New Redskins Starting Quarterback Fan Support Therapy

[Stymietee]

I would expect a few more runs which would extend drives, leading to more opportunities to run and pass, and more points. I believe it would open up the passing game because the rush would have to be respected.

I think Guice will have a very good effect on the offense but will see 8 man fronts because teams won’t respect Alex Smith...especially throwing to our WRs.

I don’t think Guice will be close to ROY. I expect Saquon Barkley, Penny, Michel, and a QB or two to be ahead of him.

I am now a bit anxious to see how all of this works out!

 

[Sharkinva]

Then if you're right and I tend to agree based on history, do you believe that all of the talk surrounding upgrading at RB (because in theory they did) is all about allowing them to have a justifiable reason to axe Gruden?

MAybe. But in reality Gruden, much like the Shanahans before him, has managed to have fairly productive offenses. This despite having talent either not present, or not retained on the offense.

I think Guice, and the defensive improvements are about giving Gruden what he needs to do well, they want that high powered passing attack. That sells tickets. But they also want wins. And that requires a defense and a ground game.

 

[Sharkinva]

1. I believe that they are forcing his hand to do so, and if he doesn't Gruden is gone. Keep in mind that our front office is stocked with folks who remember a time where running the ball was the key to victory.

2. Nope, I think that if he manages to stay healthy Reed and Co. are good enough. Our running attack potentially is among the best in the league...POTENTIALLY. We'll need to upgrade at LG, get another WR (not Dez) or hope that one of the youngsters step up big time. I'm really not sold on the group that we currently have and just to be clear, of the group we have speed and big, both will have a lot to prove. What we don't have is that middle guy, a possession type who's able to get those tough yards.

If Gruden is gone, Bruce isnt far behind him. And some how I dont think Bruce is going to burn his bail out bridge which is currently Oakland. Bruce never wanted Gruden to fail, I just dont think he wanted Gruden's chosen QB to succeed. Bruce has HIS QB again. So it would not shock me to see us make another move or two to improve the WR position as well as the defense before the season starts. And I mean a real move, not another McBoys type signing.

 

[Stymietee]

If Gruden is gone, Bruce isnt far behind him. And some how I dont think Bruce is going to burn his bail out bridge which is currently Oakland. Bruce never wanted Gruden to fail, I just dont think he wanted Gruden's chosen QB to succeed. Bruce has HIS QB again. So it would not shock me to see us make another move or two to improve the WR position as well as the defense before the season starts. And I mean a real move, not another McBoys type signing.

...And I thought that I was among the few who were tired of those so-so guys being signed here. I hope that Bruce does go to Oakland, we get a dedicated GM in here and the norm becomes signing guys like the McBoys et.al will strictly be as emergency fill-ins, not starters.

 

[Sharkinva]

...And I thought that I was among the few who were tired of those so-so guys being signed here. I hope that Bruce does go to Oakland, we get a dedicated GM in here and the norm becomes signing guys like the McBoys et.al will strictly be as emergency fill-ins, not starters.

IM actually tired of the team being run b a guy who got the job because of his family name. A guy who makes personnel moves based on some latent daddy issues to prove that he is his own man and cant stand to be anything less than the center of attention. We had a dedicated GM, he got fired because he was too well liked by the fans.

 

[Sportster 72]

Like many coaches Gruden uses a lot of play action. A good plan in my estimation. A more productive RB only makes that play action work better. Our previous QB was best when play action was working and at his work when teams ignored our run. It is important that the run game works better than it has. I believe that Smith's legs my help both the run game and the passing game. Now being better than Cousin's has been for three straight years is something we will have to wait and see.

Sty, if Reed is healthy he will catch passes in the middle of the field at intermediate distances. Crowder will be running short slants on blitz reads. CT if healthy will be CDC Charley on different parts of the field. I hope that Doctson can use his size to get more plays across the middle. I have hopes that Trey Quinn can do this also.

 

[Stymietee]

IM actually tired of the team being run b a guy who got the job because of his family name. A guy who makes personnel moves based on some latent daddy issues to prove that he is his own man and cant stand to be anything less than the center of attention. We had a dedicated GM, he got fired because he was too well liked by the fans.

Exactly!!

 

[Stymietee]

Like many coaches Gruden uses a lot of play action. A good plan in my estimation. A more productive RB only makes that play action work better. Our previous QB was best when play action was working and at his work when teams ignored our run. It is important that the run game works better than it has. I believe that Smith's legs my help both the run game and the passing game. Now being better than Cousin's has been for three straight years is something we will have to wait and see.

Sty, if Reed is healthy he will catch passes in the middle of the field at intermediate distances. Crowder will be running short slants on blitz reads. CT if healthy will be CDC Charley on different parts of the field. I hope that Doctson can use his size to get more plays across the middle. I have hopes that Trey Quinn can do this also.

I actually like the way that Gruden runs his offense, it's the uncertainty of JDox and health of Reed that concerns me.

 

[skinsdad62]

Fair enough, I have no issue with you citing those who talked ish but didn't take up the challenge. I did and because you didn't agree with my choice does not mean that it was a bad choice universally.

You then wrote,..."and there is plenty of evidence, his play." in reference to Kirk Cousins, so I offer my own challenge.

9-7 and a lost playoff game, 8-7-6 and no playoff appearance, and 7-9 again with no playoff appearance. That said, it's a team game and Kirk Cousins nor any other QB is going to win anything outside of that context.

KC ‘s play was historic in terms of numbers , he did his part much like HOF qb sonny jurgensen who didnt win much here period . Qb play wasn’t the issue

 

[j_y19]

Fair enough, I have no issue with you citing those who talked ish but didn't take up the challenge. I did and because you didn't agree with my choice does not mean that it was a bad choice universally.

You then wrote,..."and there is plenty of evidence, his play." in reference to Kirk Cousins, so I offer my own challenge.

9-7 and a lost playoff game, 8-7-6 and no playoff appearance, and 7-9 again with no playoff appearance. That said, it's a team game and Kirk Cousins nor any other QB is going to win anything outside of that context.

I'm not sure what the challenge is you are offering. You cite his record as a stater but then recognize that that stat can be skewed beyond the QB's ability to control it (which I agree). The metrics for measuring the success of a QB should absolutely include their record. But it is just one of a handful of metrics that have to be evaluated and put into context. But the real debate here is, what ever the metrics you use, make sure you apply them universally. So if, in COach's case, playoff wins is how he evaluates Cousins, then he needs to also use the same metric when evaluating Smith.

 

[Stymietee]

KC ‘s play was historic in terms of numbers , he did his part much like HOF qb sonny jurgensen who didnt win much here period . Qb play wasn’t the issue

Kirk did play very well, no doubt, but he was never on a team good enough to take him to victory in a playoff game.

 

[Stymietee]

I'm not sure what the challenge is you are offering. You cite his record as a stater but then recognize that that stat can be skewed beyond the QB's ability to control it (which I agree). The metrics for measuring the success of a QB should absolutely include their record. But it is just one of a handful of metrics that have to be evaluated and put into context. But the real debate here is, what ever the metrics you use, make sure you apply them universally. So if, in COach's case, playoff wins is how he evaluates Cousins, then he needs to also use the same metric when evaluating Smith.

@dad issued a challenge to anyone who could come up with a QB who could replace Kirk because some here did not see Kirk in the same light as others. Personally, my evolution with respect to the kind of player he was went from career back-up to pretty good player, however despite that I thought it a good challenge to take on and did so. I did come up with a "name" and presented it. Of course there was derision, that was expected, but as I constantly stated, just because people disagree with it, doesn't make it a bad choice from at minimum my perspective. Therein lies the basis upon which this has become a sticking point between those who are ardent "Kirk only' supporters and myself. I honestly cannot and will not speak for, nor allow myself to grouped with others who also see Kirk's value differently that those supporters.

 

[j_y19]

@dad issued a challenge to anyone who could come up with a QB who could replace Kirk because some here did not see Kirk in the same light as others. Personally, my evolution with respect to the kind of player he was went from career back-up to pretty good player, however despite that I thought it a good challenge to take on and did so. I did come up with a "name" and presented it. Of course there was derision, that was expected, but as I constantly stated, just because people disagree with it, doesn't make it a bad choice from at minimum my perspective. Therein lies the basis upon which this has become a sticking point between those who are ardent "Kirk only' supporters and myself. I honestly cannot and will not speak for, nor allow myself to grouped with others who also see Kirk's value differently that those supporters.

Got it. And for the record, I am respect that you accepted that challenge, many of those bashing KC did not. Also for the record, I am not a “Kirk only” supporter. I see smith as a similar type qb in his production. I just had a real problem with the trade and what we gave up as over the life of their next contracts, I believe KC will be a more productive player based on age alone if no other reasons. KC is still growing as a qb and has potential upside, whereas Smith is now what he is.

 

[Sportster 72]

Yep Sty suggested that AJ was a suitable replacement well over a year ago now I think. I think a couple of folks suggested Tyrod Taylor too. I know the debate is going to rage on but there is really no way to know the result until it plays out. I also understand those that want the same metric used to judge whatever (emphasize whatever) QB plays for Washington versus Cousin's.

I would add one thing, wins is not a metric for one player. Football is and will always be a team game an no one player can insure wins.

Personally I hope the kid in Minnesota kicks ass and I hope the Redskins do the same. I also hope Dan the Man decides to sell the team but I don't see that happening.

 

[Stymietee]

I'm not sure what the challenge is you are offering. You cite his record as a stater but then recognize that that stat can be skewed beyond the QB's ability to control it (which I agree). The metrics for measuring the success of a QB should absolutely include their record. But it is just one of a handful of metrics that have to be evaluated and put into context. But the real debate here is, what ever the metrics you use, make sure you apply them universally. So if, in COach's case, playoff wins is how he evaluates Cousins, then he needs to also use the same metric when evaluating Smith.

Why then,( rhetorical) is it so difficult for some to accept that others will use a single or multiple metrics to measure a particular player? Whether or not that is a whole picture evaluation or not is unquantifiable given human nature and the ability to pick and choose how one sees things. I wholeheartedly agree with you that context matters, that of course is why these threads continue as they do. Given that, forcing or attempting to force the perspective of one onto another assumes a finite universe from which we all measure.

That said, I don't see the issue as one where one or more metrics are used for both players. Adding additional metrics from other posters is the issue, for example, if I select to measure Kirk vs Smith based upon win/loss records only according to you (and I agree) that's fair. It is when someone else decides, then insist, that it's not a good enough metric if I don't include how poor/decent the defense was/is during the time of Smith and Cousins.

 

[Sharkinva]

Why then,( rhetorical) is it so difficult for some to accept that others will use a single or multiple metrics to measure a particular player? Whether or not that is a whole picture evaluation or not is unquantifiable given human nature and the ability to pick and choose how one sees things. I wholeheartedly agree with you that context matters, that of course is why these threads continue as they do. Given that, forcing or attempting to force the perspective of one onto another assumes a finite universe from which we all measure.

That said, I don't see the issue as one where one or more metrics are used for both players. Adding additional metrics from other posters is the issue, for example, if I select to measure Kirk vs Smith based upon win/loss records only according to you (and I agree) that's fair. It is when someone else decides, then insist, that it's not a good enough metric if I don't include how poor/decent the defense was/is during the time of Smith and Cousins.

The problem isnt in using different metrics to measure success or failure.

The problem is, changing the metrics to fit a particular player and determine success or failure.

When the talk was over the past three years, that the QB needed to be able to carry the team and make others around him better. And the metric has now changed to, all he needs to do is equal what Cousins did and it was an OK move, thats not comparing apples to apples.

 

[j_y19]

Why then,( rhetorical) is it so difficult for some to accept that others will use a single or multiple metrics to measure a particular player? Whether or not that is a whole picture evaluation or not is unquantifiable given human nature and the ability to pick and choose how one sees things. I wholeheartedly agree with you that context matters, that of course is why these threads continue as they do. Given that, forcing or attempting to force the perspective of one onto another assumes a finite universe from which we all measure.

That said, I don't see the issue as one where one or more metrics are used for both players. Adding additional metrics from other posters is the issue, for example, if I select to measure Kirk vs Smith based upon win/loss records only according to you (and I agree) that's fair. It is when someone else decides, then insist, that it's not a good enough metric if I don't include how poor/decent the defense was/is during the time of Smith and Cousins.

I can’t speak for others (though I know some agree with me), but the issue I take is when a poster offers an opinion and justifies it with a specific metric but when that player’s replacement is installed, that same poster starts to backpedal on the metric for future evaluation. I don’t expect us all to agree on metrics or player value, but I will call out posters that are inconsistent in their evaluations and offer that this posters have other agendas they are harboring.

 

[Stymietee]

Got it. And for the record, I am respect that you accepted that challenge, many of those bashing KC did not. Also for the record, I am not a “Kirk only” supporter. I see smith as a similar type qb in his production. I just had a real problem with the trade and what we gave up as over the life of their next contracts, I believe KC will be a more productive player based on age alone if no other reasons. KC is still growing as a qb and has potential upside, whereas Smith is now what he is.

I too see Smith as a very similar player, just an older, perhaps wiser version. Far be it from my ancient ass to proclaim anyone as old, especially a 33 still active player. Now I'm a bit reluctant to do so, but for the first time here I will. I am no fan of the trade that bought Alex Smith here. I understand why they did it, I didn't like the idea of giving up Fuller and that 3rd round pick, but again I understand why they did it.

 

[j_y19]

The problem isnt in using different metrics to measure success or failure.

The problem is, changing the metrics to fit a particular player and determine success or failure.

When the talk was over the past three years, that the QB needed to be able to carry the team and make others around him better. And the metric has now changed to, all he needs to do is equal what Cousins did and it was an OK move, thats not comparing apples to apples.

BINGO!

 

[Stymietee]

The problem isnt in using different metrics to measure success or failure.

The problem is, changing the metrics to fit a particular player and determine success or failure.

When the talk was over the past three years, that the QB needed to be able to carry the team and make others around him better. And the metric has now changed to, all he needs to do is equal what Cousins did and it was an OK move, thats not comparing apples to apples.

I agree that changing the metric from one player to another is an issue, the question now is who's doing it. Some speculate that Kirk "would have taken this team to a play-off and win, while others say that he didn't do so while here. Now it's, if Smith doesn't do as speculated with Kirk, then Smith is the failure. Then there are others who say all Smith has to do is at minimum what Kirk actually did while here and others who take that and insist that other metrics (poor defense/WR's/RG) must be included because there are annual changes to NFL teams (see: draft/free agency)

Now we can argue about what those actual metrics should be (see the discussion that @GK and I had concerning 4000 yards and 30 scores) but to add any other metric not related to the individual play of either is frankly, moving the goal posts.