How the 49ers/Texans changed my view on Football and how to build the redskins

[biffle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

All of that's true but none of that means that they weren't necessarily still the best team in the AFC. By the end of the season, the Texans defense was almost surely the premier defense in the conference, and that whole limping in thing happened, in large part, because Andre Johnson was limping.

As well as the Schaub thing. The debate as to who is more important to the Texans was not solved. But if you had thought before that Arian Foster was just reaping the benefits of Schaub/Johnson, that was proven wrong.

Yeah, that must be it. I mean, Johnson was a non-factor all year, but it didn't matter until the end of the year. They were the top seed and cruising until Schaub went down and once he did they couldn't beat Indy and Jacksonville. But that's a coincindence.

I've been through arguments with guys like you before. Every Super Bowl is being won by franchise QBs. Most are lost by franchise QBs. Most divisions are won by the teams with the best QBs.
Bad defenses, bad lines, bad special teams, bad running games. They have all won SBs lately.

But you're gonna tiwst yourself around to come up with excuses for it. Non franchise QBs who coulda/woulda/shoulda won the title. Oh, it almost happened. It will happen. They wuz robbed. etc etc.

Well, have at it. I think it's ridiculous, but keep fighting that fight, brother.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by biffle

Yeah, that must be it. I mean, Johnson was a non-factor all year, but it didn't matter until the end of the year. They were the top seed and cruising until Schaub went down and once he did they couldn't beat Indy and Jacksonville. But that's a coincindence.

I've been through arguments with guys like you before. Every Super Bowl is being won by franchise QBs. Most are lost by franchise QBs. Most divisions are won by the teams with the best QBs.
Bad defenses, bad lines, bad special teams, bad running games. They have all won SBs lately.

But you're gonna tiwst yourself around to come up with excuses for it. Non franchise QBs who coulda/woulda/shoulda won the title. Oh, it almost happened. It will happen. They wuz robbed. etc etc.

Well, have at it. I think it's ridiculous, but keep fighting that fight, brother.

Look, to put it politely, you don't know what you are talking about.

There's a reason the best quarterbacks win a lot of games and populate the playoff field. It has nothing to do with why you think it does. When two quarterbacks play in the super bowl and the second best quarterback wins, it makes your argument bunk. The second best quarterback in this super bowl won it. The second best quarterback two years ago won it. The second best quarterback three years ago won it. The second best quarterback four years ago won it.

Obviously, there's something there as to why Tom Brady has lost two super bowls to Eli Manning, but beat Kurt Warner in one. Some would even suggest that just maybe, other players on the field matter.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Look, to put it politely, you don't know what you are talking about.

There's a reason the best quarterbacks win a lot of games and populate the playoff field. It has nothing to do with why you think it does. When two quarterbacks play in the super bowl and the second best quarterback wins, it makes your argument bunk. The second best quarterback in this super bowl won it. The second best quarterback two years ago won it. The second best quarterback three years ago won it. The second best quarterback four years ago won it.

Obviously, there's something there as to why Tom Brady has lost two super bowls to Eli Manning, but beat Kurt Warner in one. Some would even suggest that just maybe, other players on the field matter.

Yeah, none of that really has anything to do with anything.

Don't worry, man. One of these years a team without a franchise QB will win a Super Bowl again, and then at least you'll have something to crow about while you're pretending that franchise QBs aren't really that important.

It'll happen. You just have to wait. Keep the faith.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by biffle

Yeah, none of that really has anything to do with anything.

Don't worry, man. One of these years a team without a franchise QB will win a Super Bowl again, and then at least you'll have something to crow about while you're pretending that franchise QBs aren't really that important.

It'll happen. You just have to wait. Keep the faith.

I don't think a team without a franchise QB will EVER win it again. The reasoning is easy, for those who know how to use it: franchise QB is a meaningless term roughly used on players who have lead their team deep into the playoff or have won super bowls. I mean, think about Eli Manning in 2007. No one knew he was a franchise quarterback. BUT HE WAS!!!!!11!!

So if Joe Flacco's pass to Lee Evans gets caught, BOOM! You call him a franchise quarterback. And the observation holds. T.J. Yates? Franchise quarterback. Mark Sanchez? Franchise quarterback. Alex Smith? Franchise quarterback.

You can do whatever you want with labels. How would you like to be "Einstein?" Labels are meaningless, so I'd have no problem calling you that if you'd like.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't think a team without a franchise QB will EVER win it again. The reasoning is easy, for those who know how to use it: franchise QB is a meaningless term roughly used on players who have lead their team deep into the playoff or have won super bowls. I mean, think about Eli Manning in 2007. No one knew he was a franchise quarterback. BUT HE WAS!!!!!11!!

So if Joe Flacco's pass to Lee Evans gets caught, BOOM! You call him a franchise quarterback. And the observation holds. T.J. Yates? Franchise quarterback. Mark Sanchez? Franchise quarterback. Alex Smith? Franchise quarterback.

You can do whatever you want with labels. How would you like to be "Einstein?" Labels are meaningless, so I'd have no problem calling you that if you'd like.

I'd like you to call me Akbar Shabazz Jenkins-Robinson III.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

I'd like you to call me Akbar Shabazz Jenkins-Robinson III.

That's too long. How about Shabby?

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

That's too long. How about Shabby?

How about Shabby JR III? Kinda like a rap name.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't think a team without a franchise QB will EVER win it again. The reasoning is easy, for those who know how to use it: franchise QB is a meaningless term roughly used on players who have lead their team deep into the playoff or have won super bowls. I mean, think about Eli Manning in 2007. No one knew he was a franchise quarterback. BUT HE WAS!!!!!11!!

So if Joe Flacco's pass to Lee Evans gets caught, BOOM! You call him a franchise quarterback. And the observation holds. T.J. Yates? Franchise quarterback. Mark Sanchez? Franchise quarterback. Alex Smith? Franchise quarterback.

You can do whatever you want with labels. How would you like to be "Einstein?" Labels are meaningless, so I'd have no problem calling you that if you'd like.

What's funny is that I think you believe you've made some kind of point here.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Look, to put it politely, you don't know what you are talking about.

There's a reason the best quarterbacks win a lot of games and populate the playoff field. It has nothing to do with why you think it does. When two quarterbacks play in the super bowl and the second best quarterback wins, it makes your argument bunk. The second best quarterback in this super bowl won it. The second best quarterback two years ago won it. The second best quarterback three years ago won it. The second best quarterback four years ago won it.

Obviously, there's something there as to why Tom Brady has lost two super bowls to Eli Manning, but beat Kurt Warner in one. Some would even suggest that just maybe, other players on the field matter.

Obviously that's very important. For instance, some would argue without the Giants d-line, there's no way they win the SB because their defense is largely predicated on getting pressure, which they were able to do most of the game despite minimal blitzing. I definitely agree with you in that aspect that the rest of the team around the qb is just as important as the qb itself. My whole point re: franchise qb's is that the better the qb, the better your odds of winning the SB, at least in the last 7 years. I think that's a trend that's going to continue in the NFL for a while.

Which is why I don't want a guy who might be able to get the job done. I want the guy that gives us the best chance of it happening. Whether that's a healthy P. Manning, Luck, RG3, Tannehill, whomever, it doesn't matter. But I honestly don't think Shanny will last here that long if he has to sit Tannehill for a couple of seasons while he learns. We're going into year 3 of the regime. If it looks like we're not improving by the end of year 4, there's no telling what Snyder might do.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by mooby

Which is why I don't want a guy who might be able to get the job done. I want the guy that gives us the best chance of it happening. Whether that's a healthy P. Manning, Luck, RG3, Tannehill, whomever, it doesn't matter. But I honestly don't think Shanny will last here that long if he has to sit Tannehill for a couple of seasons while he learns. We're going into year 3 of the regime. If it looks like we're not improving by the end of year 4, there's no telling what Snyder might do.

Which is why the two years wasted on McNabb, Rex, and Beck are such a big deal IMO. But I suspect we may be heading in that direction, that of having a 2nd rounder drafted to sit behind a FA QB.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Which is why the two years wasted on McNabb, Rex, and Beck are such a big deal IMO. But I suspect we may be heading in that direction, that of having a 2nd rounder drafted to sit behind a FA QB.

I'm starting to warm up to that idea too, if that FA qb is a healthy Manning.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by mooby

Which is why I don't want a guy who might be able to get the job done. I want the guy that gives us the best chance of it happening. Whether that's a healthy P. Manning, Luck, RG3, Tannehill, whomever, it doesn't matter. But I honestly don't think Shanny will last here that long if he has to sit Tannehill for a couple of seasons while he learns. We're going into year 3 of the regime. If it looks like we're not improving by the end of year 4, there's no telling what Snyder might do.

Let me try to rephrase the question: what about guys like Tony Romo and Philip Rivers? San Diego and Dallas are clearly not the deep organizations that Baltimore, Pittsburgh, New York, Philadelphia, and New England are, and that San Francisco and Houston are close to being. With that said, do you have any doubt that those guys can get it done? What about Matt Schaub?

I think there are two ways to look at this conundrum.

1) The idea that you don't know if someone can get it done until they actually do. Eli Manning is trying to save the Giants from a super bowl 42 loss where the Giants score just 10 points against the Patriots, and he throws a ball into the flat that lands right into the hands of Asante Samuel. Eli is who we thought he was. Then Eli escapes a sack, and ends up throwing the game winning touchdown pass. And Eli is who we thought he was! I always knew he could do that!

2) The idea that you do know your guy can get it done, but you realistically understand that not everyone gets the opportunity. When Drew Brees left New Orleans, it seemed certain that Philip Rivers would get first crack at winning the super bowl. But sometimes, circumstances change. And right now, it seems more likely that Brees will get ring No. 2 before Rivers gets to the big game.

But is there any reason to doubt Rivers? 20 INTs and missed the playoffs by a game? Well, last year, Eli threw 25 picks and missed the playoffs by a game. So I'm finding it really hard to doubt Philip Rivers. And while I don't typically have a good pulse on the opinions of the masses, the popular opinion seems to be that Rivers will get his sooner rather than later.

But if he never does, were we wrong to NOT doubt him? That doesn't make sense to me.

Ultimately, I agree with you that the clock is ticking and if you're ever going to get it right, going bold at QB might be your only option. But if it is, it is only because Plans A through G failed already. And the gap between failing spectacularly and failing like the Redskins have been I don't think has ever been smaller.