The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randall 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariotta and Hartman forever. Fromm cut

[DJHJR86]

2 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

How in the world could you draw that conclusion from just one game?

 

I would say that if he comes out and looks like Nathan Peterman that that's a good indicator that he's probably not going to work out.  Conversely, if he comes out and somehow is able to move the offense and score unlike the other 2 quarterbacks, that's a good indicator that there's a real possibility that going into next year with him in a competition for starter wouldn't be a bad thing.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

[zCommander]

4 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

How in the world could you draw that conclusion from just one game?

 

His poise and command of the offense and how smart he is with the football. If he doesn't panic and stays strong in the pocket and delivers a rocket to Terry - you know stuff like that. He is a very accurate passer so there is that too. But the idea is hopefully he gives you enough along with what the coaches are seeing in practice to not go fishing for a retread or someone looking for big payday instead. 

[DJHJR86]

From Keim:

 

 

https://www.espn.com/blog/washington-commanders/post/_/id/42763/why-the-commanders-are-starting-sam-howell-and-whats-next-for-carson-wentz-ron-rivera

 

In all honesty, I think how Howell plays determines whether or not they try to resign Heinicke.  If Howell falls flat, I think they try to resign him.  If he plays decent to great, I think they'll let him walk.

[Thinking Skins]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

I know we've debated this in the past, and I respect your opinion on what you like. My issue is when you try to make it sound like your view of Heinicke is based on his play vs the fact that he's an underdog and you really like underdogs.

 

He's really just not a very good QB and is very limited. He's "won" games where we had a successful rushing attack and top notch defensive efforts, as well as several miracle catches from Terry. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who could logically make the football case that Heinicke was a big factor in winning most of those games.

 

Your view of him is an emotional one. He's an underdog, and you like that. Which is fine, and I actually kind of dig. But I wish you'd just admit that from the start. It's not really based on logic or football analysis...it's based on your love of underdogs in general.

As much as I like the underdog story with QBs that's not the entirety of my opinion. I backed RG3 and Wentz (just this year). People want to bring up these stagements and treat them like they're universal or something. The universal statement is that John Beck never belonged in the NFL. The Heinicke ones are not. I like him because of his story but also because he wins games. Yes he has collapsed late in the season 2 years in a row, yes he is older. That's why I'm not in love with him next year, but he has played well enough to be considered for a starting job in this system next year though. 

 

What you're doing right now is minimizing what Heinicke did. Sure maybe he wasn't the critical factor and I'm not saying he was. I'm saying that he won games. He has the 13th most wins by a QB in the history of this franchise. Thats a hella sad stat but its true. Could Wentz have done it? People were arguing so. I didn't know so I didn't post. But he didn't. He looked HORRIBLE. Worse than Heinicke has ever looked - with the run the ball game plan. Then when he tried to pass it down the field he threw interceptions three times. Heinicke led drives against two or three teams that led to late points and drives against the Giants that should have led to points but the refs called a phantom penalty. 

[Professor_Nutter_Butter]

49 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

Setting this guy up for failure.

[zCommander]

32 minutes ago, Professor_Nutter_Butter said:

Setting this guy up for failure.

 

Or setting him up to see how quickly he can get rid of the ball and how accurately with no BRob or Gibson.

 

[mistertim]

35 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

As much as I like the underdog story with QBs that's not the entirety of my opinion. I backed RG3 and Wentz (just this year). People want to bring up these stagements and treat them like they're universal or something. The universal statement is that John Beck never belonged in the NFL. The Heinicke ones are not. I like him because of his story but also because he wins games. Yes he has collapsed late in the season 2 years in a row, yes he is older. That's why I'm not in love with him next year, but he has played well enough to be considered for a starting job in this system next year though. 

 

What you're doing right now is minimizing what Heinicke did. Sure maybe he wasn't the critical factor and I'm not saying he was. I'm saying that he won games. He has the 13th most wins by a QB in the history of this franchise. Thats a hella sad stat but its true. Could Wentz have done it? People were arguing so. I didn't know so I didn't post. But he didn't. He looked HORRIBLE. Worse than Heinicke has ever looked - with the run the ball game plan. Then when he tried to pass it down the field he threw interceptions three times. Heinicke led drives against two or three teams that led to late points and drives against the Giants that should have led to points but the refs called a phantom penalty. 

 

Heinicke doesn't need my help to minimize his contributions. It was clear during the winning streak last season, and during the winning streak this season, that one of the main factors in those games was limiting Heinicke's involvement as much as possible and relying on everything else clicking to win. As soon as those other things stopped clicking and Heinicke's involvement had to increase, the wheels came off.

 

He's just not a good QB. He's a decent backup but he's simply not an NFL starter. He's too limited and the game plan has to be pared down too much for him to be successful. Everything else has go right for it to work, and that's not a successful long term strategy. It's pretty clear that the coaches think the same, otherwise they wouldn't have been transparently desperate for an upgrade at the position for the last couple of years.

 

The "he just wins" argument is old, stale, and needs to be retired. It's the eternal saying for QBs who are clearly not very good but who have fervent supporters. They can't point to stats or the eye test to prop up their guy, so they just point to wins, regardless of the fact that the QB in question clearly had little to do with them, or even that the team won in spite of them. It's been used on everyone from Alex Smith and Jimmy G to Tim Tebow and is basically a vapid, meaningless statement. 

[Skinsinparadise]

9 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

 

The "he just wins" argument is old, stale, and needs to be retired. It's the eternal saying for QBs who are clearly not very good but who have fervent supporters. They can't point to stats or the eye test to prop up their guy, so they just point to wins, regardless of the fact that the QB in question clearly had little to do with them, or even that the team won in spite of them. It's been used on everyone from Alex Smith and Jimmy G to Tim Tebow and is basically a vapid, meaningless statement. 

 

The kicker for me is even if I ran with the he just wins argument or he's clutch....

 

A.  He majors in winning games when the season seems lost and the pressure is off because you got nothing to lose.

 

B.  He's bad in meaningful games late in the season that determine them going to the post season.

 

He doesn't win in games that are meaningful.  So even the he just wins argument holds no water with me. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[justice98]

Heinicke at this point should be Rex Grossman circa 2012 and 2013.  Had his chance to start, but now just hanging around on the roster with the OC teaching people the offense.

Edited January 6, 2023 by justice98

[Cooleyfan1993]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The kicker for me is even if I ran with the he just wins argument or he's clutch.

 

A.  He major in winning games when the season seems lost and the pressure is off because you got nothing to lose.

 

He doesn't win in games that are meaningful.  So even the he just wins argument holds no water with me.

Eh, agree with your point B. In your point A, I’d say the pressure is on to get on a winning streak to try and make the playoffs. 
 

And to the “he doesn’t win in games that are meaningful”……the MNF game against the eagles was meaningful, in order to get on another winning streak following the loss to the Vikings. The game against the falcons was meaningful as well, was it not? id say I half agree with your point 

[mistertim]

4 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Eh, agree with your point B. In your point A, I’d say the pressure is on to get on a winning streak to try and make the playoffs. 
 

And to the “he doesn’t win in games that are meaningful”……the MNF game against the eagles was meaningful, in order to get on another winning streak following the loss to the Vikings. The game against the falcons was meaningful as well, was it not? id say I half agree with your point 

 

Heinicke had next to nothing to do with the win vs the Eagles. He threw for 200 yards, 0 TDs and 1 INT.

 

You can try to twist yourself into mental pretzels and make any game "meaningful" if that's the conclusion you're trying to draw. But I think we all know what SIP means when he says meaningful games, so let's not play coy.

[Skinsinparadise]

9 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Eh, agree with your point B. In your point A, I’d say the pressure is on to get on a winning streak to try and make the playoffs. 
 

And to the “he doesn’t win in games that are meaningful”……the MNF game against the eagles was meaningful, in order to get on another winning streak following the loss to the Vikings. The game against the falcons was meaningful as well, was it not? id say I half agree with your point 

 

When the season seems lost, the pressure is off because you got nothing to lose.    The idea that he helped revive their chances -- sure, that's laudable.  But the pressure isn't the same. 

 

The pressure is late in the season to finish the job.  After the climb in the middle of the season which happened both seasons, he went 0-5-1.   And played poorly in most of those games.

 

Surprise surprise, his "winning ways" resurfaced in the last game last year when they were already eliminated which feeds into my point.

 

I am not big into factoring W-L records on a QB where i am ignoring context.  But if some are going to live by that sword they need to be willing to die on it too -- so if we are going to judge Taylor on W-L its absolutely on the money that he's a big loser in the homestretch of seasons when the playoffs are on the line

Edited January 6, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[Cooleyfan1993]

1 minute ago, mistertim said:

 

Heinicke had next to nothing to do with the win vs the Eagles. He threw for 200 yards, 0 TDs and 1 INT.

 

You can try to twist yourself into mental pretzels and make any game "meaningful" if that's the conclusion you're trying to draw. But I think we all know what SIP means when he says meaningful games, so let's not play coy.

Well, meaningful as in, winning meant it improves their chances of staying in the playoff race and had they lost, it would’ve hurt their chances. That’s my definition of a meaningful game. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

Surprise suprise, his "winning ways" resurfaced in the last game last year when they were already eliminated which feeds into my point.

Not to mention that one ranks up there as one of the worst games I’ve watched from this team.  That was a battle of who is going to be just an ounce less dreadful than the other.  He was 9/18 for 120.

[Cooleyfan1993]

6 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

When the season seems lost, the pressure is off because you got nothing to lose.    The idea that he helped revive their chances -- sure, that's laudable.  But the pressure isn't the same. 

 

The pressure is late in the season to finish the job.  After the climb in the middle of the season which happened both seasons, he went 0-5-1.   And played poorly in most of those games.

 

Surprise surprise, his "winning ways" resurfaced in the last game last year when they were already eliminated which feeds into my point.

 

I am not big into factoring W-L records on a QB where i am ignoring context.  But if some are going to live by that sword they need to be willing to die on it too -- so if we are going to judge Taylor on W-L its absolutely on the money that he's a big loser in the homestretch of seasons when the playoffs are on the line

This post is more spot-on, I agree with your points as you put them here. 

[Skinsinparadise]

7 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Not to mention that one ranks up there as one of the worst games I’ve watched from this team.  That was a battle of who is going to be just an ounce less dreadful than the other.  He was 9/18 for 120.

 

Yeah he was really bad in that game, too.   120 yards, 50% completion rate.  The running game ruled that day.  But if people want to give him full credit for wins, fine, they can take that win.   But yeah with the crap play in the home stretch from Taylor, mostly against bad defenses, and they could have easily lost to the Falcons, too, I am not giving him that hey but he wins argument.   

 

I'll give this to @Koolblue13 among others because I recall early on they stressed watch Taylor fall apart at the end of the season just like he did last year.  I think it was you, too saying it if I recall.   While I didn't like what i was seeing from Taylor at that point, I was open minded that it might not end poorly like 2021.  But it did.    And for me the "clutch" stuff and he just wins stuff is out the window for me.  It's nonsense.  you aren't clutch and you aren't a winner if you stink and lose just about every game in December.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[Koolblue13]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yeah he was really bad in that game, too.   120 yards, 50% completion rate.  The running game ruled that day.  But if people want to give him full credit for wins, fine, they can take that win.   But yeah with the crap play in the home stretch from Taylor, mostly against bad defenses, and they could have easily lost to the Falcons, too, I am not giving him that hey but he wins argument.   

 

I'll give this to @Koolblue13 among others because I recall early on they stressed watch Taylor fall apart at the end of the season just like he did last year.  I think it was you, too saying it if I recall.   While I didn't love what i was seeing from Taylor, I was open minded that it might not end poorly like 2021.  But it did.    And for me the "clutch" stuff and he just wins stuff is out the window for me.  It's nonsense.  you aren't clutch and you aren't a winner if you stink and lose just about every game in December.

Yeah, Heini is good for 3 or 4 games if you don't lean on him, then he gasses out and falls off a cliff. Decent back up I suppose.

[Skinsinparadise]

7 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

This post is more spot-on, I agree with your points as you put them here. 

 

Cool, my point didn't change though, all I did there is just elaborate on what i meant by meaningful. 

[Cooleyfan1993]

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Cool, my point didn't change though, all I did there is just elaborate on what i meant by meaningful. 

I don’t think you elaborated on what you meant by meaningful in that post that I agreed with. Seems to me you just made different points that I happen to agree with, moreso than what you said in the earlier one. Which is fine, there are some aspects of it that we’ll agree on and others that we won’t 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

30 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I'll give this to @Koolblue13 among others because I recall early on they stressed watch Taylor fall apart at the end of the season just like he did last year.  I think it was you, too saying it if I recall.   While I didn't like what i was seeing from Taylor at that point, I was open minded that it might not end poorly like 2021.  But it did.    And for me the "clutch" stuff and he just wins stuff is out the window for me.  It's nonsense.  you aren't clutch and you aren't a winner if you stink and lose just about every game in December.

Yeah, that was me as well, expecting him to fade later in the season.  To be fair though, he looked just about like he always looks: just things stopped going our way and other units not playing at elite levels with a healthy dose of him fumbling in territory one cannot fumble was the undoing.  I’ve long accepted the OL is bad, but for someone that’s touted as a smart player, his inability to identify a free blitzer in conjunction with no feel is what really cost him his job. 
 

 

Edited January 6, 2023 by BatteredFanSyndrome

[Skinsinparadise]

25 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

I don’t think you elaborated on what you meant by meaningful in that post that I agreed with. Seems to me you just made different points that I happen to agree with, moreso than what you said in the earlier one. Which is fine, there are some aspects of it that we’ll agree on and others that we won’t 

 

I said in the post you intiially resonded to meaningful "late in the season."  You ignored that qualification and described some games that you deemed meaningful that weren't late in the season.  So I explained again.  But cool either way, it doesn't matter. 

 

10 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Yeah, that was me as well, expecting him to fade later in the season.  To be fair though, he looked just about like he always looks: just things stopped going our way and other units not playing at elite levels with a healthy dose of him fumbling in territory one cannot fumble was the undoing.  I’ve long accepted the OL is bad, but for someone that’s touted as a smart player, his inability to identify a free blitzer in conjunction with no feel is what really cost him his job. 
 

 

 

I agree to an extent.  That is, he didn't play that well in the wins either.  But I do think even by his standards he played worse in December (save the first hlaf of the SF game and even in that one they only scored 7 points in that half)

Edited January 6, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I agree to an extent.  That is, he didn't play that well in the wins either.  But I do think even by his standards he played worse in December (save the first hlaf of the SF game and even in that one they only scored 7 points in that half)

True, he individually wasn’t great either - like I said, offensive line shmoffensive line, he can’t be giving the ball back to the opponent up against his own end zone like that.  He also wasn’t seeing the field well at all in both games against the Giants, leaving a lot of yard and points on the field.

[Skinsinparadise]

Cooley on a podcast.

 

A.  Qbs aren't good.  Wentz's foot work is bad, cracks under pressure, makes puzziling decisions, is a one read QB now.

B.  Turner isn't good.

C. the offense is bad at resetting protections, they don't deal with shifts in the defense well ala stunts, they don't adjust to defensive shifts.

 

Logan Paulsen.

 

A.  Likes Howell's tools a lot.  thinks the game on Sunday though will be an absolute disaster for him, though

B.  Dallas will test the O line with blitzes, stunts, etc.  Chris Paul making his rookie debut dealing with it.

C.  Howell got away with things in the preseason that he won't on Sunday

D.  He doesn't think Howell has a strong enough command yet of the offense where he will be able to throw with anticipation.  He thinks eventually he will but not yet.

E.  He likes Rivera's initial plan of starting Heinicke and then bringing in Howell much better -- it would have given Howell a chance to see what Dallas is doing via the sidelines and ease into the game.  Plus later on Dallas might rest some of their pass rushers who are a handful.  

Edited January 6, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[Cooleyfan1993]

29 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I said in the post you intiially resonded to meaningful "late in the season."  You ignored that qualification and described some games that you deemed meaningful that weren't late in the season.  So I explained again.  But cool either way, it doesn't matter. 

I didn’t ignore anything……I disagreed on some of the things you said in one post, and agreed with other things that you said in another. I 100% agree that when the pressure is on the most (late in the season), he crumbled. I just happen to also believe that the November games were also meaningful because a loss in any of those would’ve changed the season, just like winning those changed our season. 
 

i said my piece. We agree on some things, other things we don’t agree on. I’m going to leave it at that and exit this conversation.