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

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Going Commando said:

 

IMO Cousins is definitely a better passer than Hurts, but Hurts is probably a better leader and better football player.  Regardless, neither of these dudes are even close to as good and dominant as the elite QBs of the league--Mahomes, Allen, Rodgers, Brady.  Nor are they close to that second tier of QB of Jackson, Herbert, Murray, and Burrow.  But they don't need to be, because Team > than QB and outside of the incredible and anomalous careers of Tom Brady and Joe Montana, having the best QBs of their generation doesn't guarantee you championships.  You might get one, hopefully two at some point in their long careers, and only when the team around them is dominant and fully built too.

 

You can win a championship with a Matt Stafford or Matt Ryan or Kirk Cousins or Eli Manning.  Someone who is good enough and holds the job down and provides the necessary toughness and leadership to pilot your team to the Super Bowl, but who isn't even close to being the best player on their own teams.  Our team has got some bonafide studs on it now, and some leaders who have come into their own over the past three years.  We just need someone durable and steady with great leadership qualities to come in here and hold the QB job down.

 

Agree with those examples.  You can win with those guys with killer rosters around them.  You can win with a good QB with a great roster around them.  i was arguing that same point ironically yesterday.

 

However, Heinicke IMO isn't in that same bucktt.  Neither is this version of Wentz IMO -- old school Wentz would be and more. 

 

I think RG3 nailed it about Heinicke this morning on the Junkies which is Heinicke doesn't really play that well on the aggregate, he's OK but is limited and makes too many mistakes -- but his teammates love him and he helps the bring the best out of them because of his leadership skills.   Really high intangibles but as a QB not above average at all.  In that context, he does remind me some of Jimmy G.  But on the aggregate i wouldn't rate Heinicke as an above average QB who is in that tier of QBs you mention.  But I agree with your overall point that you can win with a good QB -- doesn't have to be elite. 

Edited November 15, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[88Comrade2000]

The team just plays better with Taylor than Carson. Since Taylor has the lucky hot hand; you ride with him until the luck runs out.

 

He can get a one year extension.

 

The long term qb isn’t on the roster and will be decided by the new owner and his Gm/coach.

 

Taylor is nothing more than a stopgap guy. Ron is a short term coach. 
 

When the new people are hired, likely 2024, there will be a complete roster overhaul. 

[Stadium-Armory]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Ck-RhFmIGcm/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
 

 

Edited November 15, 2022 by Stadium-Armory

[Zim489]

12 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

 

That decade of conversation has always come to the wrong conclusion.  It has NEVER been the case--at any level of the sport of football--that you have to have an elite QB to compete for championships.  Football always has been and always will be a team sport, where the dominant team is the one with the best chance to win the championship, not the team with the most dominant QB.  And it has always been tremendously difficult to build a dominant team, whether or not you have a dominant player at your QB spot.

 

Most of the time, the best QBs aren't on the teams with the best and deepest rosters, and Tom Brady is really the only recent exception to that truth.  He's an anomaly who has sacrificed (and been lucky) to consistently find himself on loaded rosters, and that's been his ticket to running up his ring count.  Exclude him and look at the best QBs of the past couple of generations: Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Pat Mahomes, Drew Brees, Brett Favre, John Elway, Steve Young, Dan Marino.  How many rings does that who's who of the greatest QBs in NFL history have?  Nine.  One more than the group of Nick Foles, Joe Flacco, Eli Manning, Russell Wilson, Matt Stafford, Brad Johnson, and Trent Dilfer have.  Not exactly a list of All Timers.  If any of them happen to find their way into the HoF, it'll pretty much solely be because they quarterbacked a dominant team on a magical SB run.  **** Aaron Rodgers is one of the greatest and most revolutionary players in the history of the sport and he's got one SB win.  Pat Mahomes is on a career trajectory to be the most dynamic player in the history of the position, and he wouldn't even have one ring yet if Kyle Shanahan hadn't puked all over himself in another SB.

 

Winning football championships has almost always been about building the best team.  And that may or may not involve having the best QB, but it has never hinged upon it.  You would think Redskins fans of all people would accept the truth in that.

You should look at beyond the SB and see how many times The elite guys were in the hunt vs the other names you listed. Also quite a difference from a Foles Flacco and dilfer than a Russ or Stafford. 

 

The elite guys get you the most swings of the bat. Look at the full playoff picture on a year to year basis. See how many guys "get lucky" in their one year instance. Picking at of your guys listed. Flacco. From 2008 his rookie year to 2017 in baltimore he made the conference championship 2 times. Steve Young was 4 times and played in the divisional round 3 additional times. 

 

Its about having the most rolls of the dice. Theres a ton of luck involved once you get close to the end. The talent is so close for all of the teams and most one score games are complete coin flips.

[mistertim]

31 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

 

That decade of conversation has always come to the wrong conclusion.  It has NEVER been the case--at any level of the sport of football--that you have to have an elite QB to compete for championships.  Football always has been and always will be a team sport, where the dominant team is the one with the best chance to win the championship, not the team with the most dominant QB.  And it has always been tremendously difficult to build a dominant team, whether or not you have a dominant player at your QB spot.

 

Most of the time, the best QBs aren't on the teams with the best and deepest rosters, and Tom Brady is really the only recent exception to that truth.  He's an anomaly who has sacrificed (and been lucky) to consistently find himself on loaded rosters, and that's been his ticket to running up his ring count.  Exclude him and look at the best QBs of the past couple of generations: Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Pat Mahomes, Drew Brees, Brett Favre, John Elway, Steve Young, Dan Marino.  How many rings does that who's who of the greatest QBs in NFL history have?  Nine.  One more than the group of Nick Foles, Joe Flacco, Eli Manning, Russell Wilson, Matt Stafford, Brad Johnson, and Trent Dilfer have.  Not exactly a list of All Timers.  If any of them happen to find their way into the HoF, it'll pretty much solely be because they quarterbacked a dominant team on a magical SB run.  **** Aaron Rodgers is one of the greatest and most revolutionary players in the history of the sport and he's got one SB win.  Pat Mahomes is on a career trajectory to be the most dynamic player in the history of the position, and he wouldn't even have one ring yet if Kyle Shanahan hadn't puked all over himself in another SB.

 

Winning football championships has almost always been about building the best team.  And that may or may not involve having the best QB, but it has never hinged upon it.  You would think Redskins fans of all people would accept the truth in that.

 

For me it's not so much that you absolutely can't win a SB without an elite QB, it's that having a long term elite QB basically puts you in the running every year. Did Peyton win a ton of rings? No. Did Brees? No. Neither has Rodgers or Mahomes (though he's still quite young). But because they are/were so good, it put their teams in the playoffs almost every single season. And that in itself is a huge boost, because if you're basically starting from "playoffs" then your chances for a SB increase rapidly.

 

That doesn't mean you don't need a team around the QB and don't need to bother with it, but if you have a 10-15 year window of elite franchise QB play, then that allows you plenty of time to build and rebuild teams around him multiple times.

Edited November 15, 2022 by mistertim

[NoVaSkins21]

This coaching staff has some big egos and they need to put those egos aside by keeping Heinicke as the starter.  Putting Wentz back in just disrupts the chemistry and the vibe this team has right now.  They were a bad INT away from possibly win 5 in a row right now.

[Rex Tomb]

8 minutes ago, Stadium-Armory said:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Ck-RhFmIGcm/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
 

 

Anyone else think this is a not so subtle shot at Kirk Cousins from last week?

[Stadium-Armory]

2 minutes ago, Rex Tomb said:

Anyone else think this is a not so subtle shot at Kirk Cousins from last week?

It aint even subtle.

[Rex Tomb]

4 minutes ago, Stadium-Armory said:

It aint even subtle.

Now he needs to take his shirt off to really complete the parody.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

 

[NickyJ]

Ron's going to tell the team doctors to email him and then forget his email password for the next week or two.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

27 minutes ago, Rex Tomb said:

Anyone else think this is a not so subtle shot at Kirk Cousins from last week?

I don’t know if I’d call it a shot.  Seems silly considering they lost to Kirk Cousins, and Payne went out of his way to say he respected the way he kept taking hits and still delivered the ball.

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

 

While I agree the O-line hasn't improved a ton at pass blocking, I think the run game working more and/or the emphasizing of it, the commitment to it has helped the passing game immensely in both how defenses are scheming and how it sets up opportunities in the passing game.  The fact that the defense doesn't know if a run or pass is coming on a 3rd & 4 is a big advantage.   That is why I am saying that if Wentz returns, I wouldn't expect Turner to suddenly decide to go away from the run game, on the contrary I think the run game will set up even more opportunities for play action where the big play potential is there and is likely there with Heinicke, but not capitalized on enough. 

Turner, at heart, wants to run a pass heavy offense.  Last year, the results were sporadic (at best), our defense was suffering because of it, and then we sustained some injuries to both the oline and pass catchers.  
This year, oline injuries (and maybe roster decisions) have taken a massive toll, and Wentz took a beating as a result.  Prior to the Titans game, the talk was of the need to run the ball more (don’t know if that came down from Ron or was Turner’s idea), but we couldn’t stay on the field and subsequently were unsuccessful. Team went run heavy against the Bears, but the offense struggled big time.  
 

I’m bringing that all up because you have this belief that Heinicke doesn’t do anything that Wentz couldn’t do (I disagree)), and since Wentz is a better passer (at the very least he can stretch the field better), we’d be a more productive offense with Wentz at the helm.  And that he would make better use of our weapons.  You could be right.  
And if Wentz does return, I think the understanding would be that he would get killed out there - as he was for several of his games - if we went back to a lot of passing.  So yes, Turner would (almost assuredly) continue to commit to the ground game with Wentz.  

 

But, IMO, your posts on Wentz/Heinicke have a record of sidestepping or minimizing certain issues.  

1) Wentz is a statue in the pocket.  He essentially can’t evade rushers, can’t scramble out of the pocket and get the ball downfield, can’t scramble to pick up yards/move the chains.  
2) Wentz has issues reading key defenders, and therefore has issues with finding the right receiver and with getting the ball out on time.  

3) Short/quick passing has never been a strength for Wentz, so yes, he might be able to make better use of the occasional PA pass (when the pocket is clean), but asking him to execute a run heavy, chain moving offense might be asking a lot.  

So in effect, you’re asking him to 1) go against his nature/strengths, and 2) doing that knowing if he doesn’t, he’s a sitting duck behind the oline.  
 

I’ve consistently said Wentz is a significantly better passer than Taylor, and I stand by that.  Taylor is also not a good qb.  However, it seems pretty clear he’s the better option of the two behind this oline and in this iteration of Turner’s scheme.  Now that’s an opinion that isn’t set in stone, maybe we see Wentz sooner than later and he proves me wrong.  
 

Wentz just found himself in a terrible position - behind a crap oline, in an offense he was wholly unfamiliar with, under a pass happy OC, with almost his polar opposite riding the bench (fiery, comfortable in the system, moxie-filled, an underdog, beloved, mobile, albeit noodle-armed).  
 

Lastly, as to what TH can do that Wentz can’t (or won’t) - buy time with his legs, threaten defenses with his legs, play with passion, rally the team around him/fire them up.  Things I think he does better?  Ball fakes, recover from mistakes, short game passing, not shrink from big moments, trust his receivers (mainly Terry) to make a play, quicker to go through his reads and get the ball out.  

 

Ok, last, last thing.  There have been a number of plays each game that we see TH completely fail to execute, even with a clean pocket.  I can absolutely understand thinking, “Wentz could have hit that guy”.  It’s a fair thing to feel/believe (IMO), but… it bears remembering those plays are only a part of the whole.  

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Peregrine]

42 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

The team just plays better with Taylor than Carson. Since Taylor has the lucky hot hand; you ride with him until the luck runs out.

 

He can get a one year extension.

 

The long term qb isn’t on the roster and will be decided by the new owner and his Gm/coach.

 

Taylor is nothing more than a stopgap guy. Ron is a short term coach. 
 

When the new people are hired, likely 2024, there will be a complete roster overhaul. 

I think if nothing else, this stretch has proved that until you have 2 great QBs on your roster, you have to keep TH to be a backup.  I think the only exception is if you have a young QB wondering if he has the lockerroom.  The dream in the NFL is having a backup QB who can roll in, rally the team, and win games if God-forbid your starter goes down.  Thats hard to find in the NFL, no sense getting rid of one whos proven it and has the trust of his teammates. 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Translation: Taylor is starting.

 

As it should be.

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Going Commando said:

 

That decade of conversation has always come to the wrong conclusion.  It has NEVER been the case--at any level of the sport of football--that you have to have an elite QB to compete for championships.  Football always has been and always will be a team sport, where the dominant team is the one with the best chance to win the championship, not the team with the most dominant QB.  And it has always been tremendously difficult to build a dominant team, whether or not you have a dominant player at your QB spot.

 

Most of the time, the best QBs aren't on the teams with the best and deepest rosters, and Tom Brady is really the only recent exception to that truth.  He's an anomaly who has sacrificed (and been lucky) to consistently find himself on loaded rosters, and that's been his ticket to running up his ring count.  Exclude him and look at the best QBs of the past couple of generations: Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Pat Mahomes, Drew Brees, Brett Favre, John Elway, Steve Young, Dan Marino.  How many rings does that who's who of the greatest QBs in NFL history have?  Nine.  One more than the group of Nick Foles, Joe Flacco, Eli Manning, Russell Wilson, Matt Stafford, Brad Johnson, and Trent Dilfer have.  Not exactly a list of All Timers.  If any of them happen to find their way into the HoF, it'll pretty much solely be because they quarterbacked a dominant team on a magical SB run.  **** Aaron Rodgers is one of the greatest and most revolutionary players in the history of the sport and he's got one SB win.  Pat Mahomes is on a career trajectory to be the most dynamic player in the history of the position, and he wouldn't even have one ring yet if Kyle Shanahan hadn't puked all over himself in another SB.

 

Winning football championships has almost always been about building the best team.  And that may or may not involve having the best QB, but it has never hinged upon it.  You would think Redskins fans of all people would accept the truth in that.

 

Steve,

 

You normally don't do this, but not feeling how your playing with numbers here.

 

You bouncing between last ten years, trying to exclude the GOAT from the convo, and talking generations that stretch into the 1990s when we talking about 2022.

 

In the past 20 years since the start of the Pats dynasty, 15 of them have been won by soon to be HOF QBs:

 

Brady

Peyton

Big Ben

Mahomes

Rodgers

 

I can absolutely see the case for Wilson going to HOF as well, just not first ballot, that's 16.

 

Eli getting in doesn't mean he's as good as them, so anyone that in the future adds him as a HOF QB to these stats isn't being honest about where he ranked among the other super bowl winning QBs the last 20 years.

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/superbowl/history/winners

 

But thats still 80% of the super bowl winners the last 20 years.  Saying you don't need an elite QB to win championships is true but not keeping the conversation honest.

 

One more thing on Brady, his last two super bowl wins with New England were not stacked offenses at all, thats why he left for a stacked Bucs team, he was tired of it. Pats offenses haven't been stacked for the last decade at least.

 

This isn't the 1980s, Redskins fans have been beaten into submission to accept that lately...

Edited November 15, 2022 by Renegade7

[Est.1974]

There really is no need for Rivera to talk in code. Well, the only reason i can think is that he hasn’t had time to talk to Wentz 1:1 since the victory. 
 

I’d expect TH to be named starter for the rest of the season by tomorrow night.

[Ball Security]

18 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

 

Not sure he really needed to say that at this time (the last tweet).

[Renegade7]

It's because Wentz isn't healthy enough go show he looks better running the offense in practice then Taylor does to make up his mind. 

 

Wentz won't get a lot of time to prove he should start instead for remainder of the season, but he will get a chance, and that's more then fair considering why he was brought in here in the first place.

[Going Commando]

50 minutes ago, Rex Tomb said:

Anyone else think this is a not so subtle shot at Kirk Cousins from last week?

 

I don't think it's so much a shot at Kirk Cousins as it is we're copying the trend that the Vikings started because it's fun.  Kirk isn't the only one who wears the chains on their victory flights, Patrick Peterson got them this week because he had the game winning INT.

[Zim489]

23 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

Rob played pretty well in that game if I remember correctly

[NickyJ]

5 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

Rob played pretty well in that game if I remember correctly

Rob didn't actually play in 2014. They let him go in the preseason of that year. It's still kind of shocking how big a cult Rob Jackson grew in 2012, just to be pedestrian in 2013, and be out of the league after that. I'm surprised a team like Cleveland or Baltimore didn't pick him up.