Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

Whens the last time a rookie QB with this much hoohaa has been named the starter so early in the season?
Anyone know?
And did it work out?

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

Crompton is the clear starter. They're just giving Griffin reps so that his feelings don't get hurt. Crompton is such a stud that he needs no reps.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;915571]Whens the last time a rookie QB with this much hoohaa has been named the starter so early in the season?
Anyone know?
And did it work out?[/quote]

Pretty sure Cam Newton was named an early starter.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=Lotus;915572]Crompton is the clear starter. They're just giving Griffin reps so that his feelings don't get hurt. Crompton is such a stud that he needs no reps.[/quote]

I know you love the Crompton but you need to give a little more respect to Rex Grossman. Remember, that is the guy who beat out John friggin Beck for a starting job last season. He's shown an ability to win when faced with an underdog role.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

Shanny might say that he doesn't pay attention to the press & public reaction, and maybe he doesen't, but naming RGIII the starter so early seems in part designed to avoid any talk of qb controversy.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

You don't give up what the Skins did for him and not plug him in as the starter on day 1.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=Mattyk;915584]You don't give up what the Skins did for him and not plug him in as the starter on day 1.[/quote]

Exactly. RG3 starts day one, give him most of the reps and build the offense around him. So far, the Shanahan's are doing all the right things w/ RG3.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=artmonkforhallofamein07;915578]Pretty sure Cam Newton was named an early starter.[/quote]

He wasn't officially named starter until August actually. He was struggling in camp but lit up the defenses when the regular season started.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

Shanahan also said they will adjust the offense to suit RG3, and they're not going to toss the entire playbook at him, I know some were concerned about those things.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;915571]Whens the last time a rookie QB with this much hoohaa has been named the starter so early in the season?
Anyone know?
And did it work out?[/quote]

I don't know the last time, but Peyton Manning started all 16 games his rookie season so I assume there was some amount of hoopla there. I would say that worked out.

Eli didn't start his first game, neither did Roethlisberger

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

Mike Shannahan is putting his whole future on RGIII by naming him the starter. Once the draft trade went down the way it did in March he knew this was the way it was going to be. Either they both succeed together or Mike will be gone for failing to win with another QB. Somehow I think this time it will work.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

I'm not surprised by RGIII being the starter, but I am surprised that Shanahan has named him the starter before any OTAs or training camp.

If you are going to go out, might as well do it in a blaze of glory.....or a giant big billow of smoke depending on the outcome.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=scowan;915608]Mike Shannahan is putting his whole future on RGIII by naming him the starter. [/quote]


Well truthfully, he put his future on RGIII the moment that trade was solidified. I guess he sees no harm in naming the dude the starter at this particular time.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

looks like Grossman will not be inducted into the PF HOF after all ..... maybe 20 yrs from now RG3 will :)

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=NC_Skins;915617]Well truthfully, he put his future on RGIII the moment that trade was solidified. I guess he sees no harm in naming the dude the starter at this particular time.[/quote]

Exactly! I think it was a great move for Shanahan to remove any and all doubt from the get go. It sends a message to RGIII that the coaches are 100% behind him and believe in him. I mean, even if the 'skins go 5-11, I'd much rather see them go 5-11 because RGIII is working out the "kinks" rather than seeing Grossman on the field do his Grossman thing.

[QUOTE=NC_Skins;915616]I'm not surprised by RGIII being the starter, but I am surprised that Shanahan has named him the starter before any OTAs or training camp.

If you are going to go out, might as well do it in a blaze of glory.....or a giant big billow of smoke depending on the outcome.[/QUOTE]

I think he saw the ridiculous kirk cousins' media hoopla and decided to put it to rest. If this keep going on into camp and preseason (and if cousins looked OK) the media would've gotten way out of hand.

And like others said, this "decision" was made when they drafted rg3.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

Did they really have to announce this and did anyone ever think Rex would start?

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

Well it's not like Shanahan came out and declared him the starter. He was asked so he answered. No sense in making any drama out of it.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

Actually the more interesting story will be who starts as the #2 guy. I mean, I think we all pretty much feel Grossman would be the backup, but I think Cousins might be good enough to beat Rex out of that spot. I'd say by next year, Cousins would have the #2 spot wrapped up.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

I've read through this entire thread, and no one has addressed Mike implying 3 times, which should cause ones mind to gravitate toward the inference, that we could be employing some incarnation of the option. You're falling off.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

Well it was mentioned in another thread...where it probably didn't belong.

"You're falling off" What do you mean by that?

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=fanarchist;915638]I've read through this entire thread, and no one has addressed Mike implying 3 times, which should cause ones mind to gravitate toward the inference, that we could be employing some incarnation of the option. You're falling off.[/quote]

Oh yeah? Well I haven't read through this thread, mainly because I don't give a shit who Mike calls the starter. If this is what qualifies as "news" nowadays it's no wonder newspapers are going out of business.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

Reason number... let's say 212 why we all like Griffin.

"Running the plays was another matter. It’s different when you know what routes you have on a certain play but you’ve got to know where to go with the ball during certain coverage. That’s the biggest thing when it comes to playing quarterback in the NFL.”

He know the right questions to ask himself to improve.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=freddyg12;915583]Shanny might say that he doesn't pay attention to the press & public reaction, and maybe he doesen't, but naming RGIII the starter so early seems in part designed to avoid any talk of qb controversy.[/quote]

IMO MS knows RG3's shoulders can handle the weight, MS likes/loves how he carries himself.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=SmootSmack;915568]Should also be noted that it's 1st team offense vs. 2nd team defense, and 2nd team offense vs. 1st team defense[/quote]

Yeah, I hope are #2 defense is not that much of a drop of from our #1 defense, same for the offense.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

DC is a BIG Media Hub, they will keep asking the same question aswell as make up stories so just DEAD the whole thing and repeat RG3 period.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=SmootSmack;915639]Well it was mentioned in another thread...where it probably didn't belong.

"You're falling off" What do you mean by that?[/quote]

Same press conference where RG3 was named the starter. This thread isn't about Kirk Cousins, or Grossman, but people are spectulating, and meadering into those realms without being chastised. Yet when I pose a theory related to the fact that RG3 is the starter it is immediately demeaned by you, the kat who is specifically falling off.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

Save the drama for someone who cares.

If you want to talk about running the option let's talk about it.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[url=http://sonofwashington.com/should-griffin-have-starter-role-already/]Son of Washington » Should Griffin Have Starter Role Already?[/url]

Maybe I'm not reading this right, but I don't remember hearing anything from anyone else about RG3 not been able to read defenses from yesterday's practice. Is this reporter making things up.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=fanarchist;915661]Same press conference where RG3 was named the starter. This thread isn't about Kirk Cousins, or Grossman, but people are spectulating, and meadering into those realms without being chastised. Yet when I pose a theory related to the fact that RG3 is the starter it is immediately demeaned by you, the kat who is specifically falling off.[/quote]

What the hell? Where in my post did I demean you?

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=Mattyk;915662]Save the drama for someone who cares.

If you want to talk about [B]running the option[/B] let's talk about it.[/quote]

makes as much sense as starting Beck at QB

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=NYCskinfan82;915663][url=http://sonofwashington.com/should-griffin-have-starter-role-already/]Son of Washington » Should Griffin Have Starter Role Already?[/url]

Maybe I'm not reading this right, but I don't remember hearing anything from anyone else about RG3 not been able to read defenses from yesterday's practice. Is this reporter making things up.[/quote]

Sounds like a blogger drawing up his own conclusions. He should have at least referenced where he's getting his info, because I didn't read or hear anything about him struggling in reading defenses.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=Chico23231;915665]makes as much sense as starting Beck at QB[/quote]

I don't see any harm in having a few select plays with it. Obviously Shanny isn't talking about going Tebow time with it.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=Mattyk;915666]Sounds like a blogger drawing up his own conclusions. He should have at least referenced where he's getting his info, because I didn't read or hear anything about him struggling in reading defenses.[/quote]

Manufacturing drama seems to be the order of the day right about now.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=NYCskinfan82;915663][url=http://sonofwashington.com/should-griffin-have-starter-role-already/]Son of Washington » Should Griffin Have Starter Role Already?[/url]

Maybe I'm not reading this right, but I don't remember hearing anything from anyone else about RG3 not been able to read defenses from yesterday's practice. Is this reporter making things up.[/quote]

The author is either a hater, doesn't know football, or wants some attention. He is the only one who reportedly heard that "...Griffin had a hard time reading defenses compared to Kirk Cousins who appeared to do it naturally." Maybe he knows something that coach Shanahan does not know. lol

"...but I believe its premature to label him the starter right now. [B]Especially when we haven't seen a thing that says he should be.[/B]" LOL

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

The author is an occasional member of this board so if he wants to he's more than welcome to expand on his thoughts here

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;915605]I don't know the last time, but Peyton Manning started all 16 games his rookie season so I assume there was some amount of hoopla there. I would say that worked out.

Eli didn't start his first game, neither did Roethlisberger[/quote]

Well more recently wouldn't we say Stafford was named early on? I was going to say Andy Dalton but if I'm not mistaken I think he had to win the job... maybe not. How about Sanchez? didn't the take him right after Favre left.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=Mattyk;915662]Save the drama for someone who cares.

If you want to talk about running the option let's talk about it.[/quote]

I'm not looking to create drama. I just wanted it to be noted that not everyone get's a fair shake in this community. But I appreciate you addressing the heart of the post.

How the option relates to RG3. If the rhetoric flies, and we do end up adopting some facet of the option, I have to give credit to the coaching staff for adapting to the abilities of the QB, and offering us the innovation that they've failed to provide over the past couple seasons. For the first time in a long while I feel like we could be on the cutting edge of this progressive movement. There is much hope to be gleaned from this prospect, although it does leave RG3 open to more potential injury scenarios, and in the unfortunate circumstance where injuries abound, as they have in the past, we now have valid depth at the QB position that could, with enough playing time, amount to future draft picks, in Cousins.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=firstdown;915625]Did they really have to announce this and did anyone ever think Rex would start?[/quote]

He did this solely for the idiots in the media to shut up.

Anyone else with a brain knows RGIII is the starter. To not start him after what we gave up for him would be stupid. Besides, a 5-win team can't sink much lower...nothing to lose if it takes him a few weeks to settle in.

If we listen to the media, Grossman will start the year and Cousins will challenge for the starter job too.

:doh:

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=Mattyk;915667]I don't see any harm in having a few select plays with it. Obviously Shanny isn't talking about going Tebow time with it.[/quote]

As a defender, you have to honor RG3s speed. If it causes LBs and Safetys to overpursue or bite then the option could be used to open up zones in the passing game.