what the broncos showed the skins

[gkekoa]

Yes.

So 28th most accurate QB is accurate?

Show me where he throws timing patterns.

 

[ehb5]

So 28th most accurate QB is accurate?

Show me where he throws timing patterns.

Because completion percentage tells us everything we need to know.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Keim...

Redskins championship teams provide path current group can follow

Excerpt

A lot of the stories have been told, and re-told, over the years -- and, because of the lack of overall success by the Washington Redskins, they become fodder for those starved for the good ol' days. What they also do, though, is serve as a reminder of the subtle aspects of building a winner. It’s something I was reminded of in the lead-up to last week’s Hall of Fame announcement.

After talking to Joe Jacoby and Donnie Warren and Joe Gibbs, they provided a reminder of what helped drive those championship teams in the 1980s and early '90s. It’s quite telling that the bond remains strong between many players on those teams, especially among the Hogs. One reason former coach Gibbs was excited about Joe Jacoby eventually moving to Charlotte, North Carolina: the ability to spend more time together. Gibbs already checks in on Jacoby every so often.

It’s a bond that might not be able to be created today -- or at least have one as deep -- because of free agency. But you can duplicate that for a little while at least, certainly longer than what the Redskins have done in recent years. It’s not as if players now aren’t as close; the Redskins’ defensive line was tight this season (and offensive lines in the past have been as well). But it’s more short-lived -- the Redskins' defensive line will have a different look in 2016.

Playing together a long time added to the bond and strengthened their ability on the field, leading to three Super Bowl titles in 10 years. When you change rosters every few years, it’s tough to build anything special.

"Obviously we were great as a group, but what made us great is that we played for a long time together," said former Redskins tight end Warren. "We knew where everybody was going to be at all times, their footwork. I knew on a counter trey if I’m running to the left side and Jake is to the right of me, I knew exactly where his footwork was going to be and what footwork I had to stay with. That makes things a hell of a lot easier on the edge."

And the best way to develop this sort of situation is through the draft. It’s one reason general manager Scot McCloughan advocates such a plan. Free agency in its current form did not exist in the 1980s, so it was easier to keep guys together. But it also shows what can happen when you draft and develop players, too.

 

[skinsdad62]

Can Cam survive without his legs?

Would Carolina win without that defense?

The answer to both questions is no. That is why he isn't the best QB in the league.

The system makes the WRs in NE along with the QB making line calls and throwing on time. Cam does neither.

hpw can you make this argument ? that is like saying could nolan ryan pitch without his 100 mph fastball . he has it , so dont take it away

Here is a better link. I went back to 1990 because it's tedious and I'll go blind if I went any further. I charted all SB starters as well as SB winners, updated to reflect the last 2 Super Bowls. If you take away Tom Brady the numbers aren't even close.

First round
Starters: 27
Winners: 14

Second round:

Starters: 4
Winners: 1

Third Round
Starters: 6
Winners: 3

Rounds 4+
Starters: 15 (Brady accounted for 6)
Winners: 8 (Again Brady got half of them)

DraftHistory.com

dude you left out like 23 years of superbowls out

starr lomanica , kapp , tarkenton , unitas , morrall dawson griese , kilmer , theiseman , rypien stabler staubach , morton ferragamo jaws, anderson woodley , mcmahon

thats 19 qbs you ignored that certainly skew your stats

 

[gkekoa]

Because completion percentage tells us everything we need to know.

Nope but it is the best indicator of accuracy around.

 

[gkekoa]

hpw can you make this argument ? that is like saying could nolan ryan pitch without his 100 mph fastball . he has it , so dont take it away

It is easy to take this away. Age will and as we know with injury, the legs can go too...ask Bob.

 

[ehb5]

Nope but it is the best indicator of accuracy around.

Eh. It's AN indicator. But it's also pretty worthless without context.

 

[gkekoa]

Eh. It's AN indicator. But it's also pretty worthless without context.

It is the best indicator but like you said, context matters. Watch Cam and you will see he is consistently inaccurate and missing open WRs without pressure. he will make some throws where you say...great throw. He also makes some where you say...how the hell do you miss that?

 

[ehb5]

It is the best indicator but like you said, context matters. Watch Cam and you will see he is consistently inaccurate and missing open WRs without pressure. he will make some throws where you say...great throw. He also makes some where you say...how the hell do you miss that?

He misses from time to time but everybody does. He also makes absolutely jaw dropping throws that can probably only be matched by Rodgers. He also throws downfield a lot which leads to less "accuracy". And then you have his WRs costing him an insane amount of completions and yards this year. Point being - I have no doubt he's a good QB with or without his legs. And with them? Well, he's the MVP.

 

[skinsdad62]

It is easy to take this away. Age will and as we know with injury, the legs can go too...ask Bob.

first he isnt injured now and guys like steve young and randal cuningham became good passer later one in their careers

 

[Sharkinva]

He misses from time to time but everybody does. He also makes absolutely jaw dropping throws that can probably only be matched by Rodgers. He also throws downfield a lot which leads to less "accuracy". And then you have his WRs costing him an insane amount of completions and yards this year. Point being - I have no doubt he's a good QB with or without his legs. And with them? Well, he's the MVP.

Actually without his ability to run he would be... whats that word you like to use?? Oh yea... mediocre.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

hpw can you make this argument ? that is like saying could nolan ryan pitch without his 100 mph fastball . he has it , so dont take it away



dude you left out like 23 years of superbowls out

starr lomanica , kapp , tarkenton , unitas , morrall dawson griese , kilmer , theiseman , rypien stabler staubach , morton ferragamo jaws, anderson woodley , mcmahon

thats 19 qbs you ignored that certainly skew your stats

I went back 25 years, I think that's certainly long enough and clearly representative. The NFL is totally different today than it was when Bart Starr played, the QB position is much more impoortant now. Rypien was counted FYI.

 

[skinsdad62]

I went back 25 years, I think that's certainly long enough and clearly representative. The NFL is totally different today than it was when Bart Starr played, the QB position is much more impoortant now. Rypien was counted FYI.

hogwash the qb position was much more important and they had more responsibility in a tougher /rougher game . we will start with calling their own games and lack of technology

 

[gkekoa]

hogwash the qb position was much more important and they had more responsibility in a tougher /rougher game . we will start with calling their own games and lack of technology

Disagree in a major way. The game of the past was pure run and defense.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Interesting list of starting QBs I came across

 

[skinsdad62]

Disagree in a major way. The game of the past was pure run and defense.

i believe you are wrong the raiders threw the ball a lot as did the chiefs the game had a defensive tilt making it tougher on offenses .

and again if some are going to quote history of super bowls then you damn sure better count them all and not cherry pick to make your talking points mean more does the 89 super bowl team play a hugely different game then the 90 one ? or the 88 ? seems like an arbitrary cut off to me

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Disagree in a major way. The game of the past was pure run and defense.

Of course it was. With the rule changes this is now a passing league. That is obvious. Most everyone except Dad understands the QB is much more important now. Now Denver got it done the other way. But as discussed a million times they are the exception. I listed a few weeks away the QBs who remained in the playoffs. Most all had top QBs as is the case every January. Again "top" does not mean Tom Brady. There are a dozen or so that fit the label.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

i believe you are wrong the raiders threw the ball a lot as did the chiefs the game had a defensive tilt making it tougher on offenses .

and again if some are going to quote history of super bowls then you damn sure better count them all and not cherry pick to make your talking points mean more does the 89 super bowl team play a hugely different game then the 90 one ? or the 88 ? seems like an arbitrary cut off to me

I went back to 1990, it was a nice round number. As I said I didn't have the time to go back further. Had I gone back 5 more years to 1985 I would have had 8 more 1st rounders. So much for your cherry pick theory. If I went back any further. we would get into the age of totally unsophisticated drafting. Unless you are prepared to argue that they picked players in 1970 as well as they do now.

As for your argument about the Chiefs etc go look up the passing numbers from 1970 and compare them with today. Len Dawson threw for 146 yards/game in 1970. The Mad Bomber Daryle Lamonica's biggest year was 3,304 yards or 235 a game. Just stop.

Again my argument was the majority of SB QBs were taken in the first round when compared to round 4 and beyond. Considering the first round has only 32 oicks now, less in the years past, and rounds 4+ involve many more players than round 1. So it's even more clear that top picks have more success.

 

[Sharkinva]

I went back to 1990. This wasn't cherry picked, it was a nice round number. As I said I didn't have the time to go back further. If I did we would get into the age of totally unsophisticated drafting. Unless you are prepared to argue that they picked players in 1970 as well as they do now.

Again my argument was the majority of SB QBs were taken in the first round when compared to round 4 and beyond. Considering the first round has only 32 oicks now, less in the years past, and rounds 4+ involve many more players than round 1. So it's even more clear that top picks have more success.

Ok taking this data into account. And bearing in mind that the last four first round QBs we have taken have all failed to some degree, from where we sit right now.... knowing the odds...... whats the course of action you think we should take? If we resign irk, we effectively take the first round QB option off the table for the next three years. If we dont sign Kirk, we are not in a position where we can draft one of the top 2-3 QBs this year. So aside from trading up in the draft....

And Im not saying we have no choice but ti resign Cousins...

But give me a viable option that allows this team to improve now and in the future still allow us to draft the first round QB?

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Ok taking this data into account. And bearing in mind that the last four first round QBs we have taken have all failed to some degree, from where we sit right now.... knowing the odds...... whats the course of action you think we should take? If we resign irk, we effectively take the first round QB option off the table for the next three years. If we dont sign Kirk, we are not in a position where we can draft one of the top 2-3 QBs this year. So aside from trading up in the draft....

And Im not saying we have no choice but ti resign Cousins...

But give me a viable option that allows this team to improve now and in the future still allow us to draft the first round QB?

I agree we should roll with Cousins, said it many times. I'm talking about the history of the league when others said I was wrong about 1st round picks vs picks in round 4+.