narrative kind of skirts round the obvious. 

 

Our QB room consisted of.... 

 

Case Keenum and an AAF regect 

 

Alex isn't coming back - I would be happy if he could just walk following that injury and rehab 

 

Colt had a bad recovery from a bad injury and might not be 100% 

 

Haskins might not be the guy but when you need a QB that trumps everything. It might have been the plan when trading for Smith to wait for 2020 but things change and the Smith injury was huge 

 

The problem with this is you are then just picking a QB to pick a QB. I agree Alex career is over. I would not count on him to ever play again (On a side note that is really sad. The guy seems to be a great guy. He deserves better I think.)  SO my position had nothing to do with Alex being in the mix. They could have gone through this season with Keenum and either Colt of another journeyman back-up. Maybe get a developmental QB in the later rds. That would have been fine for me. 

 

I do agree that if you think Haskins is can truly be a franchise QB and he lands to you at 15, then you have to pick him. And it appears they felt this way. That is why I am not "mad" at the pick. I just would have gone a different way as I do not see any of the top rated QBs in this yrs draft as being "that guy." Of course that is purely a layman's view and I hope i am wrong. I hope Haskins turns into a multiple time SB MVP. And again, at least for me I do not hate the pick. Just would have gone a different way. 

 

33 minutes ago, posse87 said:

Quite frankly, it doesn’t preclude the team from drafting another QB in top of first round next year either. Particularly, if Smith retires and or is cut to get rid of his contract. It’s one of the benefits of not trading up.

 

I agree they could do an AZ. But 1st rd draft picks are precious. That is a terrible waste of a 1st pick. The other part of that is, let's say it goes bad this year and Haskins is just not good enough, does this organization have enough guts to admit the mistake and draft a QB high next year? I honestly do not know the answer to that as it depends on who the FO is. If it's the same group - ie Bruce is still here, then I just do not see them doing that. If Dan cleans house, then it's more likely. But I do not see signs of Dan cleaning house. I know many people want Jay gone and keep saying this is a prove it this prove it that. But I have a strong feeling that even if the season goes poorly, both Bruce and Jay will be here for 2020. I have no proof or inside information - just a hunch from the little things I have heard - but most importantly, again this is just me - but drafting Haskins (or any QB in the first) at implies a small bit that Dan has committed the next two years to them, or the end of Jays contract. 

 

 

There is one angle that I had not thought of that someone else posted here (my apologies for not referencing who brought it up, I can't remember or I would), with all the QBs coming out next year, if you can indeed get your QB this year, you can go into next not needing to maneuver for the guy you like and you can be willing to trade down with those QB needy teams making next years 1st rd pick even more valuable than if you are looking for a QB yourself.  Is this FO that forward thinking? Until recently that had not shown that type of thinking. Were they Ok with Lock at 15 also? Or maybe waiting and getting him alter taking Sweat at 15? Not sure. Obviously I was not in the room so only they know. 

 

But it's an interesting thought. If they were thinking that way, does that mean Kyle Smith is having a bigger voice? I do believe Doug has had a bigger positive influence on that room than people give him credit for. He comes off as affable and maybe even a little goofy. But he is actually very sharp. He is just much better at playing the media than pretty much anyone else we have. He is also very sharp when it comes to football. I have been a room with him and a bunch of HOFers and they all want to talk to him. He is larger than life even to other football players.  

 

If this works out, they will be heroes - and they should be. I will be among the first in here giving them the credit they with deserve. And in fairness it's not a disaster if it fails.  It's why I said before I do not hate this pick - just would have gone another direction. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

No guts no glory

No pressure, no diamonds! 

Know your why!

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, posse87 said:

Quite frankly, it doesn’t preclude the team from drafting another QB in top of first round next year either. Particularly, if Smith retires and or is cut to get rid of his contract. It’s one of the benefits of not trading up.

 

Exactly. If this dude busts draft another one. I hope the FO isn’t exactly that cavalier about it, but I’m sure they are aware of their options if it fails. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

 

 

I think a better comparison would be Jason Campbell.  That said, I think Haskins is more talented than Campbell.

Campbells Draft profile shows one scout giving him a round 4 value. Haskins was a 70% passer in his 1st year, Campbell never got anywhere near that in 4 years:

 http://www.footballsfuture.com/2005/prospects/jason_campbell.html

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

That isn't exactly true - at least not for me. There was a lot of film on him. There were only a few games where he had a good game rushing the QB. From what I saw - and i was not alone, he got stood up too much. His get off was excellent - still is. But in college he did not get low enough sometimes to get leverage relying on his quickness and raw athleticism. Against better Oline he would get stood up and seemed to quit on the play. It's clear he has been coached and has improved his game - good for him and for us. But the concern was fair. 

 

 

 

 

 

I disagree that the pass rushing of Payne wasn’t obvious on his college tape.

 

On the whole I believe he graded out, per pff, better than Ioannidis, Allen, & even Denver’s highly touted rookie, Bradley Chubb - things only predictable to a few.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, volsmet said:

 

I disagree that the pass rushing of Payne wasn’t obvious on his college tape.

 

On the whole I believe he graded out, per pff, better than Ioannidis, Allen, & even Denver’s highly touted rookie, Bradley Chubb - things only predictable to a few.

 

When he stayed low and got good leverage he could get there - his quickness off the snap was his strength. But just for me - and I admit to not being a professional - just another fan - he got stood up too much and taken out of the rush. Now celery he has done better than that in the NFL - credit Tomsula. And again, I never said he was bad. I just thought they could have gotten a better player at that pick or traded down (provided there was a partner which there may not hav been). He and the team proved me wrong - and I could not be happier. Does not change what I saw when I watched his games. 

 

And I know people like to reference PFF but to me they are just one of many tools. And while they may have graded him high, when I actually watched him play and watched the cut ups for him, he got too high too much and had no recovery. Once he got stood up he was out of the play in terms of a rush. Again, just my observations but I was not alone, not by a long shot. Many saw the same thing. So far, he has proven us wrong. And that's great. Not going to get them all right. The guys that get paid miss a lot, much less a fan who does this for fun, not for a living. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

But your thing is about the "meh" offseasons. I think by definition, you take a first round QB and its no longer a "meh" offseason because it has the potential to transform your franchise. And Skins fans recognize this and we're seeing this place as excited as its been since KC left. 

 

Definitely agree on this point.   It's a thing every Spring now where most people here are giddy after the draft.   It's nothing novel.   I think the last time people here didn't celebrate the draft is 2014.  But FA and pro personnel decisions has been mostly "meh" IMO.    For whatever reason all the off season feel good vibes hasn't translated enough to the actual seasons.    And this team has really struggled to keep casual fans interested and maintain some status as a flagship NFL franchise. 

 

It means nothing to me personally whether the team gets buzz and I'd watch them play regardless of who is playing QB.  But I am not the average fan.  And I don't love that this team isn't regarded as worth even talking about nationally much anymore or even worth a Sunday Night game or heck a 4 pm game. 

 

Other NFL teams now can get better TV ratings in the DMV than the Redskins.  You got some people who cover the team say they don't see  friends of their kids wear Redskins jerseys and instead are rooting for other teams.  And the team needs to practically give away tickets to games and rely on road fans to fill the stadium.  All of this clearly isn't good.    And that goes double with the backdrop of trying to get a new stadium. 

 

Them drafting Haskins has changed all of that quickly.  The Jones narrative interlinked to that story has added some juice, too.  Before, it would seem like a miracle to get a nod on ESPN, NFL Network once in a blue moon. Now it seems they are in discussion almost 24-7.  So I think Dan has done good for the brand in taking Haskins. Now let's hope it works.  The pick added major juice and intrigue to the season.   I don't think its an accident that their season ticket sales spiked the day after that pick according to ESPN.   

 

 

15 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

But its like the Payne pick because just like with Payne where we had one or two games with Payne rushing the passer, there wasn't a lot of tape. So people projected to say he couldn't and were proven wrong (at least in his first year).

 

OK I had an unusual opinion on Payne then because I thought he could rush the pass rusher.  I didn't love the pick because of who else we could have taken there. I also thought they could trade down some and still get him.  Payne is a mega athlete for his size.  He had the metrics of having some burst -- he didn't kill it on the agility skills but the dude was fast for a D lineman that size.  I recall driving somewhere with my kids and checking the combine running scores while in my car as I was driving and as soon as I saw Payne's 40, I said to them they are taking that dude probably for sure. 

 

At that point the buzz was they wanted him and I figured his 40 and 10 would be the icing on the cake.  Leading up to that some said Payne had the athletic ability to rush the passer but Saban used him to plug the gaps more than rush the gaps.  In the championship game you could see some of Payne's explosion in a big way.

 

Haskins to me is apples to oranges to that situation.  EVERY QB has to dance around pressure and move their feet in the pocket.   It's not this team choose to do it with this QB but another team didn't choose to do it with another. 

 

And again I am cool with riding with Haskins.  I just watched an Urban Meyers interview where he talked about how Haskins can slide protections well and that was part of why he seemed so well protected but then in that same interview he said he understands the concerns of people that he only had one season of play and the value of having that experience and the longer sample size.  But I agree with those who say if he had that longer sample size and he shined we'd have no shot at him at 15.    

 

Haskins is loved by a lot of smart people I respect -- Charles Davis, Reddick, Brugler and on the board stevemcqueen1 who is miles better than I am at breaking down film.   I've nailed some players in the past.  And heck I've been wrong, I liked Doctson a lot (that's not looking hot now) and I was among the people here who fell for RG3.   So I am not living and dying with my opinion about any player let alone a QB. 

 

I am just sticking to being agnostic on Haskins.  I get those that want to be excited about him.  I get the cynicism on him, too.    As you probably know its not like me to straddle the fence on a QB.  I usually land hard on an opinion.  It's just hard for me to land hard on an opinion for a player who I think is boom or bust where I can see it go either way.  There are plenty of players I stuck my neck on.  I won't stick my neck out for Haskins pro or anti.   I am anti in that I didn't want him at 15.  I am pro in that am cool now that they did -- I'll ride it and see where it goes with no complaints.  I got concerns.  But hopefully they are for naught. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Riggo#44 said:

No pressure, no diamonds! 

Know your why!

 

I've been watching lots of Haskins interviews in recent days.  He definitely comes off like a different cat than RG3.  He's supposedly a homebody who loves hanging with his pet dogs and girl friend.   Hopefully this time it works out better than the last hyped first round QB. 😀  I am worried that they both have bowling in common.  Tough for me not to envision a Dan bowling outing with Haskins like the footage we've seen many times with him and RG3. 😀  though hopefully Dan has learned his lesson. 

 

Considering how many times this franchise has screwed up and gotten the QB position wrong -- am banking on the law of averages kicking in.  What are the odds that they blow it again?  😀   And imagine if it's true that Dan had to be talked out of his man crush on Brady Quinn.  And fortunately they got outbid by the Jets to trade up for Mark Sanchez.   If so, it could have been even worse. 

 

I am hoping the clown show at QB running even pre Snyder days ends with this pick albeit i have as much doubts as anyone here.  But will see. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I've been watching lots of Haskins interviews in recent days.  He definitely comes like a different cat than RG3.  He's supposedly a homebody who loves hanging with his pet dogs and girl friend.   Hopefully this time it works out better than the last hyped first round QB. 😀  I am worried that they both have bowling in common.  Tough for me not to envision a Dan bowling outing with Haskins like the footage we've seen many times with him and RG3. 😀  though hopefully Dan has learned his lesson. 

 

Considering how many times this franchise has screwed up and gotten the QB position wrong -- am banking on the law of averages kicking in.  What are the odds that they blow it again?  😀   And imagine if it's true that Dan had to be talked out of his man crush on Brady Quinn.  And fortunately they got outbid by the Jets to trade for for Mark Sanchez.   If so, it could have been even worse. 

 

I am hoping the clown show at QB running even pre Snyder days ends with this pick albeit i have as much doubts as anyone here.  But will see. 

 

If Cooley is any judge, Haskins played in a really simple passing scheme and has a strong arm so he has those two attributes in common with Griffin but Haskins is a bigger, slower stay in the pocket QB.  We will have to wait and see if Haskins will be able to adapt to the complexity of a WCO and the speed of the NFL. 

 

Most rookies come from simple college schemes because not that many colleges run a pro style offense with route trees to worry about.  A kid running a pro style passing scheme in college has already demonstrated some ability to process the field some of the acuity needed to run a WCO.   I regard a prospect from this kind of system as significantly less risky than the guy from a system like Meyer's offense at OSU.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2019 at 10:09 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

Heck Cooley has been right about every FA i recall that he has savaged after the signing.  So i am not always sure that Cooley is the dope when he disagrees with the FO.  The thing about evaluating players as Parcells likes to say is if you get it 50% right, you very good at it.  So everyone will make mistakes.  And if it feels better to some Cooley loves Sweat. 😀

 

Agree 100% about Cooley and FA. Honestly, they could just hire him right now as director of pro-personnel and we would be wildly better than we are right now. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that article Haskins did years back and RG3's tweet welcoming him to the team, as well as Haskins seeming to have friends in the NFL while in HS made me wonder if he and Rg3 are friends at all. Not saying it is a bad thing if they are because he's his own man but you can't ignore that he was in hs here during one of the most exciting seasons of skins football in a long time. (and to think after that season we thought we had won the draft over both Luck and Wilson). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

know you would rather have had us select Lock, but I personally think Haskins was the correct choice. I agree with you about his lack of quick feet in the pocket, but that to me is something that is pretty far down on the list of what I look for in a franchise QB:

-Accuracy

-Decision making

-Arm strength 

-Ability to effectively read pre- and post-snap coverages 

-Leadership 

-Poise in big moments

-Anticipation 

-Maneuverability within the pocket

-Mobility when the play breaks down

 

Very good list, and of that list I wonder how teachable each thing is. Like accuracy is generally something that doesn't really improve. You can get better numbers by throwing different passes, but your ball placement is your ball placement. Arm strength can go up but then you have to factor in accuracy as you increase arm strength. The rumor is that Schaub was a decently accurate QB with no arm strength, tried to bulk up and gain arm strength and lost his accuracy. 

 

RG3 and Campbell are two QBs who were at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of mobility but neither could slide to save his life (in RG3s case almost literally). How hard is it to learn that. 

 

And does this go into a separate field like teachability or coachability? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Considering how many times this franchise has screwed up and gotten the QB position wrong -- am banking on the law of averages kicking in.  What are the odds that they blow it again?  😀   And imagine if it's true that Dan had to be talked out of his man crush on Brady Quinn.  And fortunately they got outbid by the Jets to trade up for Mark Sanchez.   If so, it could have been even worse. 

 

I think this narrative is overblown like the 11-5 thing. The main point is that we didn't invest in the draft under Snyder until 2008 at the earliest, but more likely 2014 when we hired Scot as a consultant. Before that even our 7 pick plus drafts were ignoring scouts, drafting undersized, slow players. 

 

But we did draft Gus Ferotte who i think was a great story in the 90s. We also signed Trent Green as a UDFA, i know he was with another org first (? The saints?) but we were his first real opportunity and we developed him. And of corse there's Rypien who we developed into a SB MVP, and had we not signed Turner may have had a better DC and overall career. 

 

Since then there have been hits and misses but rg3 and Kirk count as hits to me because the former would be still standing if not for Ngata and that Seattle game, and the latter just signed a contract that was the most expensive in history. 

 

Then it comes to Ramsey and Camobell and both of those I'd say are meh but not in the total bust category. Ramsey was under Spurrier and Gibbs and both guys liked their guys over him. Didn't help that he was shell shocked under Spurrier. Campbell was a decent QB, putting up similar ratings to Eli at the time, but he just wasn't explosive and Mike decided to go with Mcnabb over him. I thought then that it was a bad decision and still do. Let's not forget that he left here, and took Oakland to their first respectable record in years (8-8).

 

So if anything of say we're in the up side in terms of QBs. Maybe not drafting the dynamic franchise ones, but at least not drafting total busts, and whatever your opinion of Sanchez he wasn't a total bust either, not better that Orakpo (is that who we got?) but not horrible either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, posse87 said:

Quite frankly, it doesn’t preclude the team from drafting another QB in top of first round next year either. Particularly, if Smith retires and or is cut to get rid of his contract. It’s one of the benefits of not trading up.

Nothing is precluded.

 

But when you draft the arguably best QB of the 2019 Draft at the 15th spot, why go through the effort of thinking the thought?

 

I get it, forums are for talking and exchanging ideas.

 

(Not directed at you but)...

 

Good lord!  We are now suggesting options that would put us in the same wheel house of Arazona.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I think this narrative is overblown like the 11-5 thing. The main point is that we didn't invest in the draft under Snyder until 2008 at the earliest, but more likely 2014 when we hired Scot as a consultant. Before that even our 7 pick plus drafts were ignoring scouts, drafting undersized, slow players. 

 

I agree with the 11-5 point but in a different way.  I see the 11-5 focus as almost a backhanded complement.  To me there are much better ways to characterize how bad this team has been on the aggregate under Dan that goes well beyond them not reaching 11-5.

 

I think the draft conversation misses the main plot.  Save a rare team like the Ravens, good luck winning by having some good drafts over years but without landing on a QB.  The Browns have been loaded up on picks and arguably doing it right for years.  What's the difference last year?  How about Mayfield as opposed to Kizer, Quinn and all the other clowns and just guys they've had at that position. 

 

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

But we did draft Gus Ferotte who i think was a great story in the 90s. We also signed Trent Green as a UDFA, i know he was with another org first (? The saints?) but we were his first real opportunity and we developed him. And of corse there's Rypien who we developed into a SB MVP, and had we not signed Turner may have had a better DC and overall career. 

 

I am not going back to Gibbs 1.  I didn't repeat it my last post to you but said it in a different post -- I am referring to post Gibbs 1.  Most of your narrative above is pre-Dan.  I agree they were better before Dan on that front but the reason why  I sweep it back further then him is because of Shuler.    Ferrotte was a nice story but he didn't end up a franchise game changer QB.    I count losing good QBs as part of their screw ups at QB so Trent Green to me makes my point as opposed to defeats it. 

 

Under Dan, they spent over a hundred million.  5 first round picks (6 if you count Haskins), three 2nd round picks, three third round picks, and a 4th round pick.   

 

Overblown?  I don't think so not even a little.   If you want to argue Ramsey or whomever wasn't a disaster, yeah OK.  But I don't think the point of trading capital or using first round picks, etc for a QB is to find just a guy.  Yeah they are ok at finding OK Qb play here and there.   Campbell wasn't a disaster.  But clearly that's not the idea in play.  Shanny got rid of Campbell fast I'd gather because i presume he was looking for more than just a guy.   

 

The idea is to find a franchise QB so you can compete with the big boys in the league.  And heck they've tried -- they went after 3 different 34 year old veterans.   And are now on their 4th #1 draft pick player attempt at QB.   5th if you go Pre-Dan to Shuler.   Hopefully after all those swings they finally land the guy this time.  I'll give that Dan at least gets this team has little shot at a SB if they don't find a franchise QB.   He's right about that IMO.  But they need to eventually get it right.   

 

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

Let's not forget that he left here, and took Oakland to their first respectable record in years (8-8).

 

So if anything of say we're in the up side in terms of QBs. Maybe not drafting the dynamic franchise ones, but at least not drafting total busts, and whatever your opinion of Sanchez he wasn't a total bust either, not better that Orakpo (is that who we got?) but not horrible either. 

 

I presume we just have different standards-expectations.  Campbell's 8-8 at Oakland and Sanchez not being a total bust is meaningless to me.  If our thing is this franchise can find the right QB to keep us out of the bottom of the league and stick to the middle range -- I am with you, i think they have proven that they can find QBs who aren't hot but aren't terrible either.  The type of guys that won't take us anywhere near a SB but they can beat up on a bad team and on occasion beat a good team.   But that is meaningless to me

 

The Saints, the Steelers, Patriots, Packers, Seahawks among others are just about always relevant because they have a franchise QB.  That's what I want.  Clearly Dan wants it too considering how much he's tried to pull it off.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The idea is to find a franchise QB so you can compete with the big boys in the league.  And heck they've tried -- they went after 3 different 34 year old veterans.   And are now on their 4th #1 draft pick try at QB.   5th if you go Pre-Dan to Shuler.   Hopefully after all those swings they finally land the guy this time.  I'll give that Dan at least gets this team has little shot at a SB if they don't find a franchise QB.   He's right about that IMO.  But they need to eventually get it right.   

 

 

But you've got to contrast that with the rest of the league. Who else has been able to draft a franchise QB over the years? 

 - Dallas nope unless you count Romo as a franchise QB (undrafted but still). Did he turn them around though? Is Prescott a franchise QB? To me he's worse than Cousins. Actually they both are. 

 - Philly - McNabb is what I'd call a franchise QB. Before him they were a mediocre to good team, and afterwards they were projected into that top tier of teams. Is Weintz though? His team went to a SB but it kinda reminds me of our 2007 year with Cambpell and Collins. 

 - Giants - Manning, sure I'd call him that based on the SB wins but is he really? If not for that defense he's just another QB with a lot of ints. 

 

 - GB - Sure with Favre and Rodgers (Favre being before the time we're considering though). But between them they haven't made the leap the Eagles made. One SB ring is great and something I'd love to have, but its kinda like the Caps with the great 8, its like we expect more. 

 - Detroit - Stafford has a lot of the checkmarks but is he really? 

 - Minnesota - Nope

 - Chicago - Nope, Maybe with the guy last year but still too soon, and how many times did they strike out? I know at least once with Sexy Rexy. 


 - TB - Again we have the strikeouts of Winston, Glennon, and Freeman

 - Carolina - We can talk about the success of Cam, but what about Clauson? 

 - Atlanta found Ryan and Vick as gamechangers (and Ryan was considered a great QB but only had one year of payoff success)

 - Saints have had Brees so haven't really needed anybody else.

 

 - SF had Smith who was a bust before they drafted Kaep, and now they have a bunch of second tier QBs. 

 - Arizona had Murray, Rosen, Lienart, none of whom have proven to be anything good in this league. 

 - Seattle had a bunch of busts before Wilson (even overpaid for a GB backup before Wilson)

 - Rams - Sure we can say Goff right now, but again I ask how many times they struck out. Bradford and Keenum come to mind. 

 

I mean so who are guaranteed franchise QBs of the NFC? Brees, Ryan, Rodgers, Goff, Wilson and historically McNabb, Vick, and Manning. We can quarrel about this list but over the last 20 or so years we're not going to increase it by much. There aren't too many franchise QBs who can turn a program around. That's why I've been (a) more than willing to invest in the mid round projects who don't cost as much (draft capital) and play the defense and running game angle. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I mean so who are guaranteed franchise QBs of the NFC? Brees, Ryan, Rodgers, Goff, Wilson and historically McNabb, Vick, and Manning. We can quarrel about this list but over the last 20 or so years we're not going to increase it by much. There aren't too many franchise QBs who can turn a program around. That's why I've been (a) more than willing to invest in the mid round projects who don't cost as much (draft capital) and play the defense and running game angle. 

 

It doesn't even have to be a Brees type but obviously that would be nice.  I've said on this thread if Haskins is consistency "good".  It's a home run pick.  A 2nd tier guy is fine.  The word consistent is the operative point.  Having a mediocre QB like a Keenum or Fitzpatrick or McCown who once in awhile has a good year in the mix of the mediocrity to me doesn't mean squat unless that career year means SB.   

 

Matt Ryan is no Brees, Rodgers, Wilson, etc.  He's played for about half Dan's tenure here.  In that time, their team has made the playoffs 6 times and came a play away from winning the SB.  Dan would likely trade his left arm for that type of run.  So would I.  And I don't find a guy like that is some pipe dream -- especially if you factor how much we've swung at that position. 

 

Wentz to me looks like a stud if he can stay healthy -- his situation reminds me nothing of your Campbell-Collins analogy.    Mayfield looks like the real deal.  I think Darnold will get there.  i think worst case they end up in the Matt Ryan range.   Mahomes looks excellent.  Watson too if he can stay healthy. 

 

I can care less about the Keenum types who can keep a team afloat and once in awhile exceed beyond that.  I don't think dudes like that are that hard to find.  Ditto guys like Jason Campbell.  Yep they aren't outright busts.  But IMO its not that hard to find a mediocre level QB. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

It doesn't even have to be a Brees type but obviously that would be nice.  I've said on this thread if Haskins is consistency "good".  It's a home run pick.  A 2nd tier guy is fine.  The word consistent is the operative point.  Having a mediocre QB like a Keenum or Fitzpatrick or McCown who once in awhile has a good year in the mix of the mediocrity to me doesn't mean squat unless that career year means SB.   

 

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I can care less about the Keenum types who can keep a team afloat and once in awhile beyond that.  I don't think dude's like that are that hard to find.  Ditto guys like Jason Campbell.  Yep they aren't outright busts.  But IMO its not that hard to find a mediocre level QB. 

 

I feel like you're contradicting yourself with these two statements. Campbell was the definition of a QB who was consistently "good". 

6-7, 60%, 2700 yds, 12 td, 11 int, 77 rating

8-8, 62%, 3200 yds, 13 td, 6 int, 84 rating

4-12, 64%, 3600 yds, 20 td, 15 int, 86 rating

 

That 4-12 season was when the team had given up in Zorn's last year so Its hard to count the W/L against him. But even then he put up Alex Smith type numbers. I agree that Campbell types are easy to find, (ala the QBs we've brought in here for the most part and found in the draft for the most part) Smith, Brunell, Banks. But my point is that with the guys we've drafted (Campbell, Ramsey, Griffin, Cousins, probably some more like the kid that went to Philly) you put them into a QB safe system and they can take us to the playoffs on a streak (like Dak), but we haven't had a defense, and coincidentally the years we've made the playoffs have all coincided with years when we've had good running games (minus 2015 when Kirk was looking like a franchise QB). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

 

I feel like you're contradicting yourself with these two statements. Campbell was the definition of a QB who was consistently "good". 

6-7, 60%, 2700 yds, 12 td, 11 int, 77 rating

8-8, 62%, 3200 yds, 13 td, 6 int, 84 rating

4-12, 64%, 3600 yds, 20 td, 15 int, 86 rating

 

That 4-12 season was when the team had given up in Zorn's last year so Its hard to count the W/L against him. But even then he put up Alex Smith type numbers. I agree that Campbell types are easy to find, (ala the QBs we've brought in here for the most part and found in the draft for the most part) Smith, Brunell, Banks. But my point is that with the guys we've drafted (Campbell, Ramsey, Griffin, Cousins, probably some more like the kid that went to Philly) you put them into a QB safe system and they can take us to the playoffs on a streak (like Dak), but we haven't had a defense, and coincidentally the years we've made the playoffs have all coincided with years when we've had good running games (minus 2015 when Kirk was looking like a franchise QB). 

 

 

I am not contradicting myself.  This is coming from one of the most kindest people here to Jason Campbell when he was a Redskin.  To say the Campbell fits my Ryan definition of a 2nd tier type of QB who was consistently good to me is laughable.   I think if anything am being generous by selling the mediocrity narrative for him 

 

There is no perfect QB stat but QBR arguably is the closest -- in the 4 years where he threw enough to be eligible to be compared to others as a starter he averaged 18th in the league at QBR   Then's not good if anything its below average.  12 TDS-11 INT isn't good.  20 TDs to 15 Ints isn't good.  Being in the high 100s low 200s on average per game.   It's actually mediocre to bad.    In his 4 years where he was a starter an average of 14 TDs-10 INTs that IMO isn't the definition of consistently good -- its at best its mediocre. 

 

Quarterbacks who are consistently good aren't usually benched and become backups. I agree that guys like Campbell are easy to find but not because they are just good.  Campbell wasn't a consistently good QB IMO.    He was just IMO a guy -- mediocre at best.  He totally falls IMO in the category I gave with the Fitzpatrick, Keenum types.  If anything if pushed I can more easily argue Fitzpatrick or Keenum are better. 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now