Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Start John Beck Madness Thread

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-07-2011, 04:42 PM   #316
Registered User
 
CultBrennan59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,527
Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread

I was watching the Kurt Warner story last night on NFLN watching Trent Green go down on a team with big aspirations, and hearing Dick Vermeil say that they would rally around Kurt Warner. I was thinking to myself what if Rex went down; Would Beck be like a Kurt Warner. I would love to see the somewhat unknown Beck play over the known Grossman.
CultBrennan59 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 10-07-2011, 04:59 PM   #317
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 11,006
Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanarchist View Post
Tell me when the last time a team has won a Superbowl without having some form of balance, and barely eeking out wins on a weekly basis, and maybe your case will hold weight. Otherwise go back to playing with your Tonka Toys.
Um, last year? The Packers barely made the playoffs at 10-6 and they did so by "eeking out" several victories. And they lacked balance on offense, as their leading rusher had 703 yards. They were 5th in passing yards but near the bottom in rushing yards.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 05:03 PM   #318
Impact Rookie
 
Redskin Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Orleans, LA- via VA
Age: 36
Posts: 635
Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
Um, last year? The Packers barely made the playoffs at 10-6 and they did so by "eeking out" several victories. And they lacked balance on offense, as their leading rusher had 703 yards. They were 5th in passing yards but near the bottom in rushing yards.
To add to that, a truly poor Redskins team beat both GB and the Bears, who played the NFC championship.
__________________
Hail to The REDSKINS
Redskin Jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 05:05 PM   #319
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,342
Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Goat View Post
when he's trying to waddle away from rushers.
I was having kind of a downer day, this made me LOL and I'm still laughing when I picture the visual. Hilarious.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 05:18 PM   #320
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,458
Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread

edit
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 05:19 PM   #321
Playmaker
 
irish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,731
Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanarchist View Post
Tell me when the last time a team has won a Superbowl without having some form of balance, and barely eeking out wins on a weekly basis, and maybe your case will hold weight. Otherwise go back to playing with your Tonka Toys.
I suspect you are the kind of fan who, if the Skins won the SB, would bitch that they didnt go undefeated, lead the league in every statistic, and had to eek out the SB win with a last second field goal. And now, back to my tonka toys.

Last edited by irish; 10-07-2011 at 05:22 PM.
irish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 05:28 PM   #322
Registered User
 
44ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: The Fortune Teller
Posts: 2,512
Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Goat View Post
Good post. There's no reason to think Mike will stick w/ any particular QB if he thinks the guy in waiting will produce more wins. One thing we absolutely know about our HC is he is all about winning.

I also agree Grossman controls his own destiny outside of Kyle's playcalling and gameplan. Sure Rex can make better decisions and avoid forcing the ball to covered targets. It also seems like it would be damn easy for him start protecting the ball when he's trying to waddle away from rushers. Those things are certainly in his control. On the other hand Kyle could help minimize errors by committing more to the run, especially when we have a hell of a RB corp, and giving Rex more downfield looks rather than lateral ones. Missing Armstrong obviously hurts but still we could throw the deep ball a lot more to Davis and Tana. Play-action should also be worked in more IMO.
That may be the only thing outside of his own ability that can save his job. But we may sacrifice Torain down the stretch if we have to go to the run to much. With Hightower hurt, we need to be careful.

The bye is going to seem like forever but came at a good time. Hopefully they can put some schemes in place in time to help Rex out.
44ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 05:33 PM   #323
Special Teams
 
fanarchist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 107
Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
Um, last year? The Packers barely made the playoffs at 10-6 and they did so by "eeking out" several victories. And they lacked balance on offense, as their leading rusher had 703 yards. They were 5th in passing yards but near the bottom in rushing yards.
I consider one fascet of an offense overcompensating for a weaker area in the offense, a form of balance. And they had a pretty good defense too as far as I can remember. They also lost Ryan Grant for the season in game 1, and Finley for the year in game 5. Against us. 34-7 vs Buffalo in week 2. 9-0 vs the Jets in week 8. I realize it's not a blowout by any means, but it's still more points then we've won by in the last 3 games. 45-7 in week 9 vs Dallas. 31-3 in week 11 vs the Vikings. 34-16 in week 13 against San Fran. 45-17 in week 16 vs the Giants. That doesn't strike me as a team who is "eeking out wins on a weekly basis". And if you take this season into account it appears as if their geared up to represent the NFC in the Superbowl in back to back seasons.
fanarchist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 05:39 PM   #324
Special Teams
 
fanarchist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 107
Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by irish View Post
I suspect you are the kind of fan who, if the Skins won the SB, would bitch that they didnt go undefeated, lead the league in every statistic, and had to eek out the SB win with a last second field goal. And now, back to my tonka toys.
I don't think me wanting the team to improve in as many areas as possible makes me any less of a fan than anyone else. I don't know what fan wouldn't want their teams weaknesses to become strengths.
fanarchist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 05:56 PM   #325
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 11,006
Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanarchist View Post
I consider one fascet of an offense overcompensating for a weaker area in the offense, a form of balance. And they had a pretty good defense too as far as I can remember. They also lost Ryan Grant for the season in game 1, and Finley for the year in game 5. Against us. 34-7 vs Buffalo in week 2. 9-0 vs the Jets in week 8. I realize it's not a blowout by any means, but it's still more points then we've won by in the last 3 games. 45-7 in week 9 vs Dallas. 31-3 in week 11 vs the Vikings. 34-16 in week 13 against San Fran. 45-17 in week 16 vs the Giants. That doesn't strike me as a team who is "eeking out wins on a weekly basis". And if you take this season into account it appears as if their geared up to represent the NFC in the Superbowl in back to back seasons.
1) "One fascet of an offense overcompensating for a weaker area in the offense" is the definition of a lack of balance.

2) You neglected to mention all of their narrow victories, their six losses, and the fact that they barely got into the playoffs. While they had some big wins (as did we against the Giants this year), most of the time they were scrapping.

Your initial point was that teams which lack balance don't scrap their way to the Lombardi. Why don't you just admit that you were wrong when you so clearly were?
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 06:31 PM   #326
Special Teams
 
fanarchist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 107
Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
1) "One fascet of an offense overcompensating for a weaker area in the offense" is the definition of a lack of balance.

2) You neglected to mention all of their narrow victories, their six losses, and the fact that they barely got into the playoffs. While they had some big wins (as did we against the Giants this year), most of the time they were scrapping.

Your initial point was that teams which lack balance don't scrap their way to the Lombardi. Why don't you just admit that you were wrong when you so clearly were?
Balancing out the loss of production in one area by creating it in another still accounts for a balance in overall yardage. And as a team they rushed for 1,130 yards, but I'm not talking run/pass yardage balance. Those statistics will never be balanced, because in almost all circumstances in the current game you are going to pass for more yardage than you rush.

Yes, they had some narrow victories, and yes, they lost 6 games, there aren't many winning teams who don't do a little of both, but my point was that they were also winning a number of those games by wide margins. By example there were several games where they weren't "eeking out wins", but instead handling their competition easily, and putting up droves of points in the process.

I never said anything about scraping their way to the Lombardi. You're only hearing/reading selectively and interpreting it however you choose.

Last edited by fanarchist; 10-07-2011 at 06:46 PM.
fanarchist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 07:02 PM   #327
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 11,006
Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanarchist View Post
Balancing out the loss of production in one area by creating it in another still accounts for a balance in overall yardage. And as a team they rushed for 1,130 yards, but I'm not talking run/pass yardage balance. Those statistics will never be balanced, because in almost all circumstances in the current game you are going to pass for more yardage than you rush.

Yes, they had some narrow victories, and yes, they lost 6 games, there aren't many winning teams who don't do a little of both, but my point was that they were also winning a number of those games by wide margins. By example there were several games where they weren't "eeking out wins", but instead handling their competition easily, and putting up droves of points in the process.

I never said anything about scraping their way to the Lombardi. You're only hearing/reading selectively and interpreting it however you choose.
No. The problem is not with my interpretation.

It is straightforward. The Packers did not have a balanced attack. They were 5th in passing and 23rd in rushing. You can spin as you want, you can tell me that the sky is red. But the facts remain the facts.

You neglect that your original comparison was with us "eeking" out wins, but we have had some close wins and a big win - much like the Packers last year.

We could also talk about other teams which were unbalanced and played many close games yet still won the Super Bowl, something which you said didn't happen. The Steelers, the Patriots one year, the Ravens - there are many other counterexamples to your point.

So, let's sum up: you were rude to another Warpath member on your way to making an erroneous statement. Now, rather than admitting your mistake, you are being rude to me. You are not making friends nor are you offering arguments to which we should listen.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.

Last edited by Lotus; 10-07-2011 at 07:16 PM.
Lotus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 07:19 PM   #328
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,849
Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread

Shall we juxtapose a couple of quotes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanarchist View Post
Tell me when the last time a team has won a Superbowl without having some form of balance, and barely eeking out wins on a weekly basis, and maybe your case will hold weight. Otherwise go back to playing with your Tonka Toys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanarchist View Post
Balancing out the loss of production in one area by creating it in another still accounts for a balance in overall yardage. And as a team they rushed for 1,130 yards, but I'm not talking run/pass balance. Those statistics will never be balanced, because in almost all circumstances in the current game you are going to pass for more yardage than you rush.

Yes, they had some narrow victories, and yes, they lost 6 games, there aren't many winning teams who do a little of both, but my point was that they were also winning a number of those games by wide margins. By example there were several games where they weren't "eeking out wins", but instead handling their competition easily, and putting up droves of points in the process.

I never said anything about scraping their way to the Lombardi. You're only hearing/reading selectively and interpreting it however you choose.
First: I am sorry, but the bolded statement in your second quote is simply inane. There is no such thing as "a balance in overall yardage" there is "overall yardage" and the way that yardage is gained - either through rushing or passing A "balanced attack" obviously does not mean equal yards in each - please don't be obtuse by alleging that was the assertion. GBay did not have a balanced attack last year, they had the 5th best passing offense and the 24th ranked rushing offense.

A balanced attack clearly means that, when comparing a team's rushing and passing attack to the other teams in the league, the passing and rushing attacks rank about the same. Thus, if you have a top 5 passing attack, and top 5 rushing attack, you have a balanced offense. If you have a top 5 passing attack and a bottom 5 rushing attack your offense is unbalanced. The bigger the gap in the ratio, the more unbalanced the offense. Last year, no matter how you try to dress it up, GBay was a very unbalanced team - no one worried how to stop their run game last year. Despite this unbalanced attack, and perhaps because of it, they won the Super Bowl - they simply had a very good offense even if it was completely unbalanced.

Second: You most certainly asserted that a team "barely eeking out wins on a weekly basis" hadn't won a SB. In 10 of its 16 games last year, GB either lost or won by a TD or less. Additionally, in one its TD+ games, it didn't even score a TD; just 3 field goals. At four games, last year, GB had lost to the Bears and scraped by a then very bad Detroit team while blowing out a bad Buffalo team. [You're right, we didn't blow anyone out yet. Not sure, after 4 games, that that fact is proof that we won't blow anyone out this year].

Stop trying to weasel out of your words.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 07:56 PM   #329
Special Teams
 
fanarchist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 107
Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
No. The problem is not with my interpretation.

It is straightforward. The Packers did not have a balanced attack. You can spin as you want, you can tell me that the sky is red. But the facts remain the facts.

You neglect that your original comparison was with us "eeking" out wins, but we have had some close wins and a big win - much like the Packers last year.

We could also talk about other teams which were unbalanced and played many close games yet still won the Super Bowl, something which you said didn't happen. The Steelers, the Patriots one year, the Ravens - there are many other counterexamples to your point.

So, let's sum up: you were rude to another Warpath member on your way to making an erroneous statement. Now, rather than admitting your mistake, you are being rude to me. You are not making friends.
Another misinterpretation. In the context of the disagreement I was having with Irish we were talking about the Redskins being 3-1, and I called 2 of them "tenuous wins", and my comparison was based, in a linear way, on that interaction. So obviously it had to do with the Redskins.

Furthermore, I never said anything about teams who made it to the Superbowl who "didn't" play hard fought matchups in route to the Championship, just that they didn't "eek out wins on a weekly basis", which I believe reflects what we have done over the past 3 weeks. I didn't mean it that to insinuate that Superbowl bound teams never play close games throughout the duration of a season, just that they don't consistently win their games in that fashion. I don't consider that to be erroneous. And it also eludes to my thinking that we don't put up enough points as an offense to make a strong surge for the playoffs/superbowl, but we'll know in the near future whether that's a valid point.
fanarchist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 08:01 PM   #330
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 11,006
Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanarchist View Post
Another misinterpretation. In the context of the disagreement I was having with Irish we were talking about the Redskins being 3-1, and I called 2 of them "tenuous wins", and my comparison was based, in a linear way, on that interaction. So obviously it had to do with the Redskins.

Furthermore, I never said anything about teams who made it to the Superbowl who "didn't" play hard fought matchups in route to the Championship, just that they didn't "eek out wins on a weekly basis", which I believe reflects what we have done over the past 3 weeks. I didn't mean it that to insinuate that Superbowl bound teams never play close games throughout the duration of a season, just that they don't consistently win their games in that fashion. I don't consider that to be erroneous. And it also eludes to my thinking that we don't put up enough points as an offense to make a strong surge for the playoffs/superbowl, but we'll know in the near future whether that's a valid point.
I haven't yet misinterpreted you and you are unkind to say that I have.

As others have said, stop trying to weasel out of your words. Be a man and be accountable for what you've said.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.

Last edited by Lotus; 10-07-2011 at 08:19 PM.
Lotus is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.35448 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25