Welp...have we seen enough..?

[bakedtater1]

5 minutes ago, Unbias said:

 

Actually in retrospect we have been fairly good at drafting. It's our culture that disallows players to reach their potential. 

 

That should give no one comfort because it's way worse. 

This is a good point...I was just trying to get at while some here were saying let em go there not good i was saying otherwise.

[SoCalSkins]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

 

Wait, what?

 

 

 

I said he was one of the better QBs we've had here recently, and even a caveat that isn't setting the bar very high at all. I think I may have used the word scary? Not sure. And in context it was saying that was Haskins CEILING. Like as high as he could go with mechanical improvements.

 

You're a trip, man. 

 

 

 

Here is your quote:

 

On 11/17/2019 at 1:44 PM, KDawg said:

 

 

So, because I won't give a percentage here's what I'll say: I think Haskins current ceiling (again, keep in mind, as a Washington Redskin... a change in scenery could allow him to use the tools he has to fit in an offense tailored to what he can do) for the Skins is a decent QB in the mold of a Jason Campbell. Yes, people rag on Campbell, but Campbell wasn't all that bad. He just wasn't a franchise savior. I still think aside from Griffin's one year and Cousins, Campbell was one of the better QBs that we've had here. (Which, to be clear, isn't the best situation).

 

 

Campbell was all that bad man. He was horrible. If the best we are going to get from Haskins is him becoming Jason Campbell, it's pretty pathetic. We literally passed on Aaron Rodgers to draft Carlos Rogers and Jason Campbell and cost Gibbs walking away with another ring in the process. Plus Campbell is the reason we got  stuck with Zorn as the OC then promoted to head coach after no one else would take the job. Let's not repeat history...

 

 

[KDawg]

Alright so no where did I even say good. So essentially you made that up. Got it.

 

[SoCalSkins]

“decent QB” and “wasn’t all that bad” is the same as saying good. 😂

 

PS- and if you are now saying he is not “good” but you used him as an example of what Haskins ceiling is. Claiming Haskins is not a bust yet because he can become like Campbell. So if that’s the case, then Campbell has to be “good”. If you are claiming a player is not a bust because he can turn into the same as another player, you are inherently claiming the comparison player is good. 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

3 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Wonder if the fanbases "saw enough" from these QB's in their first starts to declare them busts.
 

John Elway

 

Drafted: No. 1 overall by the Baltimore Colts in 1983 (traded to Denver Broncos).

First start: Win (14-10) over the Steelers in Week 1 of 1983; 1 of 8 (12.5 percent) for 14 yards, zero touchdowns, one interception, four sacks and a passer rating of 0.

Elway's debut was marred by an elbow injury that forced him out of the game, but his second start (9 of 21 for 106 yards, zero touchdowns and three sacks) wasn't much better. He went on to have a relatively rough rookie season -- 7:14 TD-to-INT ratio and 28 sacks in 11 games -- in which he was benched after three consecutive losses. But he also was part of a team that made the playoffs that year, and he ended up leading the Broncos to three Super Bowl appearances, five playoff berths and six winning seasons over the next nine years. Still, in many ways, the jury was still out on the quarterback, who threw just one more touchdown pass (158) than he did picks (157) from 1983 to 1992. He was kind of like a wild colt, so to speak, in that he would run around and scramble somewhat recklessly and make risky throws across his body.

 

In 1993, he seemed to turn a corner, and he really took off in 1995, when Mike Shanahan -- who spent two previous stints on Denver's staff during Elway's career -- became the Broncos' head coach. In the final four years of his career, Elway posted a record of 43-16, threw 101 touchdown passes against 49 picks and, of course, won two Super Bowls.

 

 

This entire post was stupid. But this Elway piece was remarkably bad.

 

Elway single-handedly dragged three pretty lousy teams to the Super Bowl and made people think that Dan Reeves knew what he was doing. Reeves hated Elway the entire time and wanted to replace him for, like, a decade. Because NFL coaches are often really stupid.

 

Elway's career didn't take off under Shanahan. He just had a coach who finally built a team instead of staring at pictures of Tom Landry while dropping stories in the press about how his Hall of Fame quarterback wasn't actually very good.

 

 

 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

 

Also, why do these "You would have given up on these guys too" posts never include Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, Jamarcus Russell, etc.

 

All the QBs who obviously sucked from day  and then never got better?

 

Sometimes guys stink at first and get better. Sometimes, they stink at first and continue to stink.

 

The difference is, all of youse guys would have stayed married to all of them for four years because Troy Aikman had a bad rookie year too.

 

Also, am I the only person who actually knows anything about football history? Jimmy Johnson HATED Aikman and wanted to get rid of him. He spent a freaking first round supplemental pick on Steve Walsh and then pretty much immediately benched Aikman in favor of Walsh. He probably would have stayed with Walsh except the receivers led by Irvin demanded that Aikman be the starter because Walsh's passes could not break wind.

[HTTRDynasty]

10 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

Sometimes guys stink at first and get better. Sometimes, they stink at first and continue to stink.

 

That's the point, genius.  The ones who aren't writing Haskins off after two starts still recognize that he could be a bust, but are wise enough to wait for a larger sample size before declaring it.  The point of the post was to show historical examples of QB's who performed poorly in their first few starts but turned out to be average to elite with a larger sample size.  No one knows if Haskins will be Ryan Leaf, Alex Smith, or Peyton Manning.  But the smart ones among us are willing to wait and see.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

5 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

That's the point, genius.  The ones who aren't writing Haskins off after two starts still recognize that he could be a bust, but are wise enough to wait for a larger sample size before declaring it.  The point of the post was to show historical examples of QB's who performed poorly in their first few starts but turned out to be average to elite with a larger sample size.  No one knows if Haskins will be Ryan Leaf, Alex Smith, or Peyton Manning.  But the smart ones among us are willing to wait and see.

 

See what exactly?

 

Some dude yesterday told me that we need to wait a few years for him to get the center exchange part of the job down.

 

The issue with Haskins is not a sample size question.

 

These are the concerns right now.

 

1. He started one year in college on an elite team where all he did was take shotgun snaps and throw to dudes who were always wide open.

2. Gruden - who for all his faults seems to be pretty damn good with QBs - didn't want to draft him and didn't want to play him.

3. Callahan seems to have no trust in him at all and is running some kind of 1960s college offense right now.

4. He hasn't looked remotely good at pretty much anything so far.

[SoCalSkins]

7 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

That's the point, genius.  The ones who aren't writing Haskins off after two starts still recognize that he could be a bust, but are wise enough to wait for a larger sample size before declaring it.  The point of the post was to show historical examples of QB's who performed poorly in their first few starts but turned out to be average to elite with a larger sample size.  No one knows if Haskins will be Ryan Leaf, Alex Smith, or Peyton Manning.  But the smart ones among us are willing to wait and see.

The smart ones recognize it early. The sheep fall in line after it becomes the accepted norm. Haskins is in the Ryan Leaf tier. Not Alex Smith and certainly not Peyton Manning. I can say that with h 100% fact based confidence. We can discuss it further when you come to same conclusion.

[KDawg]

1 hour ago, SoCalSkins said:

“decent QB” and “wasn’t all that bad” is the same as saying good. 😂

 

PS- and if you are now saying he is not “good” but you used him as an example of what Haskins ceiling is. Claiming Haskins is not a bust yet because he can become like Campbell. So if that’s the case, then Campbell has to be “good”. If you are claiming a player is not a bust because he can turn into the same as another player, you are inherently claiming the comparison player is good. 

 

What are you smoking, man?

 

None of what I said means any of what you're saying. 

 

Where did Campbell get us? He wasn't the worst QB in Redskin history. He was, unfortunately, one of the better QBs we've had semi recently. That doesn't mean he was good. I said "decent". Is "decent" = good in your mind? If so, your mind has a strange inner working of tunnels that I don't wish to navigate. 

 

Seriously. 

 

You need to go for a walk.  

[HTTRDynasty]

5 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

These are the concerns right now.

 

1. He started one year in college on an elite team where all he did was take shotgun snaps and throw to dudes who were always wide open.

2. Gruden - who for all his faults seems to be pretty damn good with QBs - didn't want to draft him and didn't want to play him.

3. Callahan seems to have no trust in him at all and is running some kind of 1960s college offense right now.

4. He hasn't looked remotely good at pretty much anything so far.

 

1.  Always wide open?  You need to re-watch the film.

2.  Gruden wanted a QB who could win now.  Haskins was not the polished prospect he needed in order to save his job.  I don't blame him for not wanting him.

3.  Callahan was running that same offense with Keenum at QB.  A run-first offense is just his philosophy.

4.  False.  There have been multiple posts on this forum showing things he's done well.  You just refuse to acknowledge it because it goes against your narrative.

9 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

The smart ones recognize it early. The sheep fall in line after it becomes the accepted norm. Haskins is in the Ryan Leaf tier. Not Alex Smith and certainly not Peyton Manning. I can say that with h 100% fact based confidence. We can discuss it further when you come to same conclusion.

 

Yeah, I'm sure you wouldn't have screamed "bust" from the rooftops, and repeated it for the rest of the season to anyone who could tolerate you, after seeing the stat-line Alex Smith put up in his first start:

"9 of 23 (39.1 percent) for 74 yards, zero touchdowns, four interceptions, five sacks and a passer rating of 8.5"

[SoCalSkins]

11 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

What are you smoking, man?

 

None of what I said means any of what you're saying. 

 

Where did Campbell get us? He wasn't the worst QB in Redskin history. He was, unfortunately, one of the better QBs we've had semi recently. That doesn't mean he was good. I said "decent". Is "decent" = good in your mind? If so, your mind has a strange inner working of tunnels that I don't wish to navigate. 

 

Seriously. 

 

You need to go for a walk.  

He cost us passing on Aaron Rodgers. He cost us enduring the Jim Zorn era and the bingo play caller consultant. 
 

That aside, you are claiming Campbell is Haskins ceiling. So you are saying he is not a bust but his ceiling is less than a “good” player.
 

Decent means taking over a team who made the playoffs the year before completely sucking for 20 games then getting hurt and having your backup go on a 5-0 run and make the playoffs? 
 

Dude you are hurting yourself with the Jason Campbell defense. He was a massive bust and you have the benefit of hindsight and still making that claim. You have lost it man. You need to smoke what you think I’m smoking and get your senses back. 😂
 

 

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, SoCalSkins said:

He cost us passing on Aaron Rodgers. He cost us enduring the Jim Zorn era and the bingo play caller consultant. 
 

That aside, you are claiming Campbell is Haskins ceiling. So you are saying he is not a bust but his ceiling is less than a “good” player.
 

Decent means taking over a team who made the playoffs the year before completely sucking for 20 games then getting hurt and having your backup go on a 5-0 run and make the playoffs? 
 

Dude you are hurting yourself with the Jason Campbell defense. He was a massive bust and you have the benefit of hindsight and still making that claim. You have lost it man. You need to smoke what you hink I’m smoking and get your senses back. 😂

 

I... can't believe I'm even taking you seriously...

 

1. He didn't cost us anything. The poorly run organization cost the team the shot at Aaron Rodgers. That's not his fault in the least.

 

2. I never, in any way, shape or form, said that Haskins wasn't or wouldn't be a bust. I suggest actually reading my posts if you're going to comment on them. This is exhausting.

 

3. Decent means... decent. Not good. Not bad. Decent. Not NFL starter quality. Decent.

 

4. What Jason Campbell defense? Saying he was one of the better QBs we've had? That's like saying the dog turd is the prettiest of the dog, cat, rabbit and squirrel poop. But it doesn't change the truth of it. I'm not sure what you're missing here.

[SoCalSkins]

Just now, KDawg said:

 

 

3. Decent means... decent. Not good. Not bad. Decent. Not NFL starter quality. Decent.

 

 

So if that's Haskins ceiling, how is he not a bust as the 15th overall pick of the draft?

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

 

So if that's Haskins ceiling, how is he not a bust as the 15th overall pick of the draft?

 

When did I say he wasn't?

 

I avoid labeling people as a bust this early in their careers. But I certainly said he's trending towards it.

 

If you actually, you know, read what I said instead of being so hyped up on the bust train you'd understand:

 

He looks like a bust, probably is going to bust, but what's the harm in letting it play out? Maybe something crazy happens and it clicks. Likely not. But there's literally no reason not to let him play.

[SoCalSkins]

12 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Yeah, I'm sure you wouldn't have screamed "bust" from the rooftops, and repeated it for the rest of the season to anyone who could tolerate you, after seeing the stat-line Alex Smith put up in his first start:

"9 of 23 (39.1 percent) for 74 yards, zero touchdowns, four interceptions, five sacks and a passer rating of 8.5"

 

 

Pure conjecture and wishful thinking. Not everyone can tolerate genius.   I have been on this board since 2003 and took numerous early positions and have been accurate nearly every single time. While it is far easier to claim bust than success because busts are more common, I have been on the other side as well. I was huge on Desean Jackson proponent in taking him over Devin Thomas, Fred Davis and Malcolm Kelly. I have a long history of being spot on. I have never been more certain of a bust than I am of Haskins. We can discuss further when you come to the same conclusion. Which you reluctantly will in short order...

[PartyPosse]

6 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

 

 

Pure conjecture and wishful thinking. Not everyone can tolerate genius.   I have been on this board since 2003 and took numerous early positions and have been accurate nearly every single time. While it is far easier to claim bust than success because busts are more common, I have been on the other side as well. I was huge on Desean Jackson proponent in taking him over Devin Thomas, Fred Davis and Malcolm Kelly. I have a long history of being spot on. I have never been more certain of a bust than I am of Haskins. We can discuss further when you come to the same conclusion. Which you reluctantly will in short order...

A shame such genius is wasted on a message board.

[SoCalSkins]

1 minute ago, PartyPosse said:

A shame such genius is wasted on a message board.

Genius is a relative term. You guys make it easy to attain that label on this board. Thank you!!! 😂

[PlayAction]

On 11/17/2019 at 6:24 PM, bakedtater1 said:

Let the debate begin..Have we seen enough to call Dwayne Haskins a bust in the NFL?

 

Nope.  The offense has been terrible regardless of QB.  The rest of the season doesn't count for anything so you might as well reserve judgement until the end.  There have been many star QBs with losing records their rookie year.  I'm not sure how bad their individual performances were though.  Still, a good rookie QB on a lousy team is going to suck.

 

[HTTRDynasty]

30 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

 

 

Not everyone can tolerate genius.   

 

Did you type that with your feet?

 

 

[Nerm]

1 hour ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

The difference is, all of youse guys would have stayed married to all of them for four years because Troy Aikman had a bad rookie year too.

 

Also, am I the only person who actually knows anything about football history? Jimmy Johnson HATED Aikman and wanted to get rid of him. He spent a freaking first round supplemental pick on Steve Walsh and then pretty much immediately benched Aikman in favor of Walsh. He probably would have stayed with Walsh except the receivers led by Irvin demanded that Aikman be the starter because Walsh's passes could not break wind.

 

Jimmy Johnson recruited Aikman at Oklahoma State, then he went hard after Aikman to come to Miami when Aikman transferred to UCLA. Then Jimmy Johnson picked Aikman #1 overall in the draft.  Yes, he took Walsh in the supplemental draft, but Aikman was named the starter before the start of the season.  Jimmy Johnson NEVER benched Aikman.  Troy missed some time due to injury his rookie season, but he was immediately put in as the starter once he came back from injury.  I would lay off the "am I the only person who actually knows anything about football history" stuff.  There was some tension between the two during their first season because of the Walsh pick, but Jimmy Johnson never benched Aikman, and always wanted him to be his starting QB... including before either of them went to the NFL. 

[ExoDus84]

I'll just say that I wasn't high on drafting Haskins. I didn't like the pick at all. So far, in his limited action, and dating all the way back to his preseason performances, I've seen nothing that proves me wrong. He doesn't look good. At all. However, I'll wait until after this season to really assess him. He's got 6 more starts to show marked improvement. If he doesn't, I'm ready to move on.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

55 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

1.  Always wide open?  You need to re-watch the film.

2.  Gruden wanted a QB who could win now.  Haskins was not the polished prospect he needed in order to save his job.  I don't blame him for not wanting him.

3.  Callahan was running that same offense with Keenum at QB.  A run-first offense is just his philosophy.

4.  False.  There have been multiple posts on this forum showing things he's done well.  You just refuse to acknowledge it because it goes against your narrative.

 

1. I will not. Because you didn't "watch the film" either. Seriously....watch the film? Who says that?

2. Poor Jay.

3. He let Keenum throw the ball beyond the line of scrimmage.

4. True! I win.

[HTTRDynasty]

10 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

1. I will not. Because you didn't "watch the film" either. Seriously....watch the film? Who says that?

2. Poor Jay.

3. He let Keenum throw the ball beyond the line of scrimmage.

4. True! I win.

 

Meh, 2/10.

 

At least SoCalSkins puts in a modicum of effort when he trolls.

[SkinsFTW]

 

14 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said:

 He's got 6 more starts to show marked improvement. If he doesn't, I'm ready to move on.

 

Unfortunately for us, Doofus and Bumbling are going to drag this one on for another year at minimum.

 

They'll also more than likely hire another coach that wants to turn him into a Franchise QB. The cycle never ends.