2012 Draft-QB Prospects (Part III)

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Shanny is worse than Zorn and the Ole' Ball Coach? yeah dont know bout that

Maybe as bad as?

I think Spurrier is a different animal though. Horrible head coach, put the franchise in a terrible spot. Still, longest losing streak was four games, longest home losing streak was three games, worst home record was 3-5. Shanahan's got all that beat, and against an easier schedule than Spurrier faced. Overall record favors Spurrier by a game. But I don't care so much about that.

Spurrier was unspeakably awful inside the division though. A division that was just as down then as the one Shanahan is competing in now.

I know facts about the job Shanahan has done make people queasy though.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Maybe as bad as?

I think Spurrier is a different animal though. Horrible head coach, put the franchise in a terrible spot. Still, longest losing streak was four games, longest home losing streak was three games, worst home record was 3-5. Shanahan's got all that beat, and against an easier schedule than Spurrier faced. Overall record favors Spurrier by a game. But I don't care so much about that.

Spurrier was unspeakably awful inside the division though. A division that was just as down then as the one Shanahan is competing in now.

I know facts about the job Shanahan has done make people queasy though.

I think we bottomed out as a franchise the last year of Zorn---a bottom out from every perspective of an organization. No matter who they brought in, we werent gonna win, for at least several years. Has he been perfect? nope...i think he is moving in the right direction

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I think we bottomed out as a franchise the last year of Zorn---a bottom out from every perspective of an organization. No matter who they brought in, we werent gonna win, for at least several years. Has he been perfect? nope...i think he is moving in the right direction

I think what we are accomplishing right now has a shot to be a positive move in the right direction. There's hardly anything to complain about from yesterdays game. But right now, as we speak, it's still an isolated stretch in a long season, kind of like that six week stretch for Zorn where things looked good after a 2-5 start.

What I'm saying is that the Shanahan era -- as a whole -- has been awful. But I am also saying that this by itself doesn't have to mean anything. If the Redskins really are on the right track, who cares how bad the last two years looked in comparison to other two year stretches in the Snyder era?

I think we'll learn a lot about the track the team is on in the next two weeks. If they get exposed, then we should say they got exposed. If they are making tangible, positive progress, then we should say that.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Maybe as bad as?

I think Spurrier is a different animal though. Horrible head coach, put the franchise in a terrible spot. Still, longest losing streak was four games, longest home losing streak was three games, worst home record was 3-5. Shanahan's got all that beat, and against an easier schedule than Spurrier faced. Overall record favors Spurrier by a game. But I don't care so much about that.

Spurrier was unspeakably awful inside the division though. A division that was just as down then as the one Shanahan is competing in now.

I know facts about the job Shanahan has done make people queasy though.

What facts are you speaking about? The obvious, well-known ones (McNabb, his actual win-loss record, his preseason comments about Beck/Grossman)?

Or - are you suggesting that you know additional facts which are not public knowledge?

If the first, true enough, their have been missteps - clearly. At the same time, after two seasons with a losing record and no hope of playoffs, the team clearly still believes in Shanahan and is willing to play for him. Not so at the end of either Zorn or Sprurrier. Those teams just quit and were playing out the string. As you implied, these last two games are important for this team going forward. Minnesota is a team that a "good" team should beat at home. Going out with a win against a division opponent, in their stadium, is a way to make a statement for the following year. I hope it breaks down that Philly needs to win that game and we then beat them.

Bottom line, Shanahan's numbers may not reflect a sea change in the way this organization is being run but, I would suggest, the way this team is playing at the end of a second losing season does.



I think these last two games are important for the team going forward. Avoiding double digit losses would be significant.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

What facts are you speaking about? The obvious, well-known ones (McNabb, his actual win-loss record, his preseason comments about Beck/Grossman)?

Or - are you suggesting that you know additional facts which are not public knowledge?

If the first, true enough, their have been missteps - clearly. At the same time, after two seasons with a losing record and no hope of playoffs, the team clearly still believes in Shanahan and is willing to play for him. Not so at the end of either Zorn or Sprurrier. Those teams just quit and were playing out the string. As you implied, these last two games are important for this team going forward. Minnesota is a team that a "good" team should beat at home. Going out with a win against a division opponent, in their stadium, is a way to make a statement for the following year. I hope it breaks down that Philly needs to win that game and we then beat them.

Bottom line, Shanahan's numbers may not reflect a sea change in the way this organization is being run but, I would suggest, the way this team is playing at the end of a second losing season does.

I think these last two games are important for the team going forward. Avoiding double digit losses would be significant.

Sorry, there was an inconsistent emphasis in that sentence. Reading again makes it seem like I'm working some sort of inside slant. With regards some sort of secret organizational disdain for the job the head coach is doing, I can really only say that other organizations are skeptical. I don't know anything about what the team or other coaches or execs or owners of the Redskins think.

Anything I actually say about Mike Shanahan's line of thinking is pure observation or speculation.

I don't think it's accurate to say that Spurrier or Zorn's teams quit on them. I think it's accurate to say that the organization quit on Zorn at some point during the 2009 season (which it hasn't yet -- at least obviously -- done with Shanahan).

Obviously, with a team that hasn't won three games in a row for Shanahan yet and with a team that hasn't gone 3-3 in the division since Zorn was the coach, there is plenty for the team to prove down the stretch here. I'd say a 7-9 record with this kind of finish would put the team on schedule, pending future moves. It does not mean, to me at least, that the team is on the right track in spite of all the other evidence, but it would be an important first step, particularly with all the youth that is playing for this team.

I think the record would show with the history of this team that they probably aren't going to be that competitive in both of these last two games. So hopefully they can go out and show a couple more opponents that they can play a little bit.

[SFREDSKIN]

I give up on who the Redskins will draft until the season is over, if they win their next 2 games many things can change, even if they only beat the Vikings.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Bottom line, Shanahan's numbers may not reflect a sea change in the way this organization is being run but, I would suggest, the way this team is playing at the end of a second losing season does.

I also want to point out, and not to distract too much from a thread about QBs, that Edwin Williams and Chad Rinehart have both been pretty fantastic as injury replacements in Chicago and Buffalo. I thought both showed more here than Maurice Hurt and Willie Smith have in limited time.

[SFREDSKIN]

In order to grab the price sometimes you to give up something valuable. I would consider throwing in Williams plus the 1st and sign and trade Davis along. I'm Leary of those 2, coming out of college the drug rumors surrounded both, yet they both laughed at the policy instead of being smart. Not only that, but 3 failed drug tests, what does the future hold for them. The skins have proved that they can play without them, hell throw Landry while you are it

[GTripp0012]

Colts opponents this year have 120 wins.
Vikings opponents this year have 128 wins.
Rams opponents this year have 132 wins.

[JoeRedskin]

In the off chance that either Minn or St. L. get the first pick, I suspect they will have a Luck auction with plenty of suiters offering multiple 1st and 2nd round picks. Each have their "QB of the Future" on the roster but have holes to fill around him.

[T.O.Killa]

I am telling right now, Minnesota takes Luck without even a debate. Bradford becomes a 60/40 proposition, in favor of keeping Bradford and getting a truck load of draft picks for years to come, that could solidify the teams Oline and secondary. Wh

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

I am telling right now, Minnesota takes Luck without even a debate. Bradford becomes a 60/40 proposition, in favor of keeping Bradford and getting a truck load of draft picks for years to come, that could solidify the teams Oline and secondary. Wh

So your saying that Minnesota takes Luck, trades Ponder to St. Louis for draft picks? Nope, I do not see that happening at all. First of all, these trades have to benefit both or all parties involved, and I just don't see how trading Ponder to St. Louis benefits St. Louis in the least. They already have their QB, just like Minnesota already has Ponder. And, if Minnesota drafted Luck as a bargaining chip, I think that's very risky on Minnesota's part. It would make more sense just to trade that pick down for more draft picks than holding Andrew Luck hostage.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

So your saying that Minnesota takes Luck, trades Ponder to St. Louis for draft picks? Nope, I do not see that happening at all. First of all, these trades have to benefit both or all parties involved, and I just don't see how trading Ponder to St. Louis benefits St. Louis in the least. They already have their QB, just like Minnesota already has Ponder. And, if Minnesota drafted Luck as a bargaining chip, I think that's very risky on Minnesota's part. It would make more sense just to trade that pick down for more draft picks than holding Andrew Luck hostage.

When did he suggest trading Ponder to St. Louis?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

I am telling right now, Minnesota takes Luck without even a debate. Bradford becomes a 60/40 proposition, in favor of keeping Bradford and getting a truck load of draft picks for years to come, that could solidify the teams Oline and secondary. Wh

While I doubt this is true - I think Minn trades for picks as Ponder has shown potential as a starter - I wouldn't rule it out. I mean, Carolina took Newton one year after drafting a QB in the first round (Clausen).

Still, I think Ponder>Clausen and with Frazier in his second year, I doubt he dumps his first round QB.

The "Luck Pick" is too valuable to both Minn and the Rams to spend it on one player, they will use it to improve other areas of the team.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

While I doubt this is true - I think Minn trades for picks as Ponder has shown potential as a starter - I wouldn't rule it out. I mean, Carolina took Newton one year after drafting a QB in the first round (Clausen).

Still, I think Ponder>Clausen and with Frazier in his second year, I doubt he dumps his first round QB.

The "Luck Pick" is too valuable to both Minn and the Rams to spend it on one player, they will use it to improve other areas of the team.

In the end Frazier and the Vikes can potentially take a QB, but I think there is a big difference between their situation and the Panthers. Clausen was drafted by the old Panther's regime, and the new regime (Rivera) drafted Newton. Frazier drafted Ponder and it would look bad on his part to dump him after a year (especially coming off an abbreviated offseason).