Why does everybody want Dilfer>

[Thinking Skins]

I dont see this fascination. Sure he went to the Super Bowl, but I think that he is nothing but an average QB at best. Remember, he was one of those first round busts. Every time he started from the getgo, he has looked horrible. Sure he did an adequate job coming in as a backup two years ago to Banks, but thats entirely different. I remember that guy named Gus was just like that. When we had him as out 2nd and third string QB, he looked like a pro bbowl calibre player, but then when we said that he would be out starting quarterback, he just plummited and showed why he wasnt set to be a starter.

I dont see Dilfer improving on the problems that Banks has, namely reading defenses and looking at more than just his primary recievers. i havent seen him play too much, but what I have seen has been the skills that I would look for in a backup.

He may be able to lead a team with an exremely dominant defense that doesnt allow others to score points and a running back that can get the ball 30-35 times a game, which we have right now in Davis, but I want more than that in a QB. Suppose Davis gets hurt (and I hope I'm not knocking on wood), but Dilfer couldnt lead the team on his sholders like some of these other QB's can.

[OrangeSkin]

Dilfer has improved his level of play greatly since he got run out of Tampa Bay. There was just so much pressure, he couldn't function correctly. It's just not humanly possible to play your best when you have an incredible amount of stress on you.

And he wasn't exactly a backup in Baltimore. It wasn't like Banks got hurt, and he came in and did an adequate job. Banks was stinking the field up, and Dilfer was named the starter. He has good fundamentals, and can throw the ball decently. All he does is WIN. he's 19-1 in his previous 20 starts.

We have that defense (maybe not dominant, but pretty damn good), and we have that running back. If Davis goes down we have Ki-Jana, and even if both of them go down, hopefully we'll get some help in the offseason at the WR position. Dilfer is a huge step above Banks, as evidenced by what happened in Baltimore last season.

He has a bad rap from his days in Tampa, but that was more or less the press, coaches, and players slamming him because he hadn't performed to the extroadinarily lofty expectations they'd had for him.

He's a team player, and he won't agitate anybody in the lockeroom. That's a major plus. He'll go along with anything Marty wants to do, that's a given as well. And his arm isn't that shoddy either.

He's good enough, but not so good he feels he has to carry the weight of the world on his shoulders, which will result in picks (i.e. Peyton Manning).

In my humble opinion, he'd be the perfect QB for us.

[ by OrangeSkin on January 02, 2002.]

[indyskinsfan]

Let's be reminded of who will be available next year and who may not. Miller may still re-sign with Chicago, so that's no gaurantee, no matter what others say. Bledsoe is a "surgeon's dream" and is spending too much time in the hospital.

Freorrote, well ya' know

[<IMG SRC="http://www.extremeskins.com/ubb/edited.gif" border=0> by indyskinsfan on January 02, 2002.]

[ by indyskinsfan on January 02, 2002.]

[Darth Tater]

The one thing that Dilfer has is the attitude of a winner. He doesn't have the greatest stats in the world but then he played for Tampa and then came off the bench last year. Everybody knows that if you give a qb who played for Tampa a chance, he'll turn around

[Brave]

Dilfer is a capable, though not spectacular QB. He has shown marked improvement since his dog days in Tampa Bay. Good head, good attitude, good enough arm and not one to make a lot of mistakes. He may not be the guy to CARRY a team on his back (a la Favre), but his skills can still go a long way in today's game.

He has won something like 13 out of his last 14 starts. Anyone name any QB with a better record over that period?

[OrangeSkin]

Brave - Actually, he won 19 out of his last 20 starts. That's one hell of a record.

[Thinking Skins]

Thats one stat that I dont like. Saying that Dilfer won those games is like saying that it was all him, when in fact it was actually all the defense. I know our defense improved this year and I am real happy about that, but I dont want to get in over our heads. Our Defense is not the Ravens Defense of 2000. As monotone as our offense was this year, Dilfer wont get it much better.

[TennesseeCarl]

He's the grass over on the other side of the fence.

I'd prefer Dilfer, but I'm not gonna talk him up. It's just that 160-Yards-Passing Tony Banks (on a good day) has been so lame.

[Brave]

Dilfer does have the ability to check down to second and third options, which Banks does not seem to have.

No, Dilfer won't win many games on his own. But neither do most of the QBs in this league.

[OrangeSkin]

Baltimore had the same defense when Banks was QB, and they went on a huge skid. It was no coincidence that when Dilfer came in they won 11 in a row on their way to the SuperBowl.

[88Comrade2000]

And who do you want blakman211?

Bledsoe's price is to high. Despite all the talk he isn't coming here. Brunnell if available is someone the Skins under Marty probably won't after.

For the offense Marty wants to run, Dilfer seems like a good fit. Ray Lucus, Jim Miller or even Jeff Blake maybe considered. These are the only 4 qb's I think the Skins will seriously look at. Now Synder might want to look at Bledsoe or Brunnell if available but Synder isn't running the show.

The Skins will probably draft a QB in the later rounds. If we had Dilfer; we are in the playoffs. Marty fooled himself into thinking Jeff George could be his QB. Or Else Dilfer would've already been our QB.

We will see what happens.

[Thinking Skins]

I'm not saying that I dont want Dilfer. I just dont think that he should the guy that we want the most. I like several other guys who might come avaliable this offseason or that we can trade for, Ray Lucas, Jim Miller, and Shuan King are at the top of my list.

I dont think that Dilfer will come in here and be a Heath Schuler type bust, but I dont see much improvement between him and Banks. I mean, Banks did go 8-3 as a starter through the final 11 games. He did a nice job of protecting the ball for the most part, and it can be argued that the more he learns the playbook, the more comfortable he will be with dropping the ball off to other recievers as opposed to locking onto the first guy.

So why get into a bidding war for this guy Dilfer when we can just stick with Banks and get just about the same result.

[88Comrade2000]

Originally posted by blakman211:

So why get into a bidding war for this guy Dilfer when we can just stick with Banks and get just about the same result.

That's the thing. Most of us think with Dilfer the team makes the playoffs. We win the first Dallas game. We win the Bears and 2nd Eagle game. That right there would make us 10-5 and not 7-8. We win the east.

Banks isn't a consistent player. I'd take Dilfer over Lucus and Miller. Shawn King might be a draw. I don't think he's played enough to say he's a franchise QB. Whoever we get will probably only be starting for 2-3 years while we groom that qb of the future to take over.

[The Sisko]

What you said OrangeSkin. Also, Dilfer reportedly has a quality that's "overrated"....leadership that is.

The only other guy that's been mentioned as possibly being available in the offseason that I would want instead of Dilfer is Brunell.

[fansince62]

if we do bring in a new qb, do we need to do it early? give the guy ample time to learn the syste & informally work out with the team?

[Brave]

"if we do bring in a new qb, do we need to do it early?" - al

That could only help. Coming in so late was one reason Banks got off to such a slow start (permanent limitations aside.) More importantly though, it would give the team direction for the draft and subsequent FA moves.

As far as draft picks the D-line is probably our most pressing need, but as far as timing is concerned I'd say addressing the QB position is the most critical.

[ by Brave on January 03, 2002.]

[bulldog]

with all due respect Blakman, Dilfer is an upgrade from Banks and is not an average quarterback. He is a winner because of his intangibles and that makes a difference that is not always readily apparent in these days of obsession over 4.5 mobility and the ability to throw the ball 70 yards downfield.

Dilfer is not a great quarterback on pure skills alone, he will never be such.

But he won 12 starts for the Ravens last year and is 3-0 with the Seahawks this year because he executes a gameplan very well. He has become a more accurate passer later in his career, is a tough competitor that garners the respect of teammates by hanging in and taking the shot to deliver the ball, and he rarely makes the killer mistake.

If you go back and look at last season Dilfer lead the Ravens to 3 comeback wins in the second half of games.

The stereotype that he is merely a guy that hands the ball off if a mistaken one.

Dilfer at 29 and Banks at 28 are two different creatures. Dilfer has come to grips with who he is and no longer attempts to hold onto the illusion that he is more than he is to the football team he plays for. That allows him to be more comfortable and play within himself.

Banks is still fighting with the demons of who he is vs. who he thinks he should have been. He thinks he should have been a top 5 passer, but has failed to live up to those expectations.

So, the question is, where does he go from here? Does he become more a student of the game, using his mind to outwit opponents and avoid the major gaffes and mistakes through meticulous preparation, or is he a guy that continues to deny that the window on him being another Brett Favre or Warren Moon is over and continues to search for that opportunity where he is going to be the focal point of an offense?

In my mind you either get an established quarterback who is still young enough to give you some future, in Brunell or Bledsoe OR you keep that #1 pick, take a lineman and then pick up Dilfer and take a quarterback #2 to understudy him for a couple of years.

I don't really see another scenario. Oh, it might be Miller rather than Dilfer, but the strategy will be the same.

Improve the offense by acquiring a quarterback that is better than Banks at reading defenses and running a multi-set offense and allowing a younger player to ease into the role of a #2.

[Terry]

Winning games is nice, but it is a team stat.

I went and checked Dilfer's QB stats over the past 3 seasons - 27 games. That's his last TB season, his year with the Ravens, and this season so far.

He's 331/554 for 3887 yds - 59.7% He's thrown 28 TDs and 24 picks with a 3.9 pick %. His average QB rating during that time is 84.3.

In the past 2 seasons he's gotten into 17 games. He's 185/310 2268, 59.7%, 17 TDs, and 13 picks. his QB rating is 88.6.

He didn't start all those games, so it's not a complete picture, and that's with 3 different teams. But in that I tend to fall into the 'what have you done for me lately' category, I feel that this is likely a fairer measure of where he's at currently than using his career stats.

The numbers are what we'd expect. Not great, not horrible. Certainly better than what Banks could likely muster, but that's not saying anything. The number of picks isn't so hot (2 this season), and I know he has had 3 fumbles in the 6 games he's appeared in this year, so he's turning the ball over more than you'd like.

[Brave]

I think in this discussion, you could read Dilfer's "winning" as "not losing." That seems to be the first and most important thing teams look for now in a QB ... one who does not make the mistakes which cost his team victories. This does, in fact, desribe Dilfer. Kerry Collins had that type of year last year.

To be honest, Tony Banks didn't make a lot of game-changing turnovers or glaring errors that lost ball games for Washington. It was more the little things. Consistently not finding the open man on second or third down. Dropping the snap, even if you recover, is essentially a turnover if it keeps you from getting a first down. This is where he failed.

Someone like Dilfer can do enough to win games if he doesn't offset his abilities with mistakes. Banks cannot.

[ by Brave on January 03, 2002.]

[Darth Tater]

I also looked over his stats for his career. You probably could add 5 to 10 points to his rating because when he was at Tampa. His accuracy has generally trended up even while comming off the bench.

Another point, he's had Holmgren and Billick as coaches who are pretty good at coaching WCOs so he at least knows our offensive family.

[bulldog]

the wins were there for the taking this year with Banks and he failed to deliver in crunch time.

games this team could have won with a quarterback making a few plays:

9-7 loss to Dallas, 23-9 loss to Giants after being tied 9-9 in third quarter, 20-6 loss to Eagles after spending the entire fourth quarter in the red zone, 20-14 loss to Dallas when the Skins had 7 points in the first 58 minutes, 20-15 loss to the Bears once again with chances in the red zone repeatedly.

granted, ALL teams have a couple of games where one or two plays could have made the difference.

but it is striking that in the Redskins case the lack of productivity can be traced to a single position on the field in those situations.

The defense in those contests held the opponents to 20 or less points, Davis ran the ball effectively in a number of the games, and the Redskins got the luck of the bounce of the ball to be put in position to win.

And still they lost them all.

[Om]

All of which dovetails nicely with the discussion on Art's GM thread, where I've tried to make the case that even with our button-downed offensive approach, a QB who can deliver just on the plays that are there to be made, and not even have to make something happen on his own, could be just enough to get an otherwise solid team (defense & ST's) into title contention.

I've come full circle on Trent Dilfer. Early in his career, I thought he was a guy who didn't have the smarts or temperament to be a "manager" at QB; thought that he'd always see himself as a gunslinger miscast in a system offense. Today, I see a guy who has subsumed his ego to a remarkable extent, made himself popular among his teammates and a leader, and tailored his game to fit whatever system he's asked to run. And run it well.

No, he doesn't make the hair on the back of your neck stand up like a Favre can, or a Bledsoe can, with 40-yard frozen ropes off his back foot into double coverage that somehow find his receiver, but he has turned into what I consider a legitimate NFL starter with above-average intangibles. And a QB, I would add, whose skill set, demeanor and (hopefully) financial demands fit quite nicely into what we need around here assuming Marty & Jimmy are around next year.

Ideally, I'd take Favre, or Gannon, or Garcia, or Warner, but they're not on the market. Trent is, and I'd be plenty happy to see him in burgundy & gold next year while we continue the search for the future long-term superstar we've been waiting on since ...

[Art]

Guys, you all seem to forget about Dilfer and his skill level that he is, in terms of the skills that make an elite QB, tops in football. He has all the skills at that position and just won that QB challenge contest that measures QB skills. Based on skills alone, he's about as good as there is. Of course, so was Jeff George .

The difference between Dilfer and Banks, really, only is that Dilfer has likely come to understand what he is as an NFL QB and Banks is still coming to grips with it. Banks has another game to play, but, if it's even a moderately good game, he'll have had as good a year this year as Dilfer had last. In terms of performance, limiting mistakes and all that good stuff.

Trent Dilfer in his first year in our offense is NOT a sure fire upgrade over Banks in his second year. In hindsight, we should have made a more serious play for Dilfer this past offseason as he is an ideal QB for Marty. But, we have to put into perspective what Dilfer is. He's a workmanlike player. We'd get the same thing out of Miller or even Fiedler. Dilfer is a love affair waiting to go bad. He'd be a real good fit for Marty, but, he'd still not be a guy to get at all excited about.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[Om]

Over the course of a career, you can see if a guy is getting better, has peaked and is declining, or simply never gets headed upward in the first place. For the sake of this discussion, I'll assume a guy has been around more than 2 or 3 years.

In no particular order, consider these names and tell me what direction their career arc is going:

Tony Banks

Trent Dilfer

Rob Johnson

Mark Brunnell

Elvis Grbac

Steven Beuerline

Gus Frerotte

Drew Bledsoe

These are just some names I've heard mentioned in connection with the Redskins. Maybe there are more, and if so please feel free to add them and/or castigate me.

I won't waste time on the Favre's, Warner's & Gannon's.

To me, from this above list, even the best of them, Brunnell and Bledsoe, I see as having peaked. Plus, Bledsoe I don't see as a good fit here at all, not with his injury, lack of mobility and the fact he's another big-armed downfield guy I don't see as suited to ball-control. Brunnell I am still a bit intrigued by, but somewhat leery of his wheels at this point, and can't help but think his best days are behind him. Plus, for some reason, when I close my eyes I just can't see him in our colors (how's that for scientific reasoning?).

There's only one guy I see on the list as getting markedly better year to year at this point in his career, and that's the guy we're talking about. Obviously, some don't agree that he's getting better at all, but I'm going to stand by what I in my ignorance think I see.

The possibility of our landing a "franchise QB" who will lead us to sustained glory this coming offseason is pretty remote, unless fate smiles and our very own Warner or Garcia falls into our laps. What I see in Dilfer is perhaps the best, most logical alternative of any candidate I've seen or heard discussed to date.

Until I see a better one ... he's number one on my wish list. Not with a bullet, mind you, but hanging tough.

[ by Om on January 03, 2002.]

[GURU]

Dilfer, unlike Tony Banks, is clearly improving. I'm pretty much with Om on this one. Of all those QBs who might be available, Dilfer is the only one with some observable and quatifiable upside.

He's won all three starts with Seattle, who has a good defense, but clearly not a dominant one.

His accuracy is improving. He is completing over 60% of his passes for the first time in his career. He's always had the arm to make big plays. His accuracy was the problem. It's getting better.

He struggled to see the field early in his career, like most QBs. But, again, unlike Banks, he is clearly improving and is pretty good at it, now.

Also, he doesn't make costly turnovers or poor decisions at the worst times.

And he's becoming more of a leader all the time. Seattle's best team performances seem to come when Dilfer has taken over at QB.

Look, Dilfer ain't the most physically gifted guy. But he's not a stiff, either. He's most certainly not a scrambler, but he's more mobile than, say, Drew Bledsoe. He doesn't have freakish arm strength like Favre or Culpepper. But he can still make all the neccessary throws. The thing about Dilfer is that he still has some upside. He hasn't peaked or leveled off yet. His play is good now, and he appears to be improving.

I think saying that we would get the same result with Banks or Dilfer is clearly off base. The proof is in their play -- both last season and this one.

Blakman expressed an interest in other QBs like Ray Lucas, Jim Miller, and Shaun King. First, Dilfer is simply a better QB than Miller. I don't mean to degrade Miller or take anything away from what he has accomplished this season, but Dilfer is a better athlete, has a stronger arm, and has better leadership qualities. Period. I think Dilfer is a better QB than King, too. King is more mobile. That's it. Sometimes it's easy to forget that Dilfer lost his job to King because of injury. After deciding to go with King over Dilfer the next season, the Bucs ended up aquiring Brad Johnson because they were clearly not happy with Kings development. Lucas could have some upside, but in a risky way. He's still inexperienced. Plus, he's not a free agent, and I'm not sure I'd want to bet a second round pick or so on his becoming "The Man."

I can understand if you're not excited about Dilfer. Maybe you sign him and draft a guy you ARE excited about. In the meantime, Dilfer will win some games while that guy learns the ropes.

It's becoming difficult to understand how so many STILL say defensive line is our priority in the offseason. Just look at the way the defense has played, and look at the way the offense has played! I don't get it. Sure, a couple of younger D-lineman are in order, soon enough. Especially a pass rusher. But c'mon folks. Open your eyes.

[ by GURU on January 03, 2002.]