The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randal 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariota and Fromm battle for QB2 and so begins the Handsome Harem for Hartman

[Skinsinparadise]

33 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

Is this not common place amongst NFL owners? I thought most deals and extensions get done in the summer? Purely going off memory and how I have perceived the NFL off season schedule being in relation to resigning guys, so nothing I’m standing on firmly or bullishly. 
 

 

As the WR spot.  Salaries were escalating early last off season, some teams were getting deals done earlish in the off season and some teams waited.  So about 50-50 last off season did it earlish, and the other half did it in the summer as to the WRs.

 

To your point Dan isn't the only owner who likes to hold his cash and get deals done in the summer -- Albert Breer wrote an article about it at the time.  For big contracts, you have a lot of money in escrow because you must do that for guaranteed money.  Also most of these owners make good money on their interest -- so holding on to money for an extra-4-5 months helps their bottom line.

 

There was an article written about Lehrner once on that front about how he lacks to backload deals so he can make more money off of interest

 

33 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

I agree from a totality standpoint Dan is a great liability, but to get a specific player or coach, it doesn’t matter. Give the coach guaranteed money/years and power, he’s yours, give the player money/years and opportunity, he’s yours. 
 

 

If it doesn't effect a single player or coach, then to your point Dan isn't much of a liability at all and this is as good a destination spot than any other place. 

 

So the stories QBs saying no to wanting to be traded to Washington are just agents making it up?

 

Logan Paulsen flat out said he knows in that building they see they have a problem with luring players based on league wise peception.  Is he making it up, too?

 

I can go on and on with others who have said the same thing.   Or maybe you are getting at, yes its a problem but overpaying solves all. 

 

So you can talk anyone into it by overpaying them.  So as to the stories of Russell Wilson not wanting to come here -- address it this way, Denver wants to give you an extension for 48 million a year and 161 guaranteed -- we will give you 55 million and 180 guaranteed.

 

Yeah I don't disagree that Dan can likely get who he wants by offering something outrageous.  But are we living in reality with that stuff?  We are talking real world not fantasy.   By that I mean the top level players are going to get on the market top dollar.  Are we the ones to just blow that apart on move after move?

 

Teams are already willing to basically overpay name that star -- do we want to destroy our cap by taking that one step further and just break the barriers on salary like the Browns did with Deshaun Watson -- by going over the top with offers that scream hey you don't want to come here how about a 100% guaranteed contract, etc. 

 

Even if we adapt the lets get outrageous with our offers where players can't say no, Dan clearly isn't willing to do it.  And if he did would we really want to destory the cap just to make a point?

Edited February 6, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[wit33]

 

43 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

To your point Dan isn't the only owner who likes to hold his cash and get deals done in the summer -- Albert Breer wrote an article about it at the time.  For big contracts, you have a lot of money in escrow because you must do that for guaranteed money.  Also most of these owners make good money on their interest -- so holding on to money for an extra-4-5 months helps their bottom line.

If there’s a way to get more money, I imagine all owners are going to take advantage, right? Capitalism at its finest, no way billionaires are turning down opportunities to make more money. 
 

Would the Wentz deal go against the theory Dans money is impacting player moves ($27mil)? Curious, I don’t have a pulse on the whole Dan money situation. 

 

43 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

If it doesn't effect a single player or coach, then to your point Dan isn't much of a liability at all and this is as good a destination spot than any other place. 

 

So the stories QBs saying no to wanting to be traded to Washington are just agents making it up?

 

Logan Paulsen flat out said he knows in that building they see they have a problem with luring players based on league wise peception.  Is he making it up, too?

 

I can go on and on with others who have said the same thing.   Or maybe you are getting at, yes its a problem but overpaying solves all. 

 

So you can talk anyone into it by overpaying them.  So as to the stories of Russell Wilson not wanting to come here -- address it this way, Denver wants to give you an extension for 48 million a year and 161 guaranteed -- we will give you 55 million and 180 guaranteed.

 

Yeah I don't disagree that Dan can likely get who he wants by offering something outrageous.  But are we living in reality with that stuff?  We are talking real world not fantasy.   By that I mean the top level players are going to get on the market top dollar.  Are we the ones to just blow that apart on move after move?

 

Teams are already willing to basically overpay name that star -- do we want to destroy our cap by taking that one step further and just break the barriers on salary like the Browns did with Deshaun Watson -- by going over the top with offers that scream hey you don't want to come here how about a 100% guaranteed contract, etc. 

 

Even if we adapt the lets get outrageous with our offers where players can't say no, Dan clearly isn't willing to do it.  And if he did would we really want to destory the cap just to make a point?

It doesn’t surprise me the Browns and a broncos, both being the more inept franchises in recent years were the ones to secure big money QBs. They both went to different levels other organizations weren’t willing to gain their services. Money and power. This is how you secure the entitled (right or wrong) player or coach. 
 

Just as it doesn’t surprise me Denver was willing to cede all power in the FO and make him the highest paid coach and that Payton was interviewing with the weaker franchises in the league. Money and power. 

For example, Sean Payton would’ve had zero interest in let’s say Baltimore and Pittsburgh jobs were available and these organizations would have zero interest in him. Their model is to hire young, hungry, and up and coming coach that will be grateful and loyal to the organization for many years.

A little off course, but feel like many state the opposite and it’s just not how it works. 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

24 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

If there’s a way to get more money, I imagine all owners are going to take advantage, right? Capitalism at its finest, no way billionaires are turning down opportunities to make more money. 
 

Would the Wentz deal go against the theory Dans money is impacting player moves ($27mil)? Curious, I don’t have a pulse on the whole Dan money situation. 

 

 

 

 

Wentz is actually an easy contract for him because it had no guaranteed money beyond one year which is really unusual for a QB with some peidgree.  

 

There is plenty of nuance to the cash flow argument.  Some here liked to ridicule it via for example the Dan is broke thread to basically set up a no lose premise for Dan on this front.  Or define cash flow based on name that layperson off the street as opposed to a billionaire, dealing with billioniare style expenses.  But of course comparing Dan to us, like we are saying he has real people financial issues like lets say can he afford or not to use Uber Eats more than once a week is ridiculous.   

 

Dan is rich.  No one doubts that.  His version of cash flow is way different than how we would define ours.    The issue he is from what I understand it is simple.

 

A.  Most of his new worth is in the value of the team.  

B.  he has to pay back 450 million dollar loan if I believe by 2026

C.  the stadium is decaying, they are dead last in fan attendance

D. It will likely cost 2-3 billion for a new stadium and he needs to start it soon

 

 

Some act like some of the people here are just spit balling on this.  But the reason why it became a topic is more and more beat guys started mentioning ths as an issue.  And over time, the stories have really grown legs.    

 

Also its not about whether someone can pull off paying for this or that but its whether they want to do it considering their finances.  My biggest asset is my house.  I can sell it and I'll have more cash than I've ever had.  But do I want to?

 

 

24 minutes ago, wit33 said:

It doesn’t surprise me the Browns and a broncos, both being the more inept franchises in recent years were the ones to secure big money QBs. They both went to different levels other organizations weren’t willing to gain their services. Money and power. This is how you secure the entitled (right or wrong) player or coach. 
 

Just as it doesn’t surprise me Denver was willing to cede all power in the FO and make him the highest paid coach and that Payton was interviewing with the weaker franchises in the league. Money and power. 

For example, Sean Payton would’ve had zero interest in let’s say Baltimore and Pittsburgh jobs were available and these organizations would have zero interest in him. Their model is to hire young, hungry, and up and coming coach that will be grateful and loyal to the organization for many years.

A little off course, but feel like many state the opposite and it’s just not how it works. 

 

 

If Denver is inept.  Imagine us?  They won a SB 7 years ago and in our 30 year drought of not winning more than 10 games -- they beat winning over 10 games 9 times in that same span.   

 

Browns is probably a better analogy.  Bad owner.   They have a talented team but still can't get it right.  Still they knocked us out of the playoffs so tough for me to feel too snobby versus them.   Also like us can barely top 10 games but heck they topped it 2 years ago, we are running on 30 years plus. 

Edited February 6, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[wit33]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Wentz is actually an easy contract for him because it had no guaranteed money beyond one year which is really unusual for a QB with some peidgree.  

 

There is plenty of nuance to the cash flow argument.  Some here liked to ridicule it via for example the Dan is broke thread to basically set up a no lose premise for Dan on this front.  Or define cash flow based on name that layperson off the street as opposed to a billionaire, dealing with billioniare style expenses.  But of course comparing Dan to us, like we are saying he has real people financial issues like lets say can he afford or not to use Uber Eats more than once a week is ridiculous.   

 

Dan is rich.  No one doubts that.  His version of cash flow is way different than how we would define ours.    The issue he is from what I understand it is simple.

 

A.  Most of his new worth is in the value of the team.  

B.  he has to pay back 450 million dollar loan if I believe by 2026

C.  the stadium is decaying, they are dead last in fan attendance

D. It will likely cost 2-3 billion for a new stadium and he needs to start it soon

 

 

Some act like some of the people here are just spit balling on this.  But the reason why it became a topic is more and more beat guys started mentioning ths as an issue.  And over time, the stories have really grown legs.    

 

Also its not about whether someone can pull off paying for this or that but its whether they want to do it considering their finances.  My biggest asset is my house.  I can sell it and I'll have more cash than I've ever had.  But do I want to?

 

Appreciate the background information.

 

I haven’t noticed any competitive disadvantage in terms of cash flow just yet from a player and coach standpoint, but certainly see where the paying back substantial loans and pressure from NFL to build a stadium may be causing Dan some struggles. 

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

If Denver is inept.  Imagine us?  They won a SB 7 years ago and in our 30 year drought of not winning more than 10 games -- they beat winning over 10 games 9 times in that same span. 
 

 

I don’t believe players or coaches care how well an organization did 7 years ago. Can’t envision a 25-30 year old caring about that. Sure, from a fan perspective we value this kind of stuff and debate other fan bases, but for the player and coach… nah. 
 

Broncos have been an absolute mess for better part of 5 years. One of the worst franchises over this period, sure, they still have some name recognition and positive associations, but it’s undeserved over last 5-7 years or so.
 

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

Browns is probably a better analogy.  Bad owner.   They have a talented team but still can't get it right.  Still they knocked us out of the playoffs so tough for me to feel too snobby versus them.   Also like us can barely top 10 games but heck they topped it 2 years ago, we are running on 30 years plus. 

 

Again, I don’t think the player or coach cares about these kind of stats. Agents, GMs, and personalities play to our emotions with this kind of banter, but players can give a damn lol

[KDawg]

Denver has an owner that will throw money around because he is cash rich. Why is that more dysfunctional than us who currently has an owner who can’t even sell his house?

[Skinsinparadise]

29 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

Appreciate the background information.

 

I haven’t noticed any competitive disadvantage in terms of cash flow just yet from a player and coach standpoint, but certainly see where the paying back substantial loans and pressure from NFL to build a stadium may be causing Dan some struggles. 

 

 

Some say its the reason why they barely partaked in FA last year is because we hit Dan's budget after getting Wentz. Ron mentioned them not going to Richmond for training camp last year because it was expensive. Sheehan mentioned that he heard that Dan cut down on expenses on the road for players.

 

The facilities are 2nd rate still. It's possible that Dan is just cheap versus having cash flow issues. 

 

But i think at this point give or take 10 different reporters referred to hearing about Dan's cash flow issues, including Mike Jones saying he's heard it himself from multiple people in the know.

 

29 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

I don’t believe players or coaches care how well an organization did 7 years ago. Can’t envision a 25-30 year old caring about that. Sure, from a fan perspective we value this kind of stuff and debate other fan bases, but for the player and coach… nah. 
 

Broncos have been an absolute mess for better part of 5 years. One of the worst franchises over this period, sure, they still have some name recognition and positive associations, but it’s undeserved over last 5-7 years or so.
 

 

Again, I don’t think the player or coach cares about these kind of stats. Agents, GMs, and personalities play to our emotions with this kind of banter, but players can give a damn lol

 

You shifted the goal posts.  You were saying Denver and the Browns are bad organizations.  I responded to that.  And you shifted now to whether players care about the success or not from years back.  Denver has had a very Washington like run in that spate of time.  But before that did pretty darn good.  We've not had success in eons.  The down years that you make fun of for Denver represent ironically the typical business as usual Dan Snyder year.  Dan not had a good run at all - period, zero in his 23 years.  

Edited February 6, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[wit33]

22 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Some say its the reason why they barely partaked in FA last year is because we hit Dan's budget after getting Wentz. Ron mentioned them not going to Richmond for training camp last year because it was expensive. Sheehan mentioned that he heard that Dan cut down on expenses on the road for players.

 

The facilities are 2nd rate still. It's possible that Dan is just cheap versus having cash flow issues. 

 

But i think at this point give or take 10 different reporters referred to hearing about Dan's cash flow issues, including Mike Jones saying he's heard it himself from multiple people in the know.

 

No debate from me on cash flow. It’s my understanding each team at a minimum must use 95% of the cap, Washington uses that and some in most season from what I’ve seen and can remember. Truly, I can be missing the point on this but it appears with the hard cap most teams are within one another in terms of spending. I can remember in recent years the NFL putting minimum that must be spent to avoid franchises from doing what Dan is rumored to be doing. 

 

For sure, the facilities, paying assistant coaches, and other things has always been in a bad space for Snyder pre “money problems”, no? 
 

22 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

You shifted the goal posts.  You were saying Denver and the Browns are bad organizations.  I responded to that.  And you shifted now to whether players care about the success or not from years back.  Denver has had a very Washington like run in that spate of time.  But before that did pretty darn good.  We've not had success in eons.  The down years that you make fun of for Denver represent ironically the typical business as usual Dan Snyder year.  Dan not had a good run at all - period, zero in his 23 years.  

 

The goal post for me continues to be whether Washington can attract coaches and players as they stand currently, history in my view, says yes. 
 

Russel Wilson didn’t go to Denver because of the SB 7 years ago, they were the most aggressive and probably the only team willing to give Wilson that monster extension and all the other reported amenities (office, family access, parking spaces). No way Ron was in on that I’d he heard about those requests.
 

Denver is one of the worst ran franchises currently in the NFL, Wilson still chose them. He was given money and unique power for a player, so he was all in. This is why I’m all out on the entitled QB on a personal level and as a rooting fan. 

[Conn]

Spending up to the cap minimum is very very different from being willing to place endless numbers of huge signing bonuses entirely in Escrow upon signing, or manipulating the cap by turning salary into lump sum bonuses etc—this is the “cash” advantage that other teams have had over Snyder for quite a long time now. I don’t understand how someone could follow this team and say that they haven’t yet seen Snyder’s lack of spending effect our competitiveness. It’s wild we’re even still having this conversation and re-litigating it again and again. Reliable reporting, over and over again, has vindicated those of us who have been talking about it the last couple off-seasons (and longer). This is “settled science”, so to speak. 

[abdcskins]

Saw a mock draft today having us draft Anthony Richardson.  Only saw him play once early last year and he seemed to have decent arm strength and speed, but I know he fell off a lot as the season progressed.  Guess the coaching staff may not be happy with just Howell.  I don't blame them.  I'd be happy with them battling it out throughout camp.  Having two talented young QBs on the roster is a good thing.

[wit33]

22 minutes ago, Conn said:

Spending up to the cap minimum is very very different from being willing to place endless numbers of huge signing bonuses entirely in Escrow upon signing, or manipulating the cap by turning salary into lump sum bonuses etc—this is the “cash” advantage that other teams have had over Snyder for quite a long time now. I don’t understand how someone could follow this team and say that they haven’t yet seen Snyder’s lack of spending affect is our competitiveness. It’s wild we’re even still having this conversation and re-litigating it again and again. Reliable reporting, over and over again, has vindicated those of us who have been talking about it the last couple off-seasons (and longer). This is “settled science”, so to speak. 

Did Washington not do this with Jon Allen and Mcclaurin contracts? What you state above? 
 

The rest of the NFL is doing this and Snyder is one of the only few? 
 

If you are referring to the Saints or Rams or similar type teams, they haven’t achieved any competitive advantage, they’re simply moving money to future years. It’s not uncommon to attempt extend championship windows this way. This is more philosophical differences than a competitive disadvantage. 
 

Im here and willing to be educated. 

[RWJ]

I think it's pretty easy to see and say Howell is our #1.  It is for me.  He dismantled the Cowboy starting D by putting up 26 points on them and more if WRs didn't drop a couple key passes. Bring in a vet on the cheap to back him up and spend a 4th/5th round pick on another QB.  Pretty simple.  

[FootballZombie]

Regardless of the problems and obstacles we face I still expect them to operate in a similar manner to previous seasons at QB.

 

They didn't walk into 2021 with the mindset of no one will come here so we might as well settle for what we can get. They swung on desirable candidates like Stafford and made them refuse. Then they moved on to sign FitzMagic.

 

Same deal in 2022. They went after desirable targets like Wilson, and shook the trees to try to pry loose QBs from other teams like Carr. Only then did they resign themselves to Wentz.

 

I doubt we walk into another year with the mindset of scraping the bottom of the barrel. We'll continue to swing on guys until we land one, even higher quality and expensive ones.

[Skinsinparadise]

4 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

The rest of the NFL is doing this and Snyder is one of the only few? 
 

If you are referring to the Saints or Rams or similar type teams, they haven’t achieved any competitive advantage, they’re simply moving money to future years. It’s not uncommon to attempt extend championship windows this way. This is more philosophical differences than a competitive disadvantage. 
 

Im here and willing to be educated. 

 

Lets use a layman's example. I'll make up some figures for argument sake.

 

Lets say my net worth is 1.5 million.  1 million of that is my house.  I have $150,000 in investments.  $150,000 in cash.

 

Lets' say here's how my normal finances just changed tying this apples to apples this to Dan.  And changed is the operative point.

 

Now lets say I just took out a $200,000 loan for buying out my business partners that I have to pay back the bank in 6 years.  And I have to spend 2 million on a new house soon.  And I got to deal with that all at the same time.  That's sort of what Dan is dealing with. 

 

All of a sudden he has the biggest loan to pay back since he bought the team.  450 million  And he needs to spend 2 to 3 billion on a stadium and it looks like he's getting shut out from public spending.  This is hitting him at the same time.    It's just basic math.

 

And even if I couldn't follow the math.  Local reporters and national reporters have said they've heard its an issue.  Couple that with Ron referencing them cutting back on expenses (training camp), Sheehan saying he heard they are cutting back on expenses.  On and on with stuff that has been said that we put on this thread and other threads.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

49 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

Regardless of the problems and obstacles we face I still expect them to operate in a similar manner to previous seasons at QB.

 

They didn't walk into 2021 with the mindset of no one will come here so we might as well settle for what we can get. They swung on desirable candidates like Stafford and made them refuse. Then they moved on to sign FitzMagic.

 

Same deal in 2022. They went after desirable targets like Wilson, and shook the trees to try to pry loose QBs from other teams like Carr. Only then did they resign themselves to Wentz.

 

I doubt we walk into another year with the mindset of scraping the bottom of the barrel. We'll continue to swing on guys until we land one, even higher quality and expensive ones.

 

So I take it you're not part of Howell's Herd (or whatever name it has)?

 

What about the rumors that potential OC candidates were told to expect Howell to enter the off-season program as QB 1?

[Skinsinparadise]

What a fun ride its been. 😧   If I had to sum up the post Gibbs 1 era -- its Dan the douche and comical inemptness at the QB spot.

 

As the Washington Football Team's QB quest enters Year 29, ESPN Analytics ranks its past 30 starters 

 

ASHBURN, Va. -- On Sunday, Ryan Fitzpatrick became the Washington Football Team's 31st starting quarterback since Mark Rypien left the lineup in Week 2 of the 1993 season.

Fitzpatrick left Washington's 20-16 loss against the Los Angeles Chargers with a hip injury after attempting six passes and was placed on injured reserve with a chance to return later this season. Backup Taylor Heinicke was named the starter for Thursday's game against the visiting New York Giants (8:20 p.m. ET, NFL Network), a situation that is emblematic of the franchise's quest for a long-term answer at the position.

 

It's a 29-year search that has featured bad timing, worse luck and questionable decisions.

Rypien, who led the team to victory in Super Bowl XXVI after the 1991 season, started 26 games over the next two years but never rekindled his winning magic. Washington has since used first-round draft picks on five quarterbacks (Heath Shuler, Patrick Ramsey, Jason Campbell, Robert Griffin III and Dwayne Haskins), acquired three who started in Super Bowls for other teams (Jeff Hostetler, Donovan McNabb and Rex Grossman), and watched two others (Brad Johnson and Rich Gannon) do so after leaving the team. It also had a transformative quarterback (Griffin) who starred as a rookie, got hurt and was gone from the franchise three years later.

 

As Washington closes on the 30th anniversary of its last Super Bowl win, ESPN set out to rank the 30 quarterbacks who started for the franchise between Rypien and Fitzpatrick, to provide context about the search for a leader that has touched four decades.

 

As a reporter who has covered 28 of the 30 players on this list -- and after interviewing nearly two dozen people, including former Washington coaches and teammates -- arriving at an irrefutable ranking for me was challenging. Several of these quarterbacks barely touched the field with Washington, while others faced obstacles such as coaching staffs that didn't want them, schemes that didn't fit their talents or injuries.

We enlisted the help of ESPN Analytics to apply a sense of order. That ranking (explained below) isn't perfect, but it does highlight the volatility of Washington's quest.

 

No quarterback since Rypien has made more than 60 starts for this franchise. Only two -- Kirk Cousins and Jason Campbell -- topped 50 starts, and 12 made five or fewer. Heck, receiver Terry McLaurin has played 30 games in Washington and caught passes from seven quarterbacks.

 

During Washington's search, its NFC East rivals have enjoyed long stretches of stability at the position. The Dallas Cowboys have had three quarterbacks (Troy Aikman, Tony Romo and Dak Prescott) start at least 70 games; Eli Manning started 234 for the New York Giants; and from 2000 to 2012, the Philadelphia Eagles had Donovan McNabb (10 seasons) and Michael Vick (three seasons) combine for 172 starts over that span.

The turnover has hurt the quality of QB play for Washington, which has had two postseason wins since Rypien's last full season in 1992. Nobody knew the frustration better than right tackle Jon Jansen, who played with 10 starting quarterbacks from 1999 to 2008.

"[When there's] constant change at quarterback," Jansen said, "you don't ever get a chance to develop a rhythm and develop the relationship you need on the field."

 

Here is our analytics-based ranking, presented in order from the back of the pack at No. 30 to the best at No. 1. Included are thoughts from ESPN draft analyst 

Note: ESPN Analytics ranked the QBs according to a combination of regular-season passing efficiency (yards per attempt), weighted 75%, and total passing yards, weighted 25%. Players with few appearances (fewer than 1,000 passing yards) were ranked below those with more significant appearances and sorted solely by total passing yards. To account for the changing nature of the NFL's passing game, yardage and efficiency were adjusted according to the years in which they occurred.

* Games and record totals include playoff appearances with Washington.

 

 

30. Mark Sanchez (2018)

Games: 2 | Record: 0-1 | TDs: 0 | INTs: 3 | Pass yards: 138

Within two weeks of signing, he became the starter after Colt McCoy was injured. Sanchez's lone start was disastrous: He completed 6 of 14 passes for 38 yards and two interceptions. He was benched for the second half and never played in the NFL again.

Keim's take: I would have slotted him at No. 28 but acknowledge that his one half was one of the worst in recent memory.

---

---

 

29. Taylor Heinicke (2020-present)*

Games: 3 | Record: 0-1 | TDs: 2 | INTs: 0 | Pass yards: 259

On Dec. 7, he was a student at Old Dominion taking math classes. A day later he signed with Washington, and a month later he started a playoff game against Tom Brady and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Heinicke entered the 2021 season as Fitzpatrick's backup, with a multiyear contract and strong fan support. He has an opportunity to climb this list, starting Thursday.

Keim's take: There's no doubt he belongs higher, but this is indicative of how few snaps he has taken in Washington.

 

....

 

2. Brad Johnson (1999-2000)*

Games: 30 | Record: 18-11 | TDs: 35 | INTs: 28 | Pass yards: 6,510

After Washington couldn't re-sign Green, it traded for Johnson, who threw for 4,005 yards and 24 touchdowns and was the NFL's fifth-ranked passer on the NFL's second-ranked offense in 1999. Washington won the NFC East, but Snyder signed George in the offseason.

That was the beginning of the end for Johnson, who knew, after multiple meetings with Snyder, that his days were numbered. Schottenheimer asked him to stay because Johnson was a good fit, but the damage was done. Johnson went to the Buccaneers, leading them to victory in Super Bowl XXXVII after the 2002 season.

"[Washington] was one place I would have wanted to stay," said Johnson, who played for four teams, including two stints with the Minnesota Vikings. "I always told my wife and my close friends that I wish it would have worked out in Washington."

 

 

Said Mitchell: "I would say Dan [Snyder] regrets that move, letting Brad leave, more than anything in the world. Brad was a real quarterback. He wasn't sexy, but he was intellectual."

Keim's take: He would be tops on my list. The biggest issue was that he played only two years and was hurt for one of them.

---

 

1. Kirk Cousins (2012-17)*

 

Games: 64 | Record: 26-31-1 | TDs: 99 | INTs: 55 | Pass yards: 16,206

Coaches always liked Cousins' ability and knowledge, and in 2015 it became obvious he should start. That season he threw for 4,166 yards, 29 touchdowns and 11 interceptions.

"[Before] if something bad happened he'd hang his head, but once he started having confidence, that's when he flourished," Gruden said.

But to keep Cousins, Washington needed to use the franchise tag in consecutive years. Once the team applied the first one, Cousins' side knew he would never sign a long-term deal because his price would be too high. The sides never came close to a deal.

Keim's take: I understand why the analytics put him this high, but I would rank him second. If you had to win one game and were choosing between Cousins and Brad Johnson, I would take the latter.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32202487/as-washington-football-team-qb-quest-enters-year-29-espn-analytics-ranks-30-starters

[FootballZombie]

6 minutes ago, Always A Commander Never A Captain said:

So I take it you're not part of Howell's Herd (or whatever name it has)

 

To me, Howell has earned the chance to participate in a fair QB comp if we are unable to reel in a QB1 who would eliminate the need for said comp. That's about as far as that goes ATM.

 

8 minutes ago, Always A Commander Never A Captain said:

What about the rumors that potential OC candidates were told to expect Howell to enter the off-season program as QB 1?

 

I doubt those were rumors. Howell is the only current option we can offer an incoming OC as he is the only viable candidate on the roster w/ the expectation that Wentz gets cut. Who else are they gonna say? Someone not on the team? Howell is QB1 until you bring new blood aboard.

 

We have no idea what QB we will be capable of reeling in or who will be made available in the coming months. Can't exactly walk out and dangle specific QBs to prospective coaches that you both don't contractually control and can't legally talk to right now as that would be tampering. Every OC we talk to has to understand that Howell is all we have right now. That does not mean its not subject to change. I also do expect that to change w/ a vet addition.

[kingdaddy]

1 hour ago, FootballZombie said:

Regardless of the problems and obstacles we face I still expect them to operate in a similar manner to previous seasons at QB.

 

They didn't walk into 2021 with the mindset of no one will come here so we might as well settle for what we can get. They swung on desirable candidates like Stafford and made them refuse. Then they moved on to sign FitzMagic.

 

Same deal in 2022. They went after desirable targets like Wilson, and shook the trees to try to pry loose QBs from other teams like Carr. Only then did they resign themselves to Wentz.

 

I doubt we walk into another year with the mindset of scraping the bottom of the barrel. We'll continue to swing on guys until we land one, even higher quality and expensive ones.

I really hope you're wrong but history would agree with you. That being said, you'd think that RR would learn that no matter how much you put into a vet QB if you don't build the offensive line what does it matter? Look at the QB's that have gotten big time injuries on Ron's watch: Alex Smith, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Carson Wentz. Knowing this it's time to try something different.

[MartinC]

8 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

 

Im not challenging whether Dan has money issues, I have zero fan interest with that side of it.  I know Washington will spend 95% of the cap at minimum and have been above that in most years. 

Cap spending and cash spending are very different things. In fact one of the ways teams spend less on the cap (in the initial years of a players contract) is by spending lots of cash up front with big signing bonus payments that can be spread across the length of the contract lowering the cap charge in the initial years. Cash over cap.

 

Lower cash spending up front in big deals leads to higher cap spending.

[88Comrade2000]

Uh, Denver’s new owners just took over in August. Russell got the extension in September, though that probably was in the works and they just approved.  You really can’t judge the new owners until after they took over. The first big decision was firing Hackett and the second big decision was hiring Sean Payton. If Russell doesn’t rebound in 23, that will

be the next big decision.

 

 

When we get our new owner, he or she will be judged then. His first moves are likely to be front office and then Ron’s status beyond 23.

 

 

[Jumbo]

[method man]

37 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Uh, Denver’s new owners just took over in August. Russell got the extension in September, though that probably was in the works and they just approved.  You really can’t judge the new owners until after they took over. The first big decision was firing Hackett and the second big decision was hiring Sean Payton. If Russell doesn’t rebound in 23, that will

be the next big decision.

 

 

When we get our new owner, he or she will be judged then. His first moves are likely to be front office and then Ron’s status beyond 23.

 

 

 

I think the recent pattern of new ownership is that it takes them time to figure it out and the first few years tend to be a struggle. Khan is just getting it together in Jacksonville, the Haslams still haven't really figured it out, Tepper is figuring it out and the Waltons are figuring it out. I think the very wealthy crowd that is coming in tends to want to make a big splash at the start that oftentimes doesn't work out and they need the time to learn from their mistakes. That is the upside with Josh Harris - having owned two teams, I get the sense that his learning curve will be a lot shorter than a Bezos who has not owned a team before

[NickyJ]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32202487/as-washington-football-team-qb-quest-enters-year-29-espn-analytics-ranks-30-starters

I know it's unrelated to the more important discussions here, but I had no idea Beck had this attitude.

 

 

Quote

 

23. John Beck (2011)

Games: 4 | Record: 0-3 | TDs: 2 | INTs: 4 | Pass yards: 858

Former coach Mike Shanahan once said he would stand on a table to advocate for Beck. Players would not. During the 2011 lockout, Beck organized workouts.

Said former Washington tight end Chris Cooley: "What I remember is he called everyone and said, 'This is John Beck, your starting quarterback.' We all called each other and said, 'Is he the starting QB or just saying that?' I didn't hate the confidence."

But it didn't translate to games. His last two starts were disasters: He was sacked 10 times in a shutout loss against the Buffalo Bills because he wouldn't throw the ball.

"He panicked," Cooley said.

The next week he dumped the ball off to running back Roy Helu 14 times and averaged 5.4 yards per pass attempt. In those games, Beck posted Total QBRs of 11.3 and 25.8, respectively.

"He thought he was going to be the guy," former receiver Santana Moss said. "He sucked ass; I won't lie to you. I broke my hand and didn't play the [final two] games with him. Nothing better could have happened to me, because I didn't have to play with this guy. ... You talk all this stuff in the offseason and lay this egg."

Beck never played again but has transformed himself into a quarterback teacher, training players for the NFL.

Keim's take: I would have ranked him No. 30 based on the eye test and also with input from a number of ex-players.

 

 

 

[illone]

How can he rank Beck higher than anyone?

 

He was turrble. 

[FootballZombie]

1 hour ago, NickyJ said:

I know it's unrelated to the more important discussions here, but I had no idea Beck had this attitude.

 

That's some serious confidence.

Small dog energy for sure. Its great till you get over your head.

 

 

 

 

[zCommander]

2 hours ago, NickyJ said:

I know it's unrelated to the more important discussions here, but I had no idea Beck had this attitude.

 

 

I think it was Kyle Shanahan who wanted Beck and traded for him instead of keeping Colt Brennan (who I thought was better than Beck). At the time I said it was stupid to do that since why would the Ravens trade for him with one our own player. They were eager to get rid of him. Not sure what Shanahan saw in him. He was so meh - even meh is giving him too much credit. 

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by zCommander