Cousins to start 2015 Season

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by 30gut

You may have missed the post that sparked the current discussion but its this: The 5th year option is still an issue but outside of the money (which can be massaged) getting rid of Griff doesn't bring any gain on the football field.

So, yes the 5th year option is an issue.

But outside of that what is the benefit on the field of not having Griffin on the team, not on the field but on the team?

How does Griffin being gone make the team better?

Because he has repeatedly broken the only rule of press conferences. The "I", not "we", screwed up rule.

It's always "I screwed up." And "We played well". That is the damage he has done off the field over the past couple years.

He hasn't repaired it either, because he has never taken any responsibility for his poor play. Instead of tweeting Ezekiel 25:17, he could have tweeted that he called the wrong protection while Willie Smith was getting killed in the media the next day.

Please listen to Cooley's film breakdown on the Detroit game. RGIII did nothing to help his players on or off the field that game.

Gruden and even RGIII has talked about how he needs his guys and organization to support him to make him better. He theorized that type of support contributes to Rodgers and Brady's success. The fact that RGIII is saying this is laughable.

When is the last time another QB publicly calling out the guys around him for his poor play? (I'm sure it's happened before. I don't know of a specific incident but I can see Cam Newton doing this type of thing after he steals a RB's touchdown ball.)

On the field: the team is risking a huge cap hit next season in exchange for nothing short of terrible play. He hasn't demonstrated any improvement despite receiving Bradyesque support from the organization.

Off the field: he has been held to a completely different standard without demonstrating any justification since 2012. 52 guys on the roster are held accountable for their mistakes, and some are accountable for his apparently.

Makes for a poisonous locker room.

There is zero upside to keeping him around any length of time after he is medically cleared.

[30gut]

This thread quickly turned back into a mob mentality echo chamber of groupthink.

Chico, we had decent convo going about the flip side. But many can't get there head around the idea that not everyone agrees/subscribes to all the views in this thread.

Maybe Scott wants to keep Griffin because maybe the current problem with Griffin is J. And they got rid of Griffin and J fails then they're completely starting over, again. If they keep Griffin and J fails there's still the chance (slim to be sure) that Griffin could experience a resurgence when paired with a HC that actually believes in him ala Alex Smith and Harbaugh.

Cheers-

Now back to the regularly scheduled hate fest!

Rah rah

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by 30gut

But outside of that what is the benefit on the field of not having Griffin on the team, not on the field but on the team?

How does Griffin being gone make the team better?

You can't just think about "on the field" in terms of a player on your roster. When Tony Dungy was asked about having Michael Sam on his team, he flat out said he wouldn't draft him b/c the talent wasn't worth the distraction. Just imagine the first time Kirk has a bad game. What do you think the fans are going to do? Chant RG3. What do you think the media is going to do? Question who should be the starter....and so forth. What do you think his answers are going to be when asked if he should be the starter? You trust Griffin with the media?....lol

His talent in this system isn't worth the distraction quite honesty.

So ultimately Griffin being off this team makes it a better team in the locker room and from a PR standpoint. From a "on the field" standpoint, it really doesn't affect us whether he's on the squad or off of it. All this is purely disregarding the 16 mil as well.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You can't just think about "on the field" in terms of a player on your roster. When Tony Dungy was asked about having Michael Sam on his team, he flat out said he wouldn't draft him b/c the talent wasn't worth the distraction. Just imagine the first time Kirk has a bad game. What do you think the fans are going to do? Chant RG3. What do you think the media is going to do? Question who should be the starter....and so forth. What do you think his answers are going to be when asked if he should be the starter? You trust Griffin with the media?....lol

His talent in this system isn't worth the distraction quite honesty.

So ultimately Griffin being off this team makes it a better team in the locker room and from a PR standpoint. From a "on the field" standpoint, it really doesn't affect us whether he's on the squad or off of it. All this is purely disregarding the 16 mil as well.

If Cousins doesn't do well, there'll be drama whether RG3 is here or not. However, I do agree that if it is not necessary, RG3 shouldn't be kept on the roster. I am fine with the team seeking something for him.

[Buffalo Bob]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Sure, we can get to this entirely different discussion about what offense and whatever else.

But first, I would like to get back to our discussion. What benefit does it bring on the field to have Griffin off the team? After all that's what our discussion was about. Looking at the flip side of booting Griffin off the team. If J and Kirk succeeds great, everyone parks everyone wins. But, if J and Kirk fail and we've also got rid of Griffin where's the benefit there?

It removes a big distraction. The guy I saw looking away and rolling his eyes during QB meetings with coaches on the sidelines at the Jax game isn't someone I would want on my team. Then there is everything else,
other than Archie Manning what father of an NFL QB is better known than RG2 and that isn't a good thing. What he says to reporters makes you wonder
how he had such a high grade point average in school. He isn't worth the BS
that comes with him for a back-up QB.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Sure, we can get to this entirely different discussion about what offense and whatever else.

But first, I would like to get back to our discussion. What benefit does it bring on the field to have Griffin off the team? After all that's what our discussion was about. Looking at the flip side of booting Griffin off the team. If J and Kirk succeeds great, everyone parks everyone wins. But, if J and Kirk fail and we've also got rid of Griffin where's the benefit there?

Chico simply responded to your question with a relevant question premised on the simple - RGIII has no value b/c he can't play JG's style and, if any style he may succeed in puts the club at risk of having to pay $16M to an injured and unavailable player which would cripple the of field product. Your response was, as always, either intentionally obtuse or pertinaciously pedantic.

Originally Posted by 30gut

You raise some interesting questions that aren't in response to my post.

The post you responded was a discussion of where/what is the benefit of having Griffin off the team? Especially if J and Kirk fail?

I have no problem discussing the questions you raise but would also like to have the original intent of the post to which you responded addressed.

He did respond to your post and answer the original intent in a perfectly relevant way. Very simply the poster you dismiss as unresponsive believes Griffin has no value to the team "on the field" b/c, regardless of the success or failure of KC & the JG Band, RGIII cannot play in the existing system or a system designed for the QB that existed in 2012. Again, your reply is obtuse and/or pedantic.

Originally Posted by 30gut

You may have missed the post that sparked the current discussion but its this: The 5th year option is still an issue but outside of the money (which can be massaged) getting rid of Griff doesn't bring any gain on the football field.

So, yes the 5th year option is an issue.

But outside of that what is the benefit on the field of not having Griffin on the team, not on the field but on the team?

How does Griffin being gone make the team better?

No. He very clearly understood your point and, unlike you, determined that RGIII being gone does not put the franchise at risk for having to "massage" a $16M cap hit and permits the team to plan and sign players who can perform on the field.

Each of these posters provided reasons as to why Griffin's being off the team helps the team "on the field" by raising relevant, responsive points which you summarily dismiss through rhetorical pedantry of the lowest form. It is a practice you consistently use, is intellectually lazy, and simply tiresome.

We all understand your question and it's loaded nature. B/c folks disagree with the premise of your question, does not mean their answers are unresponsive.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Chico simply responded to your question with a relevant question premised on the simple - RGIII has no value b/c he can't play JG's style and, if any style he may succeed in puts the club at risk of having to pay $16M to an injured and unavailable player which would cripple the of field product. Your response was, as always, either intentionally obtuse or pertinaciously pedantic.



He did respond to your post and answer the original intent in a perfectly relevant way. Very simply the poster you dismiss as unresponsive believes Griffin has no value to the team "on the field" b/c, regardless of the success or failure of KC & the JG Band, RGIII cannot play in the existing system or a system designed for the QB that existed in 2012. Again, your reply is obtuse and/or pedantic.



No. He very clearly understood your point and, unlike you, determined that RGIII being gone does not put the franchise at risk for having to "massage" a $16M cap hit and permits the team to plan and sign players who can perform on the field.

Each of these posters provided reasons as to why Griffin's being off the team helps the team "on the field" by raising relevant, responsive points which you summarily dismiss through rhetorical pedantry of the lowest form. It is a practice you consistently use, is intellectually lazy, and simply tiresome.

We all understand your question and it's loaded nature. B/c folks disagree with the premise of your question, does not mean their answers are unresponsive.

All I can say is word up Joe redskin. Word up.

In fact a hall of fame word up: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MZjAantupsA

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

...pertinaciously pedantic...

Pretty sure this is the only time in my life I'll get to see these two words used together in a sentence. Thanks Joe.