I Agree With Fred Smoot On Kirk Cousins

[Yo Tee]

again why ? better isnt needed

Better isn't needed? So you have just confirmed that you are completely okay with only winning 8 or 9 games a year and always being on the edge of being a playoff team. Would you rather be where you are right now, a guaranteed 8 or 9 win season with a small chance at the playoffs, or take a chance on a rookie QB who could potentially lead you to a 10 or 11 win season and a great chance at the playoffs. 10 QBs have taken their teams to the playoffs within 2 years of being drafted in the last 16 years.

 

[Yo Tee]

Because they didn't have Bellicheck defense.

Because the steelers didn't have the number one defense and the Bus.

You claimed they were better in the first two years. Eli wasn't. I showed you that by bringing up the first three years.

Seattle didn't have Lynch and the number one defense. They were already good.

Newton has been starting for six seasons. He has two seasons better than KC. His defenses were ranked 2 and 6 in scoring in those seasons. The other four years are worse than KC's worst starting season. KC's best defense was ranked 18 in scoring I believe and he is yet to enjoy a running game. Yes, I do realize Cam is a big part of that running game because he really isn't a great QB.

KC took a 3 win team to the playoffs. KC has also been to the playoffs 50% of the time. Tell me this...has Ryan had seasons below 50% winning?


This is the absurdity of the winning QB argument. If you are not Brady or Peyton, then your teams still lose some years. It is a team game.

Belichick was the coach in 2000 when they went 5-11 with Drew Bledsoe as QB. Brady takes over in 2001 as the full-time starter, 11-5 and a Super Bowl. The rest is history.

Jerome Bettis was with the Steelers in 1996. Pittsburgh couldn't make it past the divisional round in the late 90's early 00's until Big Ben came around.

Eli took over in 2005. In 2003, the Giants were 4-12. In 2004, the Giants were 6-10. In 2005, the Giants were 11-5 and NFC East champs. 2 years, he improved the team from 4-12 to 11-5.

Marshawn Lynch was with Seattle in 2011 when they went 7-9. Russell Wilson comes in and turns a 7-9 team to a perennial Super Bowl favorite each year since. Their defense was 7th in 2011, the year before Wilson came in. Not like their defense was 20th lower.

Look at the Colts without Andrew Luck.
Look at the Steelers without Ben Roethlisberger.
Look at the Raiders without Derek Carr.

Did you happen to fact check before you wrote some of that stuff? It's common sense that football is a team sport. That's not a valid argument. But the QB position is the most important on the field and they are the leader of that offense and the entire locker room, or at least should be.

 

[j_y19]

Better isn't needed? So you have just confirmed that you are completely okay with only winning 8 or 9 games a year and always being on the edge of being a playoff team. Would you rather be where you are right now, a guaranteed 8 or 9 win season with a small chance at the playoffs, or take a chance on a rookie QB who could potentially lead you to a 10 or 11 win season and a great chance at the playoffs. 10 QBs have taken their teams to the playoffs within 2 years of being drafted in the last 16 years.

This question is a false narrative. It is you opinion that Cousins maxes out at 8-9 wins. Others believe that he has a better chance of leading this team to a 10-11 win season that some unproven rookie that we draft. Dad has already stated that he disagrees with you about your opinion on KC so why would he, or anyone else that disagrees, answer that question?

 

[Yo Tee]

This question is a false narrative. It is you opinion that Cousins maxes out at 8-9 wins. Others believe that he has a better chance of leading this team to a 10-11 win season that some unproven rookie that we draft. Dad has already stated that he disagrees with you about your opinion on KC so why would he, or anyone else that disagrees, answer that question?

It's not my opinion. It's what I've seen over the last 4 years. Others who believe that are going by potential. If we look at the facts, Kirk Cousins is a 1-game-over-.500 QB and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that if the franchise and the fans are okay with that. If the franchise wants to be a better team, you look at changing the owners, the coaches, and then the QB position. It's fine that you disagree, but open your minds to the possibilities. Do you think that Cowboys fans thought Dak Prescott was gonna take them to the playoffs last year? Probably not. I would suggest opening your mind to the possibilities that this might be as good as Kirk Cousins is gonna be and that a rookie QB poses the CHANCE of something better.

 

[j_y19]

It's not my opinion. It's what I've seen over the last 4 years. Others who believe that are going by potential. If we look at the facts, Kirk Cousins is a 1-game-over-.500 QB and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that if the franchise and the fans are okay with that. If the franchise wants to be a better team, you look at changing the owners, the coaches, and then the QB position. It's fine that you disagree, but open your minds to the possibilities. Do you think that Cowboys fans thought Dak Prescott was gonna take them to the playoffs last year? Probably not. I would suggest opening your mind to the possibilities that this might be as good as Kirk Cousins is gonna be and that a rookie QB poses the CHANCE of something better.

No, it is your opinion. Your opinion is that no matter what team we put around KC going forward, we will never see more than 9 wins. Many others have a different opinion. You are not a smart as you think you are in believing that anyone with half a brain would answer your question the way it was posed when they disagree with the underlying premise.

 

[Yo Tee]

No, it is your opinion. Your opinion is that no matter what team we put around KC going forward, we will never see more than 9 wins. Many others have a different opinion. You are not a smart as you think you are in believing that anyone with half a brain would answer your question the way it was posed when they disagree with the underlying premise.

All I'm saying is, sometimes to improve, you gotta take a chance on a rookie QB. Sometimes it backfires, but sometimes it doesn't. That's why it's called a chance. Where is this proof that Kirk Cousins will get you more than 9 wins? Aren't you taking a chance on trusting in him enough to lead this team to more than double digit wins? You are banking on his potential and the potential of what you put around him. You would be doing the same exact thing with a rookie QB. Banking on the POTENTIAL of something greater and better and more successful.

 

[j_y19]

All I'm saying is, sometimes to improve, you gotta take a chance on a rookie QB. Sometimes it backfires, but sometimes it doesn't. That's why it's called a chance. Where is this proof that Kirk Cousins will get you more than 9 wins? Aren't you taking a chance on trusting in him enough to lead this team to more than double digit wins? You are banking on his potential and the potential of what you put around him. You would be doing the same exact thing with a rookie QB. Banking on the POTENTIAL of something greater and better and more successful.

Once again, that is your opinion. Others disagree and believe that the quickest path to sustained success is to invest in building a strong team around KC. KC has proven he can perform. Just not consistently. So one could believe that gruden needs to design a scheme thT puts KC in those positions where he does best. For all of his faults,and he does have faults, he has also shown that he can play at a high level. So it's incumbent upon the coaching staff and FO to figure out how to get that high potential out consistently. There is no rookie coming out next year that has proven they can play to the same level KC has played to. In fact, the majority of rookie qbs bust.

This does not mean you don't draft a rookie as his eventual replacement, but you give that rookie a few years to learn. This is what we should have done this year.

 

[Yo Tee]

Once again, that is your opinion. Others disagree and believe that the quickest path to sustained success is to invest in building a strong team around KC. KC has proven he can perform. Just not consistently. So one could believe that gruden needs to design a scheme thT puts KC in those positions where he does best. For all of his faults,and he does have faults, he has also shown that he can play at a high level. So it's incumbent upon the coaching staff and FO to figure out how to get that high potential out consistently. There is no rookie coming out next year that has proven they can play to the same level KC has played to. In fact, the majority of rookie qbs bust.

This does not mean you don't draft a rookie as his eventual replacement, but you give that rookie a few years to learn. This is what we should have done this year.

Baker Mayfield, Mason Rudolph and Lamar Jackson are all better options than Kirk Cousins. And you give that rookie a few years to learn behind who? Kirk Cousins? Come on now. If you can't get high potential out of a QB in 3 years, I'd say it's pretty evidential how he's gonna keep playing. This is his third year as a full-time starter and he's still making stupid mistakes he did when he went 0-3 and 1-7 filling in for RG3.

Answer this for me, what happens if the Redskins finish 8-8 or 9-7 again this year and doesn't make the playoffs?

 

[j_y19]

That is your opinion on those rookies. There is no evidence to back that up. Many QBs that tore it up in college busted in the NFL (if not most).

As for the 3 year window, was that true for Brees? The HoF is full of QBs that didn't blossom until well after their 3rd year.

What happens if we finish aroun .500 again this year? It depend on why. What you fail to realize it that KC did lead this team to a 10 win season last year, but the rest of the team failed. The defense lost the Detroit game when they couldn't stop the lions from scoring a TD with one minute to play, thiscafter KC led the offense on a game winning drive to take the lead. The our kicker missed a chip shot FG against Cincy to win the game. We win those two games, and we have 10 wins and are in the playoffs and these discussions are not being had at these levels. No QB can over come a piss poor defense. NOT ONE.

 

[Yo Tee]

That is your opinion on those rookies. There is no evidence to back that up. Many QBs that tore it up in college busted in the NFL (if not most).

As for the 3 year window, was that true for Brees? The HoF is full of QBs that didn't blossom until well after their 3rd year.

What happens if we finish aroun .500 again this year? It depend on why. What you fail to realize it that KC did lead this team to a 10 win season last year, but the rest of the team failed. The defense lost the Detroit game when they couldn't stop the lions from scoring a TD with one minute to play, thiscafter KC led the offense on a game winning drive to take the lead. The our kicker missed a chip shot FG against Cincy to win the game. We win those two games, and we have 10 wins and are in the playoffs and these discussions are not being had at these levels. No QB can over come a piss poor defense. NOT ONE.

Okay, you need to do your research before you start spitting things out dude. Drew Brees learned behind Doug Flutie for a year. Kirk Cousins is NOT Doug Flutie. Drew Brees is one of those QBs that immediately after taking over, he turned a 5-11 team to an 8-8 team and 2 years after, a division champion.

Also, the Redskins don't have a piss poor defense. They have a middle of the pack defense. 2015, they were 19th. 2016, 17th. When RG3 was the QB in 2012, the defense was ranked 22nd. So RG3 had a worse defense but still was able to win 10 games and the division title and at least kept it close in the playoff game against Seattle.

Three teams -- the 2009 Saints and 2011 Giants and Patriots -- have made the Super Bowl despite ranking in the bottom 10 in total defense. And three other teams -- the 2006 Colts, the 2008 Cardinals and again the 2011 Giants -- have reached the Super Bowl despite ranking in the bottom 10 in terms of points allowed per game.
So it is possible to be successful with an ACTUAL piss poor defense.

 

[j_y19]

Okay, you need to do your research before you start spitting things out dude. Drew Brees learned behind Doug Flutie for a year. Kirk Cousins is NOT Doug Flutie. Drew Brees is one of those QBs that immediately after taking over, he turned a 5-11 team to an 8-8 team and 2 years after, a division champion.

Also, the Redskins don't have a piss poor defense. They have a middle of the pack defense. 2015, they were 19th. 2016, 17th. When RG3 was the QB in 2012, the defense was ranked 22nd. So RG3 had a worse defense but still was able to win 10 games and the division title and at least kept it close in the playoff game against Seattle.

Three teams -- the 2009 Saints and 2011 Giants and Patriots -- have made the Super Bowl despite ranking in the bottom 10 in total defense. And three other teams -- the 2006 Colts, the 2008 Cardinals and again the 2011 Giants -- have reached the Super Bowl despite ranking in the bottom 10 in terms of points allowed per game.
So it is possible to be successful with an ACTUAL piss poor defense.

And you need to do yours. San diego ran Brees out of town because "he folded under pressure". The redskins had a terrible defense last year and couldn't stop anyone from scoring at will when they had to. It was a historically bad defense in this sense. you are cherry picking stats to make your case. Total yards given up does not necessarily make a bad defense. Not sure what you mean by KC is not doug flute. He is also not tom brady or arron rogers and never will be. Nor will we find the next tom brady or aaron rogers in next year's draft. Let me guess, you are also the type that invests your life savings on the power ball in hopes of winning big? Like you say, sometimes you gotta take a chance, right.

No, the issue is can KC be a QB on a team that has a sustained chance of winning it all. You say no. Which is fine, that is your opinion.. Others say potentially yes, if the right team and scheme are put around him. No one says that KC by himself can lift a poor team and carry them to the trophy. Time will tell. But don't act like you opinion is fact. None of ours are.

 

[Yo Tee]

And you need to do yours. San diego ran Brees out of town because "he folded under pressure". The redskins had a terrible defense last year and couldn't stop anyone from scoring at will when they had to. It was a historically bad defense in this sense. you are cherry picking stats to make your case. Total yards given up does not necessarily make a bad defense. Not sure what you mean by KC is not doug flute. He is also not tom brady or arron rogers and never will be. Nor will we find the next tom brady or aaron rogers in next year's draft. Let me guess, you are also the type that invests your life savings on the power ball in hopes of winning big? Like you say, sometimes you gotta take a chance, right.

No, the issue is can KC be a QB on a team that has a sustained chance of winning it all. You say no. Which is fine, that is your opinion.. Others say potentially yes, if the right team and scheme are put around him. No one says that KC by himself can lift a poor team and carry them to the trophy. Time will tell. But don't act like you opinion is fact. None of ours are.

I'm not acting like my opinion is fact, I'm providing facts that my opinions are based on. There's a difference.
Did Dallas think they drafted the next Brady or Rodgers when they took Dak Prescott? Probably not. Look how that turned out for them.

To address your point about Brees, were the Chargers right about Drew Brees? Don't think so. Look at what he's done in New Orleans since arriving. They took a chance in the draft on Phillip Rivers. And didn't it work out for them? Went from 9-7 to 14-2 and 4 straight division titles.

 

[Sleepy T]

@Terry Rode

Don't waste your breathe arguing your points buddy. We have discussed it ad nauseum. I agree with you, but some on this board have dug their feet in the sand and refuse to believe that Cousins is not the answer and someone who will take us to the promised land. Anything short of KC completely imploding (and turning into Scott Tolzien) will not change their opinions of him.

I think he is an above average QB that has some good skills, but some major flaws as well, kinda like Tony Romo was. I hope I am completely wrong, but I see us dipping our toes in the playoff waters with him over about a 5 year period, but never really making much noise or getting "over the hump". Unless he really shows me that he has taken the next step this year, some of us would just as soon move on and start over. Picking 10-18 isn't good enough for me. I want us to be picking 25-32.

 

[Yo Tee]

@Terry Rode

Don't waste your breathe arguing your points buddy. We have discussed it ad nauseum. I agree with you, but some on this board have dug their feet in the sand and refuse to believe that Cousins is not the answer and someone who will take us to the promised land. Anything short of KC completely imploding (and turning into Scott Tolzien) will not change their opinions of him.

I think he is an above average QB that has some good skills, but some major flaws as well, kinda like Tony Romo was. I hope I am completely wrong, but I see us dipping our toes in the playoff waters with him over about a 5 year period, but never really making much noise or getting "over the hump". Unless he really shows me that he has taken the next step this year, some of us would just as soon move on and start over. Picking 10-18 isn't good enough for me. I want us to be picking 25-32.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I think there are about 2 or 3 other Redskins fans that agree with you and I but everyone else I talk to is completely fine with being stuck with this 1-game over .500 caliber QB. There's nothing showing that the team is getting better. IDK. Guess I just have higher standards for my team than others do.

 

[gkekoa]

Better isn't needed? So you have just confirmed that you are completely okay with only winning 8 or 9 games a year and always being on the edge of being a playoff team. Would you rather be where you are right now, a guaranteed 8 or 9 win season with a small chance at the playoffs, or take a chance on a rookie QB who could potentially lead you to a 10 or 11 win season and a great chance at the playoffs. 10 QBs have taken their teams to the playoffs within 2 years of being drafted in the last 16 years.

You are such an idiot. We are saying with a better defense, KC can win more games.

Belichick was the coach in 2000 when they went 5-11 with Drew Bledsoe as QB. Brady takes over in 2001 as the full-time starter, 11-5 and a Super Bowl. The rest is history.

Jerome Bettis was with the Steelers in 1996. Pittsburgh couldn't make it past the divisional round in the late 90's early 00's until Big Ben came around.

Eli took over in the 2005. In 2003, the Giants were 4-12. In 2004, the Giants were 6-10. In 2005, the Giants were 11-5 and NFC East champs. 2 years, he improved the team from 4-12 to 11-5.

Marshawn Lynch was with Seattle in 2011 when they went 7-9. Russell Wilson comes in and turns a 7-9 team to a perennial Super Bowl favorite each year since. Their defense was 7th in 2011, the year before Wilson came in. Not like their defense was 20th lower.

Look at the Colts without Andrew Luck.
Look at the Steelers without Ben Roethlisberger.
Look at the Raiders without Derek Carr.

Did you happen to fact check before you wrote some of that stuff? It's common sense that football is a team sport. That's not a valid argument. But the QB position is the most important on the field and they are the leader of that offense and the entire locker room, or at least should be.

You expect a defensive coach to immediately turn a poor defense into a good one without his personnel? Again, every time Brady has won, he won with at worst the sixth best scoring defense. Let me explain this with as much condescension as possible. If the defense gives up fewer points, the offense has to score less.


OK. Try again. I didn't credit "the Bus." I credited the number one scoring defense in football and Bettis. I left out Willie Parker too. Keep up here. Ben's first SB was one of the worst performances in football history. Luckily the defense only gave up 10 points. Ben did throw for 120 yards with 2 picks. It is a good thing the Steelers rushed for over 180 that day. Randle El was the only Steeler with a TD pass that game.

Eli is a very interesting player. Somehow, he somehow gets victories while sucking.

Seattle, again, cannot change overnight. In 2010, their defense was 25th in the NFL. Yes they jumped to 7 in 2011. Seattle has had the number one defense in football from 2012-2015. They fell to three in 2016. They are and were a run first team. QBs do help but one thing all these guys, except Manning have had in common is their defense.

Of course I fact check. That is how I can call you out for being wrong. You won't be able to call me out though because I am not.

2015 Colts were 2-5 with Luck. They were 6-3 without him. They had the luxury of winning six games each season against bad team in Jax, Tennessee, and Houston.

Pitt, 2005-2008 without Ben, they were 2-2, 2006 they were 4-3. They also had the number one defense in three of those seasons.

Since the Raiders stopped sucking, there isn't a big enough sample.

 

[gkekoa]

It's not my opinion. It's what I've seen over the last 4 years. Others who believe that are going by potential. If we look at the facts, Kirk Cousins is a 1-game-over-.500 QB and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that if the franchise and the fans are okay with that. If the franchise wants to be a better team, you look at changing the owners, the coaches, and then the QB position. It's fine that you disagree, but open your minds to the possibilities. Do you think that Cowboys fans thought Dak Prescott was gonna take them to the playoffs last year? Probably not. I would suggest opening your mind to the possibilities that this might be as good as Kirk Cousins is gonna be and that a rookie QB poses the CHANCE of something better.

You mean the last two years. That is how long he has been treated almost like a starter. There is nothing wrong with that when your defense can't stop the other team. We can't change owners you moron. What does a Steelers fan know about changing coaches?

Dak wasn't the reason they won. Their OL and run game was what carried them. Hell, Tony looked great in his brief appearance.

We are all open to a new QB but aren't willing to throw darts blindfolded to find one.

 

[gkekoa]

Okay, you need to do your research before you start spitting things out dude. Drew Brees learned behind Doug Flutie for a year. Kirk Cousins is NOT Doug Flutie. Drew Brees is one of those QBs that immediately after taking over, he turned a 5-11 team to an 8-8 team and 2 years after, a division champion.

Also, the Redskins don't have a piss poor defense. They have a middle of the pack defense. 2015, they were 19th. 2016, 17th. When RG3 was the QB in 2012, the defense was ranked 22nd. So RG3 had a worse defense but still was able to win 10 games and the division title and at least kept it close in the playoff game against Seattle.

Three teams -- the 2009 Saints and 2011 Giants and Patriots -- have made the Super Bowl despite ranking in the bottom 10 in total defense. And three other teams -- the 2006 Colts, the 2008 Cardinals and again the 2011 Giants -- have reached the Super Bowl despite ranking in the bottom 10 in terms of points allowed per game.
So it is possible to be successful with an ACTUAL piss poor defense.

Are you suggesting Flutie is better than KC? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaahaha

KC immediately took over and turned a three win team into a 9 win team. Who was the RB for Brees? Hmmm. Let me think about that.

As for the Washington defense...
2012- 24.3
2015- 23.7
2016- 23.9


PPG matters buddy. Yards do not.

I am done making you look stupid. It is too much work. You are now ignored.

 

[Yo Tee]

You are such an idiot. We are saying with a better defense, KC can win more games.




You expect a defensive coach to immediately turn a poor defense into a good one without his personnel? Again, every time Brady has won, he won with at worst the sixth best scoring defense. Let me explain this with as much condescension as possible. If the defense gives up fewer points, the offense has to score less.


OK. Try again. I didn't credit "the Bus." I credited the number one scoring defense in football and Bettis. I left out Willie Parker too. Keep up here. Ben's first SB was one of the worst performances in football history. Luckily the defense only gave up 10 points. Ben did throw for 120 yards with 2 picks. It is a good thing the Steelers rushed for over 180 that day. Randle El was the only Steeler with a TD pass that game.

Eli is a very interesting player. Somehow, he somehow gets victories while sucking.

Seattle, again, cannot change overnight. In 2010, their defense was 25th in the NFL. Yes they jumped to 7 in 2011. Seattle has had the number one defense in football from 2012-2015. They fell to three in 2016. They are and were a run first team. QBs do help but one thing all these guys, except Manning have had in common is their defense.

Of course I fact check. That is how I can call you out for being wrong. You won't be able to call me out though because I am not.

2015 Colts were 2-5 with Luck. They were 6-3 without him. They had the luxury of winning six games each season against bad team in Jax, Tennessee, and Houston.

Pitt, 2005-2008 without Ben, they were 2-2, 2006 they were 4-3. They also had the number one defense in three of those seasons.

Since the Raiders stopped sucking, there isn't a big enough sample.

That's why I can't talk to you. Because you think you're right with everything. But, I'll humor it this one last time. FYI, my defensive rankings are based on PPG.

2011: Seattle was 23rd in offense, 7th in defense
2012: Russell Wilson starts, offense is 9th. Russell Wilson is arguably the catalyst of that offense improving so much. 1 year later, a Super Bowl victory.

2011: Colts are 2-14, 28th in offense and defense
2012: Andrew Luck starts, they finish 11-5 18th in offense 21st in defense. Andrew Luck is arguably the catalyst of that offense improving.

2003: Steelers are 6-10, 19th in offense, 15th in defense
2004: Ben Roethlisberger starts 15 games, offense is 11th, defense is 1st. Ben Roethlisberger is arguably the catalyst of that offense improving. 1 year later, a Super Bowl victory.

2007: Falcons are 4-12 with a 29th ranked offense and defense.
2008: Matt Ryan starts, offense is 10th, defense is 11th. Matt Ryan is arguably the catalyst of that offense improving.

2000: Patriots were 5-11 with a 25th ranked offense and 17th ranked defense. (Bill Belichick was the coach)
2001: Tom Brady starts, offense and defense are ranked 6th. Tom Brady is arguably the catalyst of that offense improving. Also, a Super Bowl victory.

(On a side note, the 2011 Patriots had a 15th ranked defense. Still went to the Super Bowl.)

2011: Broncos were 8-8 with a 25th ranked offense and 24th ranked defense.
2012: Peyton Manning starts, Broncos are 13-3 with the 2nd ranked offense. Peyton Manning is arguably the catalyst of that offense improving. 3 years later, a Super Bowl victory.

A change at QB is sometimes all a team needs to improve. Did the defenses improve in those teams? Yes they did, but with no offense to score the points, how are you gonna win the game? All these teams had an problem on offense. What did they do? Changed the QB and improved DRAMATICALLY. Want another comparison?

2011: Redskins were 5-11 with a 26th ranked offense and 21st ranked defense.
2012: Robert Griffin III starts, Redskins go 10-6 with a 4th ranked offense and a 22nd ranked defense. Robert Griffin III is arguably the catalyst of that offense improving.

The defense got WORSE, yet the Redskins doubled their win total and were a top 5 offense. Cousins could only get the Skins to be ranked in the top 10 but hasn't yet matched the win total that Robert Griffin III took the Skins to in 2012. Cousins has a better defense, ranked 17th, and he can't win the same amount of games that RG3 did with a 22nd ranked defense. There are statistical facts to back my opinion that a change at QB can completely change the landscape of a franchise. Redskins have done it twice with RG3 and Cousins. Changing QBs drastically turned their team around in 2012 and 2015.

We disagree and that's fine. But as soon as you start calling me an idiot, a line has been crossed and I start not being as respectful about it. So it's best to end this conversation right here.

 

[Yo Tee]

You are such an idiot.

We can't change owners you moron.

Just showing how a Redskins fan chooses to have a conversation about football. You can look back, not once did I call him an idiot or a moron.

 

[skinsdad62]

Better isn't needed? So you have just confirmed that you are completely okay with only winning 8 or 9 games a year and always being on the edge of being a playoff team. Would you rather be where you are right now, a guaranteed 8 or 9 win season with a small chance at the playoffs, or take a chance on a rookie QB who could potentially lead you to a 10 or 11 win season and a great chance at the playoffs. 10 QBs have taken their teams to the playoffs within 2 years of being drafted in the last 16 years.

i have confirmed nothing of the sort . i have stated we will get better with him at QB . in fact we have and as the team puts more around him he will thrive even more