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

[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.

[GTripp0012]

I think I'm just going to call you killer.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

or "sport" "captain" "governor" any will do.

[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.

[GTripp0012]

Look Einstein, I have made a point. You may be a lost cause. Or not. I don't know you well, just that you like to typecast people and try to tell them what they think.

Maybe when you're older, we will revisit this, mk?

[biffle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Look Einstein, I have made a point. You may be a lost cause. Or not. I don't know you well, just that you like to typecast people and try to tell them what they think.

Maybe when you're older, we will revisit this, mk?

No you haven't. You've wrapped nonsense in insults and pretended that equals something intelligent.

What you're trying to do is create a situation where you can claim you're right no matter what. As soon as some non-great QB wins a title you'll be screaming "Told ya! Told ya!". But, until then, you'll just claim that the QBs who do win are only considered great because they won. Wow, look at that. Whatever happens, you're completely hollow argument can't be wrong. How brilliant.

So, go ahead and make an argument why Brady, the Mannings, Brees, Rodgers or Roethlisberger haven't really proven themselves elite. Because that is the whole recent history of title QBs.

That's all that matters. I really don't care what nonsense or what insults you want to attach to it. The facts are there, no matter how much you stomp your feet and stick your fingers in your ears.

[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.

[diehard]

I thought about this OP while watching the game.

[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.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

The key to winning in the NFL is having a great pass rush/DL, Good OL, and Good QB. WR's RBs aren't as crucial as your QB is.

The Skins have all but ignored the DL and OL in the draft for the last 10 years. There's a reason why the Giants and the 49ers are so stout in the trenches - they have invested heavily there for years. If I've said it once, I've said it dozens of times on this board - great teams are built from the inside out. The Snyder Era has clung to a completely opposite draft philosophy, trading away picks on top of that. I would be perfectly happy if two of the first three picks were linemen. The Skins have been the 110 lb weaklings of the NFC East, and it's time to change that!!!

[redskin29633]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

49ers and Texans have an identity. Strong o-line and running game, tough defense. Jim Harbaugh gave the 49ers exactly what they needed... an identity. I think that formula won 3 Super Bowls around here. What's the identity here?????????????? Let Kyle call his silly pass plays with a below average QB and swiss cheese o-line so he can turn the ball over? What's the identity of the defense? This team needs an identity in the worst way.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

The Skins have all but ignored the DL and OL in the draft for the last 10 years. There's a reason why the Giants and the 49ers are so stout in the trenches - they have invested heavily there for years. If I've said it once, I've said it dozens of times on this board - great teams are built from the inside out. The Snyder Era has clung to a completely opposite draft philosophy, trading away picks on top of that. I would be perfectly happy if two of the first three picks were linemen. The Skins have been the 110 lb weaklings of the NFC East, and it's time to change that!!!

I would disagree and argue that the Snyder Era's primary "draft strategy" was precisely trading away mid- and high-round picks for vets or trade ups. Yes, neglecting the Oline and Dline was a problem, but the team's FO not recognizing the value of having picks was the largest issue out of many.

Washington Redskins All-Time Draft History - Pro-Football-Reference.com
From 2003 all the way to 2007, our drafts were either lean in number or in "value"(a bunch 6th and 7th rounders aren't going to help that much).

[Defensewins]

The main problem with Snyderatto was they were incredibly terrible at talent evaluation and drafting players period. Regardless of how many picks they gave away or at which potion(s) they concentrated on. The players they did get were awful. The amount of quality starters, and I emphasize 'Quality' starters they drafted was very low. I m not talking about players that started for the Redskins. I am talking about players we drafted that could have started for other teams. Nearly non-existent. Quality and quantity were both an issue, regardless of postilion or quantity of draft picks.
The good teams like Ravens, Texans, Packers, Niners and Patriots have one thing in common, great talent evaluation and great draft classes.