Cousins to start 2015 Season

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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?

Chico simply responded to your question with a relevant question premised on the simple - RGIII has no value b/c he can't play JG's style and, if any style he may succeed in puts the club at risk of having to pay $16M to an injured and unavailable player which would cripple the of field product. Your response was, as always, either intentionally obtuse or pertinaciously pedantic.

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.

He did respond to your post and answer the original intent in a perfectly relevant way. Very simply the poster you dismiss as unresponsive believes Griffin has no value to the team "on the field" b/c, regardless of the success or failure of KC & the JG Band, RGIII cannot play in the existing system or a system designed for the QB that existed in 2012. Again, your reply is obtuse and/or pedantic.

Originally Posted by 30gut

You may have missed the post that sparked the current discussion but its this: 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.

So, yes the 5th year option is an issue.

But outside of that what is the benefit on the field of not having Griffin on the team, not on the field but on the team?

How does Griffin being gone make the team better?

No. He very clearly understood your point and, unlike you, determined that RGIII being gone does not put the franchise at risk for having to "massage" a $16M cap hit and permits the team to plan and sign players who can perform on the field.

Each of these posters provided reasons as to why Griffin's being off the team helps the team "on the field" by raising relevant, responsive points which you summarily dismiss through rhetorical pedantry of the lowest form. It is a practice you consistently use, is intellectually lazy, and simply tiresome.

We all understand your question and it's loaded nature. B/c folks disagree with the premise of your question, does not mean their answers are unresponsive.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Actually, this removes the owner farther from football decisions IMO. I'm fine with Allen and McC making football decision: Allen brings his money management knowledge and McC the football knowledge.

Maybe think a little bit before ranting the same ol' thing?

Not really. Dan is just going to use Allen as his buffer. Allen is a "yes man" in the same way Vinny was. Also, I'm not fine with Allen making ANY decisions on football at all with the exception of contracts. I want him gone in terms of any football related choices. He's proved time and time again he's clueless in that category. The problem is, his ego probably thinks he's good.

[WillH]

There seems to be a lot of speculation surrounding Griffin and his relationship with his teammates/coaches. I have heard former teammates and coaches say he has not learned the skills he needs to, but most have also said he has potential to be great in the NFL (Shanahan &Cooley). I don't think anyone can argue that he should be starting, and he may not be worth the risk of injury etc. But I haven't heard many football people say he is a lost cause.

I think he may be able to handle being 2nd string for a year without directly causing drama, and I think it is possible that SM and Gruden think his upside is worth the risk of injury.then again, they're probably just trying to trade him, but if he does stay I'll be rooting for him to be a good teammate and to develop the skills he needs to be successful.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Chico simply responded to your question with a relevant question premised on the simple - RGIII has no value b/c he can't play JG's style and, if any style he may succeed in puts the club at risk of having to pay $16M to an injured and unavailable player which would cripple the of field product. Your response was, as always, either intentionally obtuse or pertinaciously pedantic.



He did respond to your post and answer the original intent in a perfectly relevant way. Very simply the poster you dismiss as unresponsive believes Griffin has no value to the team "on the field" b/c, regardless of the success or failure of KC & the JG Band, RGIII cannot play in the existing system or a system designed for the QB that existed in 2012. Again, your reply is obtuse and/or pedantic.



No. He very clearly understood your point and, unlike you, determined that RGIII being gone does not put the franchise at risk for having to "massage" a $16M cap hit and permits the team to plan and sign players who can perform on the field.

Each of these posters provided reasons as to why Griffin's being off the team helps the team "on the field" by raising relevant, responsive points which you summarily dismiss through rhetorical pedantry of the lowest form. It is a practice you consistently use, is intellectually lazy, and simply tiresome.

We all understand your question and it's loaded nature. B/c folks disagree with the premise of your question, does not mean their answers are unresponsive.

All I can say is word up Joe redskin. Word up.

In fact a hall of fame word up: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MZjAantupsA

[JoeRedskin]

Griffin being off the team helps the on field product in any number of ways:
1) Team need not worry, or develop contingency plans of a $16M cap hit for an injured unavailable player.
2) It removes the off the field drama/distraction that swirls around RGIII endlessly and allows the other 52 players to focus on their on the field product without being questioned about RGIII after every practice or game.
3) It opens a roster spot for someone who may actually play rather than sit on the bench for 16 games out of fear that he may be injured.
4) It moves on from a QB that has shown an inability to play in the current system and whose past injuries have removed what made him special in any other, non-drop back, system.

Lots and lots of ways RGIII makes the on field product better by being off the team.

How does his being on the team make the current or potential future roster better?

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Not really. Dan is just going to use Allen as his buffer. Allen is a "yes man" in the same way Vinny was. Also, I'm not fine with Allen making ANY decisions on football at all with the exception of contracts. I want him gone in terms of any football related choices. He's proved time and time again he's clueless in that category. The problem is, his ego probably thinks he's good.

McC is making all the football decisions. Allen is the money man. I'm fine with that set up. If Snyder was truly meddling, RG3 would be the starter, instead he's 3rd in the depth chart.

Allen hired McC, gotta give him credit for that and I would call that a good football decision.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

McC is making all the football decisions. Allen is the money man. I'm fine with that set up. If Snyder was truly meddling, RG3 would be the starter, instead he's 3rd in the depth chart.

Allen hired McC, gotta give him credit for that and I would call that a good football decision.

I just don't like Bruce Allen over McC. Bruce shouldn't involved in any decisions about players IMO. I know that McC's making the decisions ultimately, but you always think..."for how long". It's a fear all Redskins fans should have.

[30gut]

This thread quickly turned back into a mob mentality echo chamber of groupthink.

Chico, we had decent convo going about the flip side. But many can't get there head around the idea that not everyone agrees/subscribes to all the views in this thread.

Maybe Scott wants to keep Griffin because maybe the current problem with Griffin is J. And they got rid of Griffin and J fails then they're completely starting over, again. If they keep Griffin and J fails there's still the chance (slim to be sure) that Griffin could experience a resurgence when paired with a HC that actually believes in him ala Alex Smith and Harbaugh.

Cheers-

Now back to the regularly scheduled hate fest!

Rah rah

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by 30gut

This thread quickly turned back into a mob mentality echo chamber of groupthink.

Chico, we had decent convo going about the flip side. But many can't get there head around the idea that not everyone agrees/subscribes to all the views in this thread.

Maybe Scott wants to keep Griffin because maybe the current problem with Griffin is J. And they got rid of Griffin and J fails then they're completely starting over, again. If they keep Griffin and J fails there's still the chance (slim to be sure) that Griffin could experience a resurgence when paired with a HC that actually believes in him ala Alex Smith and Harbaugh.

Cheers-

Now back to the regularly scheduled hate fest!

Rah rah

Scot probably is keeping RG3 on the roster to see if he can get something for him. As I've said before, he wants all the draft picks he can get.

[That Guy]

so anyone that disagrees with you is wrong or engaging in groupthink? how is 16m of starting quality players in 2016 not an improvement ON THE FiELD vs 16m riding the bench and inactive? (not rhetorical, i would like to hear the reasoning here)

you're really wrecking threads by telling everyone that tries to reply to you that their opinion isn't valid cause it's not yours.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Maybe Scott wants to keep Griffin because maybe the current problem with Griffin is J. And they got rid of Griffin and J fails then they're completely starting over, again. If they keep Griffin and J fails there's still the chance (slim to be sure) that Griffin could experience a resurgence when paired with a HC that actually believes in him ala Alex Smith and Harbaugh.

All of which is a valid point of view and the premise of your original question. For the various reasons stated and dismissed as unresponsive by you, most others on this forum disagree with you.

But please, continue to demonstrate your rhetorical legerdemain by dismissing all opinions different from your own as unresponsive or irrelevant. It is oh-so-helpful to the exchange of ideas.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Hog1]

Can we......Please get back to the Hate Fest now?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by 30gut

But outside of that what is the benefit on the field of not having Griffin on the team, not on the field but on the team?

How does Griffin being gone make the team better?

You can't just think about "on the field" in terms of a player on your roster. When Tony Dungy was asked about having Michael Sam on his team, he flat out said he wouldn't draft him b/c the talent wasn't worth the distraction. Just imagine the first time Kirk has a bad game. What do you think the fans are going to do? Chant RG3. What do you think the media is going to do? Question who should be the starter....and so forth. What do you think his answers are going to be when asked if he should be the starter? You trust Griffin with the media?....lol

His talent in this system isn't worth the distraction quite honesty.

So ultimately Griffin being off this team makes it a better team in the locker room and from a PR standpoint. From a "on the field" standpoint, it really doesn't affect us whether he's on the squad or off of it. All this is purely disregarding the 16 mil as well.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You can't just think about "on the field" in terms of a player on your roster. When Tony Dungy was asked about having Michael Sam on his team, he flat out said he wouldn't draft him b/c the talent wasn't worth the distraction. Just imagine the first time Kirk has a bad game. What do you think the fans are going to do? Chant RG3. What do you think the media is going to do? Question who should be the starter....and so forth. What do you think his answers are going to be when asked if he should be the starter? You trust Griffin with the media?....lol

His talent in this system isn't worth the distraction quite honesty.

So ultimately Griffin being off this team makes it a better team in the locker room and from a PR standpoint. From a "on the field" standpoint, it really doesn't affect us whether he's on the squad or off of it. All this is purely disregarding the 16 mil as well.

If Cousins doesn't do well, there'll be drama whether RG3 is here or not. However, I do agree that if it is not necessary, RG3 shouldn't be kept on the roster. I am fine with the team seeking something for him.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

If Cousins doesn't do well, there'll be drama whether RG3 is here or not.

That's a given, but not from fans on gameday chanting RG3. It'll be less drama if Kirk plays bad with him gone than with him here. That much is for certain. Once he's on another squad, they can't talk about him.