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

[oraphus]

17 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

I don't agree w/that at all other than I guess the reasonable argument that he's never really been a backup who was called upon to start. What we saw last year, was a guy that can play in the league, period, when the team gives a ----. When the team quit, and the opponents got much tougher, in tandem, his play fell off, but through mid november he was consistently producing above average, average, and below average games in nearly equal increments. This guy wasn't Zach Wilson, or Justin Fields or Ridder, struggling to complete half of his passes or generate more than 125 yards passing. He was producing big gainers reliably, getting chunk yards to the tune of league leading #'s, while producing "meh" to average efficiency #'s. Why wouldn't we want that as a fallback if our starter gets hurt. There's not much fall off other than sacks taken and Maye had a similar issue w/that horrendous UNC line play. 

sounds like you're trying to talk yourself in to him being an at least average QB... 

I disagree.. once teams figured him and Bienime out.. he became plain bad. To say nothing about him being a slow processor and taking historic # of sacks. You dont want your backup to come in and right away take -20yds of sacks.  Now its possible he can fix these issues.. but at this point he is low end reclamation project at best

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

52 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

You know, one would think it might be media marketing purposes, except Eli never seemed like a big commercial guy either. If there were any major issues, it was basically, yeah, the owner sucks, and it's not a major media market, but team building wise, they were more mediocre than anything. It wasn't like going to the Cardinals or Bucs in the 80s, the chargers were sign, and the giants had basically, other than aberration 2000, been below average for a decade. It didnt make much sense to me either. I get Elway and the Colts. The Colts were run by a drunk, the son was a pill popping loon, and the team had been ---- other than some Bert Jones magic around when Star Wars came out, for a decade. They were also about to move or had just moved, I forget which. I get Elway saying, "screw that," but the Eli thing was weird, other than marketing issues (and honestly, San Diego is an hour or less from LA, the second biggest media market in the US was a short drive away), and the fact that they'd only made one super bowl, what was the problem. San Diego wasn't New Orleans, they were great during the Fouts years, had some moments in the mid-nineties, I just never understood what the big deal was there. It was odd, and the Chargers got the much better QB anyway lol, if they'd gotten the coach right, instead of stupidly hired Norv, and some other mediocre guys, it probably would have been them winning a super bowl rather than the Giants. 

 

I have a feeling Eli didn't want to play for Schottenheimer, who was the Chargers' coach at that time. Can't prove it though...but when has that ever stopped anyone from making baseless claims?

Edited March 13 by BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen

[Going Commando]

2 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

The only back to back winning seasons during the entire Snyder era, and 2 trips to the playoffs ( we would not have made the playoffs in 2012 without him coming in for RGKnee).

 

It got us a 9-7 season and blow out wild card loss, no franchise QB, and a desperation trade and contract extension for Alex Smith.  It also caused us to have an almost immediate QB controversy that divided the organization, caused us to cut bait on a QB we spent four high draft picks on, and got everyone involved with the debacle except Bruce Allen fired.  And at the end of all of it, we weren't committed to Kirk, so we didn't even get an above average long term starter out of the fiasco.

 

QB controversies are unquestionably bad for NFL franchises.  But over the years I've become convinced that this boomer-heavy fanbase can't stand the absence of one because it reminds them of when they were young.  An unquestioned star QB that actually has a good relationship with his team and his fanbase is a Brave New World for this franchise.

[Skinsinparadise]

12 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Bram has lost his damn mind.  
 

He is so in love with Fields he thinks the reason the Bears haven’t traded Fields is because the Bears aren’t sure Caleb will show up when they pick him. 
 

So he’s twisted himself entirely into a pretzel trying to justify why Firlds hasn’t gotten any support. 
 

His QB opinions have gone down the drain.  Fields and Heinicke.  Hes a huge fan of both.  

 

to add to the pile, I guess apparently Fields doesn't throw a good deep ball 

 

 

 

[Riggo-toni]

We hung on to the busted RG3 pick for too long, despite having "Kurt" on the roster.  All the disasters with his contract and subsequent fiascos were the inevitable consequences of Brucifer Prince of Dimness running the show.  If RG3 had been any good or Cousins not been starting material, there would have been no controversy. RG3 would have wound up as Colt McCoy's backup under Gruden until Colt gets hurt after 3 games, then RG3 goes 1-4 before getting hurt, and Gruden gets fired after year 2.

[Warhead36]

10 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

 

QB controversies are unquestionably bad for NFL franchises.  But over the years I've become convinced that this boomer-heavy fanbase can't stand the absence of one because it reminds them of when they were young.  An unquestioned star QB that actually has a good relationship with his team and his fanbase is a Brave New World for this franchise.

This is so true. Also too much of this fan base obsesses over the "3 Super Bowls with 3 different QBs" argument, forgetting that all 3 QBs were actually really really good and collectively were essentially the equivalent of a franchise QB.

 

As I always like to tell em: join us in 2024.

[Riggo-toni]

Also, if you think QB controversies are a disaster for a franchise, you must be either too young or not be a long time Redskins fan...We went to a SB in the midst of Sonny v Billy, and won a SB because Gibbs refused to trade Doug Williams despite him being the league's highest paid backup after Jay Schroeder set the franchise record for season yards ( which was only broken years later by Cousins).  Gibbs switched out QBs going into the playoffs, which was quite controversial at the time.

[Est.1974]

Do we think a Howell trade will happen once we have formally signed Mariota. I’m guessing you’d do all the medical checks and contracts done before committing to any kind of move on Howell.

[The Consigliere]

24 minutes ago, oraphus said:

sounds like you're trying to talk yourself in to him being an at least average QB... 

I disagree.. once teams figured him and Bienime out.. he became plain bad. To say nothing about him being a slow processor and taking historic # of sacks. You dont want your backup to come in and right away take -20yds of sacks.  Now its possible he can fix these issues.. but at this point he is low end reclamation project at best

I don't think that's what happened. Look at the caliber of defenses and playoff teams we played first 10, versus last 7, now add in that the team clearly quit at some point in mid season (most of us point to mid November, I think Keim or someone referenced that the locker room was never the same after the Bears debacle).

 

First 11 games: 3 playoff teams out of 11, only 3 defenses that performed well in '23.

Last 6 games: 5/6 were playoff teams, 4/6 had elite defenses, the other 2 were more league average. 

 

I think the fact that the team clearly quit week 11 or 12 versus the Giants or Cowboys, combined with that late season horror show schedule is why his play fell off. 

 

He was basically average to above average and occasionally below average through week 10, and then in the 4th against the Giants, or the 2nd half against the Cowboys, you decide, the team basically packed it in. They wouldn't put in a competent effort on any aspects of the game again the rest of the year except against the equally imploding Jets which was more about the Jets sucking than anything else. 

 

I would have graded him as a rookie/first year as a starter: an A- to B through the first 10 games, and a D to D- in the final 6 games. Is that a case of being found out? Or the team quitting on him. Well considering they lost 8 games in a row, and barely appeared to give a ---- in any of the games save the first half of the Giants, and Cowboys games, and the Jets game, I would go with all of the above: the team quit, the coaches quit, and Howell played like ----. Was he found out? I don't buy it. 

 

The problem for me is the same regardless though, he's not gonna be a starter for us on the regular again unless something truly horrible happens (we draft a bust or our QB suffers a season ending injury). However I do think he has league average ability when playing with a competent team that's engaged, there's value in that, especially in the last 2 years of his deal, that would trump anything we could get in a trade unless it involved round 2 or 3, and then it would cause me to turn my head. 

29 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

 

I have a feeling Eli didn't want to play for Schottenheimer, who was the Chargers' coach at that time. Can't prove it though...but when has that ever stopped anyone from making baseless claims?

did he also have the nightmare OC, Jimmy Raye back then too? That would really make it untenable. 

[clskinsfan]

22 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

That was GHH, same dude who made fun of me for bringing up Mahomes once before that draft.  Wonder if he's a Titans fan now?  You got double the Callahan fun now at that club.

I always wonder what happened to GibbsHH. I think he was quite a bit older than a lot of us back then. And I am old now. Hope he is well. 

[FootballZombie]

6 hours ago, CommanderInTheRye said:

 

Beefy w/ a lot of good insight.

 

I don't care that he is a crabby dude that hates college ball, I still value and compartmentalize his takes more than most others. Dude knows what he is talking about

[The Consigliere]

19 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

This is so true. Also too much of this fan base obsesses over the "3 Super Bowls with 3 different QBs" argument, forgetting that all 3 QBs were actually really really good and collectively were essentially the equivalent of a franchise QB.

 

As I always like to tell em: join us in 2024.

I agree with the first part (obsessing on a model that worked 40 years ago in a totally different NFL environment) but I disagree on the later. 

 

Theismann was above average to good, with I think 2 all pro seasons ('82/'83?). 

Rypien was awful to above average, and was totally erratic. I remember some rumored story from the Pro Bowl of Jerry Rice supposedly asking Art Monk and Gary Clark how they "won with that guy". He did produce 3 ceiling level years, 1989, 1991, and 1992, where he performed inside that top 5-12 zone in terms of raw counting stats. But in '88, and then '93, '94, '95 as a starter, he was below average to horrible (well, in '88 he was average). 

 

So he's hard to evaluate. How do you evaluate a guy who was erratic, and inconsistent, even in his great seasons, and was....

Good to great: '89, '91, '92

Average: '88, '90

Below average to horrible: '93, '94, '95

 

He's pretty hard to evaluate isn't he? even threw an ugly as hell ball, but had a strong arm. 

 

Schroeder seemed like a rythem guy who got by on his arm, and athleticism, but was nealry as inaccurate as Mark Malone, and totally inconsistent. 

 

Doug Williams was a weird one. The stats from his early career which was basically 2/3's of his career ('79-'82) are a product of their times (completion rate's were significantly lower in the pre west coast offense/non modern NFL) but even for the era, Williams accuracy was meh. You also have a really funky, odd dichotomy, where Williams was the only QB that produce anything in Tampa bay for literally 23 years. From 1976-1998, every other QB there, even Steve Young, sucked. Williams, inexplicably managed to take those comically inept Bucs teams to the playoffs 3 times in 4 years between 1979 and 1982, even took them within 10 points of the super bowl in 1979 (lost a taut, defensive battle with the Rams for the privilege of getting beat down by the last of the four super bowl champion steelers teams). 

 

But man, his performance in those playoff games was god awful, particularly in losses to Dallas in the 1981 and 1982. 18-57 for 1 TD, and 7 interceptions against the Cowboys in 0-38, and 17-30 losses. Reminiscent of Jay Schreoder in the critical home game against the Giants in December of 1986 (the famed 6 pick game where somehow, the Giants collected a billion interceptions and only won by 10). It was real ugly. If you include his '79 performance, it becomes 27-85 for 2 TD's and 9 picks in the playoffs before he joined us.

 

The Funny thing? They were never as good as they were with him until 1999 with Shaun King, and the other funny thing is that statisically he was also god awful in the playoffs for us: 23 of 55, but 3 TD's versus just 1 pick. There's just something funny and so beautiful, that after never producing a single game where even completed half of his passes, EVER, in the playoffs, he then just went God Mode in the Super Bowl XXII. Well deserved. So happy for him, even if I went full ----, and wailing, left the house, went to park and played basketball (after the Broncos were up 10-0), then realized I was being an idiot, turned around, walked back home, and opened the door about 2 commercials before the TD bomb to Ricky Sanders to make it 7-10. 

[The Consigliere]

54 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

to add to the pile, I guess apparently Fields doesn't throw a good deep ball 

 

 

 

Fields completely destroyed poor Darnell Mooney's career. At least he didnt sabotage DJ Moore. 

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

I always wonder what happened to GibbsHH. I think he was quite a bit older than a lot of us back then. And I am old now. Hope he is well. 

 

He was cool. LFC fan so I liked that.  I don't think I can recall anyone here digging a coach like he did with Callahan, seemed heartbroken when they moved on from him.

[The Consigliere]

One of those weird things with message boards. Hockeysfuture, the better of the Capitals Forums, has had two different posters who were around for like decades, pass away the last few years. Something really poignant in that. 

[RandyHolt]

43 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

One of those weird things with message boards. Hockeysfuture, the better of the Capitals Forums, has had two different posters who were around for like decades, pass away the last few years. Something really poignant in that. 

HF you say...  TXPD is one. I had some epic battles with him - he was always anti fighting because of the injury risks, but then had no problem with car racing. There are many others that crossed the bridge and we are left to speculate who is gone for good or just needed a break from all us sports obsessed fanatics posting all the time. It is interesting seeing an old face randomly reappear.

Edited March 13 by RandyHolt

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

1 hour ago, Riggo-toni said:

Also, if you think QB controversies are a disaster for a franchise, you must be either too young or not be a long time Redskins fan...We went to a SB in the midst of Sonny v Billy, and won a SB because Gibbs refused to trade Doug Williams despite him being the league's highest paid backup after Jay Schroeder set the franchise record for season yards ( which was only broken years later by Cousins).  Gibbs switched out QBs going into the playoffs, which was quite controversial at the time.

 

I'm reading this with For What It's Worth by Buffalo Springfield playing in my head.

 

You totally missed the "Boomer obsession" part of this post.

59 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

I agree with the first part (obsessing on a model that worked 40 years ago in a totally different NFL environment) but I disagree on the later. 

 

Theismann was above average to good, with I think 2 all pro seasons ('82/'83?). 

Rypien was awful to above average, and was totally erratic. I remember some rumored story from the Pro Bowl of Jerry Rice supposedly asking Art Monk and Gary Clark how they "won with that guy". He did produce 3 ceiling level years, 1989, 1991, and 1992, where he performed inside that top 5-12 zone in terms of raw counting stats. But in '88, and then '93, '94, '95 as a starter, he was below average to horrible (well, in '88 he was average). 

 

So he's hard to evaluate. How do you evaluate a guy who was erratic, and inconsistent, even in his great seasons, and was....

Good to great: '89, '91, '92

Average: '88, '90

Below average to horrible: '93, '94, '95

 

He's pretty hard to evaluate isn't he? even threw an ugly as hell ball, but had a strong arm. 

 

Schroeder seemed like a rythem guy who got by on his arm, and athleticism, but was nealry as inaccurate as Mark Malone, and totally inconsistent. 

 

Doug Williams was a weird one. The stats from his early career which was basically 2/3's of his career ('79-'82) are a product of their times (completion rate's were significantly lower in the pre west coast offense/non modern NFL) but even for the era, Williams accuracy was meh. You also have a really funky, odd dichotomy, where Williams was the only QB that produce anything in Tampa bay for literally 23 years. From 1976-1998, every other QB there, even Steve Young, sucked. Williams, inexplicably managed to take those comically inept Bucs teams to the playoffs 3 times in 4 years between 1979 and 1982, even took them within 10 points of the super bowl in 1979 (lost a taut, defensive battle with the Rams for the privilege of getting beat down by the last of the four super bowl champion steelers teams). 

 

But man, his performance in those playoff games was god awful, particularly in losses to Dallas in the 1981 and 1982. 18-57 for 1 TD, and 7 interceptions against the Cowboys in 0-38, and 17-30 losses. Reminiscent of Jay Schreoder in the critical home game against the Giants in December of 1986 (the famed 6 pick game where somehow, the Giants collected a billion interceptions and only won by 10). It was real ugly. If you include his '79 performance, it becomes 27-85 for 2 TD's and 9 picks in the playoffs before he joined us.

 

The Funny thing? They were never as good as they were with him until 1999 with Shaun King, and the other funny thing is that statisically he was also god awful in the playoffs for us: 23 of 55, but 3 TD's versus just 1 pick. There's just something funny and so beautiful, that after never producing a single game where even completed half of his passes, EVER, in the playoffs, he then just went God Mode in the Super Bowl XXII. Well deserved. So happy for him, even if I went full ----, and wailing, left the house, went to park and played basketball (after the Broncos were up 10-0), then realized I was being an idiot, turned around, walked back home, and opened the door about 2 commercials before the TD bomb to Ricky Sanders to make it 7-10. 

 

No one read any of that.

[Dah-Dee]

6 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

No one read any of that.

 

 

What was it about? Steak?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

58 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

He was cool. LFC fan so I liked that.  I don't think I can recall anyone here digging a coach like he did with Callahan, seemed heartbroken when they moved on from him.

 

I'm pretty sure he lived in a garbage can somewhere in Liverpool so it was never really clear how he watched as much of the Super Bowl years games as he did. But he had opinions, man.

[Rolo Tomasie]

2 hours ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Beefy w/ a lot of good insight.

 

I don't care that he is a crabby dude that hates college ball, I still value and compartmentalize his takes more than most others. Dude knows what he is talking about

Based on his previous tweets I expected to hear Kurt tear Drake up in the analysis, but he really didn't. He pointed to a lot of nice plays, and a couple mistakes here and there. He calls out some inaccuracy but then acknowledges it could be due to receivers flattening or altering routes. It's almost like Kurt is coming to realize Drake was running a crap offense with extremely limited players.

Edited March 13 by Rolo Tomasie

[mistertim]

17 minutes ago, Rolo Tomasie said:

Based on his previous tweets I expected to hear Kurt tear Drake up in the analysis, but he really didn't. He pointed to a lot of nice plays, and a couple mistakes here and there. He calls out some inaccuracy but then acknowledges it could be due to receivers flattening or altering routes. It's almost like Kurt is coming to realize Drake was running a crap offense with extremely limited players.

 

That or maybe he hadn't done any deep film dives into Maye until now.

[oraphus]

2 hours ago, The Consigliere said:

I don't think that's what happened. Look at the caliber of defenses and playoff teams we played first 10, versus last 7, now add in that the team clearly quit at some point in mid season (most of us point to mid November, I think Keim or someone referenced that the locker room was never the same after the Bears debacle).

 

First 11 games: 3 playoff teams out of 11, only 3 defenses that performed well in '23.

Last 6 games: 5/6 were playoff teams, 4/6 had elite defenses, the other 2 were more league average. 

 

I think the fact that the team clearly quit week 11 or 12 versus the Giants or Cowboys, combined with that late season horror show schedule is why his play fell off. 

 

He was basically average to above average and occasionally below average through week 10, and then in the 4th against the Giants, or the 2nd half against the Cowboys, you decide, the team basically packed it in. They wouldn't put in a competent effort on any aspects of the game again the rest of the year except against the equally imploding Jets which was more about the Jets sucking than anything else. 

 

I would have graded him as a rookie/first year as a starter: an A- to B through the first 10 games, and a D to D- in the final 6 games. Is that a case of being found out? Or the team quitting on him. Well considering they lost 8 games in a row, and barely appeared to give a ---- in any of the games save the first half of the Giants, and Cowboys games, and the Jets game, I would go with all of the above: the team quit, the coaches quit, and Howell played like ----. Was he found out? I don't buy it. 

 

The problem for me is the same regardless though, he's not gonna be a starter for us on the regular again unless something truly horrible happens (we draft a bust or our QB suffers a season ending injury). However I do think he has league average ability when playing with a competent team that's engaged, there's value in that, especially in the last 2 years of his deal, that would trump anything we could get in a trade unless it involved round 2 or 3, and then it would cause me to turn my head. 

did he also have the nightmare OC, Jimmy Raye back then too? That would really make it untenable. 

 

I do agree that the players started tanking .. but more on the Defensive side. A point you cant refute is even an incompetent buffoon like 'send me the ring' Rivera couldn't help but bench him twice at the risk of completely losing the team and when Briset came in, the O actually looked somewhat competent both times.  plenty of no name QBs came in and looked competent for a few games last year before Ds figured them out. Based on how Howell ended the season, no way anyone will trust his as a first backup QB.

Briset is an example of a high end back up, Howell is nowhere close at this point of his career.

 

we can agree to disagree but it sounds like the current FO is of the same mind, if they thought Howell could be a backup, they would not have paid Mariota. 

Edited March 13 by oraphus

[oraphus]

14 minutes ago, oraphus said:

 

I do agree that the players started tanking .. but more on the Defensive side. A point you cant refute is even an incompetent buffoon like 'send me the ring' Rivera couldn't help but bench him twice at the risk of completely losing the team and when Briset came in, the O actually looked somewhat competent both times.  plenty of no name QBs came in and looked competent for a few games last year before Ds figured them out. Based on how Howell ended the season, no way anyone will trust his as a first backup QB.

Briset is an example of a high end back up, Howell is nowhere close at this point of his career.

 

we can agree to disagree but it sounds like the current FO is of the same mind, if they thought Howell could be a backup, they would not have paid Mariota. 

I also find these so called "rumors" of teams willing to give up a 3rd for Howell hilariously comical.. i think a 6th rd pick would be a steal at this point. 

a..d yes i quoted myself  

Edited March 13 by oraphus

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

43 minutes ago, oraphus said:

we can agree to disagree but it sounds like the current FO is of the same mind, if they thought Howell could be a backup, they would not have paid Mariota. 

This is still just speculation. I don’t think signing Mariota means anything other than signing Mariota. They’ll sort it out in camp (Howell will beat out Mariota for the backup job), or they are positioned to trade him if they get an offer to their liking. 

[SoCalSkins]

Rypien doesn’t seem like a guy you want in the room to groom the first overall pick. You would think someone with more starting experience would be brought in. Could they possibly be keeping Fields and trading out?