Cousins to start 2015 Season

Been saying this since training camp started, chip Kelly is lurking and waiting. This is his dream qb prototype.

SMH...Griffin will not beat out Sam Bradford. Never. He may not beat out Sanchez for 2nd string.

What NFL offense can he run at this point? If you're in your 4th year and and you're still struggling with adjusting protections and can't consistently play from the pocket then it doesn't matter what system is ran. Then factor in the injury history. Griffin is mostly likely done in the NFL within 1 or 2 years.





He should not sniff the field here and the Redskins were stupid fools to pick up that option.



It amazing some people still believe Griff will be a good QB in the league.

It seems many fans along with J are of the mindset you express above.

The flip side, which I'm sure is hard for you to see, is that while Griff isn't a fit for J that doesn't mean he's not a fit in another offense. And IF that is true then it would be a mistake to get rid of Griffin IF J (the reason Griff is gone) fails.

By keeping Griffin the team hedges against a J-Kirk failure.

The 5th year option is still an issue but outside of the money (which can be massaged) getting rid of Griff doesn't bring any gain on the football field.

Why would a team build an entire offense around a guy that is as durable as a faberge egg, has become incredibly one dimensional, and has shown no progress in 3 years?

Kyle Shanahan did that already. Griffin broke, and the rest is history.

Now, after completely revamping personnel and coaching staff he can't adapt.

It's basically employing the exact opposite strategy Seattle build their depth and thus success with . Year after year they kept getting younger and deeper.

They also kept plugging in one QB after another until they found a gem in Wilson.

If I understand you correctly, you're advocating continually changing coaches, systems, and possibly personnel; all to accommodate the diminishing skill set of one player who had 1 good year?

Or, at least be willing to change all that if Kirk doesn't work out?

Wouldn't it be quicker, more cost effective, and ultimately more successful to just copy Seattle?

SMH...Griffin will not beat out Sam Bradford. Never. He may not beat out Sanchez for 2nd string.


Smh what? I never said he beats out Bradford. I don't think Bradford can stay healthy so yeah chip would totally want rg3 to run that offense. We all know that's what he's good at, never will be a pocket passer.

...If I understand you correctly, you're advocating continually changing coaches, systems, and possibly personnel; all to accommodate the diminishing skill set of one player who had 1 good year?

I wouldn't be surprised if that is the way that Dan Synder thinks.

It seems many fans along with J are of the mindset you express above.

The flip side, which I'm sure is hard for you to see, is that while Griff isn't a fit for J that doesn't mean he's not a fit in another offense. And IF that is true then it would be a mistake to get rid of Griffin IF J (the reason Griff is gone) fails.

By keeping Griffin the team hedges against a J-Kirk failure.

The 5th year option is still an issue but outside of the money (which can be massaged) getting rid of Griff doesn't bring any gain on the football field.

I can completely see the flip side, but what offense can he run which will not result in him injuried? The key is keeping him healthy, that means every offense style which results in him taking a hit as a runner is out.

So tell me which scheme is that, because pocket passer is clearly out as well.

What NFL offense can he run at this point? If you're in your 4th year and and you're still struggling with adjusting protections and can't consistently play from the pocket then it doesn't matter what system is ran. Then factor in the injury history. Griffin is mostly likely done in the NFL within 1 or 2 years.

He should not sniff the field here and the Redskins were stupid fools to pick up that option.

I am with you, I think some of these guys truly believe the 2012 RG3 will magically resurface if put in the right offense. Here is why it isn't happening:

First, other than Russell Wilson the recent dual threat QBs that were going to revolutionize the quarterback position (RG3, Newton, Kaepernick) have had
their weaknesses exposed by defenses and failed to develop new skills.

Second, The 2012 RG3 had sprinter's speed and an explosive quick first step
which he used to buy more time and keep defense's honest. Injuries have taken away a lot of that speed and explosiveness.

Third, Robert has not acquired new skills to make up for the ones defenses
and injuries have diminished. Lacking pocket presence, putting his body in awkward positions before contact and no instinct to protect himself is guaranteed to lead to more injuries that will further erode his athleticism, the thing he relies on most.

For RG3 to be successful he would need to reinvent himself, learn
how to avoid the rush in the pocket by side stepping and stepping up, learn
how to position his body to minimize contact, and how to see the field better.
In the pocket he doesn't seem to make good choices. I would call him nothing
more than a major project. If you ran our 2012 offense in the 2015 NFL
with the 2015 RG3 he becomes a bug on a windshield in no time flat.

I can completely see the flip side, but what offense can he run which will not result in him injuried? The key is keeping him healthy, that means every offense style which results in him taking a hit as a runner is out.

So tell me which scheme is that, because pocket passer is clearly out as well.Sure, we can get to this entirely different discussion about what offense and whatever else.

But first, I would like to get back to our discussion. What benefit does it bring on the field to have Griffin off the team? After all that's what our discussion was about. Looking at the flip side of booting Griffin off the team. If J and Kirk succeeds great, everyone parks everyone wins. But, if J and Kirk fail and we've also got rid of Griffin where's the benefit there?

Sure, we can get to this entirely different discussion about what offense and whatever else.

But first, I would like to get back to our discussion. What benefit does it bring on the field to have Griffin off the team? After all that's what our discussion was about. Looking at the flip side of booting Griffin off the team. If J and Kirk succeeds great, everyone parks everyone wins. But, if J and Kirk fail and we've also got rid of Griffin where's the benefit there?

16m+ in cap space to sign players that are good at their jobs, possibly 3m+ this year if someone bites on a trade (not likely). salary cap is a liquid asset that you can always turn into player contracts, and there's cap carryover now. you can't put him back on the field at that price. his knees would be holding the franchise hostage.

Why would a team build an entire offense around a guy that is as durable as a faberge egg, has become incredibly one dimensional, and has shown no progress in 3 years?

Kyle Shanahan did that already. Griffin broke, and the rest is history.

Now, after completely revamping personnel and coaching staff he can't adapt.

It's basically employing the exact opposite strategy Seattle build their depth and thus success with . Year after year they kept getting younger and deeper.

They also kept plugging in one QB after another until they found a gem in Wilson.

If I understand you correctly, you're advocating continually changing coaches, systems, and possibly personnel; all to accommodate the diminishing skill set of one player who had 1 good year?

Or, at least be willing to change all that if Kirk doesn't work out?

Wouldn't it be quicker, more cost effective, and ultimately more successful to just copy Seattle?You raise some interesting questions that aren't in response to my post.

The post you responded was a discussion of where/what is the benefit of having Griffin off the team? Especially if J and Kirk fail?

I have no problem discussing the questions you raise but would also like to have the original intent of the post to which you responded addressed.