|
|
BigHairedAristocrat 03-09-2010, 01:07 PM No one else is talking about him. Why do we need him? I imagine you're just joking right?
yes and no. i think it would be beneficial to bring him in as the #3 QB to help Bradford and Campbell learn the offense. He's familiar with the offense and would fill the same role Todd Collins filled when we brought Al Saunders.... except, you know, Todd actually could still play. Of course, i'd rather have Sage if he were cut by the Vikings.
Lotus 03-09-2010, 01:09 PM yes and no. i think it would be beneficial to bring him in as the #3 QB to help Bradford and Campbell learn the offense. He's familiar with the offense and would fill the same role Todd Collins filled when we brought Al Saunders.... except, you know, Todd actually could still play. Of course, i'd rather have Sage if he were cut by the Vikings.
In this scenario, why not just pay Snake to be an assistant QB coach?
12thMan 03-09-2010, 01:19 PM Since the Peppers thread is closed, I went back and looked at the sack totals between Julius Peppers and Andre Carter.
Over the last three years, Julius Peppers edged Andre Carter by a total of 2 sacks.
Julius Peppers: 27.5
Andre Carter : 25.5
This is in no way to suggest that Carter is in Pepper's league, because I don't think he is. Peppers is just more disruptive in general and it's difficult to quantify his presence statistically. But for what Andre Carter brings to our team, and for a DE about the same age at a fraction of the cost, it was a good non-move by the Redskins in my opinion.
Pocket$ $traight 03-09-2010, 01:26 PM Since the Peppers thread is closed, I went back and looked at the sack totals between Julius Peppers and Andre Carter.
Over the last three years, Julius Peppers edged Andre Carter by a total of 2 sacks.
Julius Peppers: 27.5
Andre Carter : 25.5
This is in no way to suggest that Carter is in Pepper's league, because I don't think he is. Peppers is just more disruptive in general and it's difficult to quantify his presence statistically. But for what Andre Carter brings to our team, and for a DE about the same age at a fraction of the cost, it was a good non-move by the Redskins in my opinion.
I agree with you that it was a good non-signing. Is anyone saying that we should have signed Peppers?
I think it is very interesting how the Bears structured his contract (they essentially have an out after year 1 if they don't like his play or if a CBA makes his contract prohibitive). Pretty sad that there are some doubts on a guy who you just gave $40 mill guaranteed...
PHazard 03-09-2010, 01:27 PM yes and no. i think it would be beneficial to bring him in as the #3 QB to help Bradford and Campbell learn the offense. He's familiar with the offense and would fill the same role Todd Collins filled when we brought Al Saunders.... except, you know, Todd actually could still play. Of course, i'd rather have Sage if he were cut by the Vikings.
#1 Jake Plummer is not a fan of Mike Shanahan and hasn't passed up an opportunity to bash him. Shanahan benched Plummer when he had led the broncos to a winning record and were in the playoff hunt
#2 Jake Plummer has been outta football for two years
#3 This is KYLE Shanahan's offense, of course with elements of Mike's philosophies (Zone blocking run game, etc.) but more Kyle's. He'll be calling the plays. i AM NOT a rex grossman fan, but he was at least IN the league last year AND studied with Kyle and his offense.
Please no more with the Jake Plummer references
artmonkforhallofamein07 03-09-2010, 01:38 PM The only real difference between the 2 players in the last 3 years are:
JP: INT 1 FF 13 Sacks 27.5
AC: INT 0 FF 7 Sack 25.5
I don't think 1 int and 6 more ff are worth 10 mill more a year.
We played this one smart.
NYCskinfan82 03-09-2010, 01:39 PM #1 Jake Plummer is not a fan of Mike Shanahan and hasn't passed up an opportunity to bash him. Shanahan benched Plummer when he had led the broncos to a winning record and were in the playoff hunt
#2 Jake Plummer has been outta football for two years
#3 This is KYLE Shanahan's offense, of course with elements of Mike's philosophies (Zone blocking run game, etc.) but more Kyle's. He'll be calling the plays. i AM NOT a rex grossman fan, but he was at least IN the league last year AND studied with Kyle and his offense.
Please no more with the Jake Plummer references
Oh! hell yeah no more.
BigHairedAristocrat 03-09-2010, 01:39 PM #1 Jake Plummer is not a fan of Mike Shanahan and hasn't passed up an opportunity to bash him. Shanahan benched Plummer when he had led the broncos to a winning record and were in the playoff hunt
#2 Jake Plummer has been outta football for two years
#3 This is KYLE Shanahan's offense, of course with elements of Mike's philosophies (Zone blocking run game, etc.) but more Kyle's. He'll be calling the plays. i AM NOT a rex grossman fan, but he was at least IN the league last year AND studied with Kyle and his offense.
Please no more with the Jake Plummer references
why do the jake plummer references bother you so much? did he date your sister or something?
Trample the Elderly 03-09-2010, 01:41 PM why do the jake plummer references bother you so much? did he date your sister or something?
:spank:
BigHairedAristocrat 03-09-2010, 01:42 PM I agree with you that it was a good non-signing. Is anyone saying that we should have signed Peppers?
I think it is very interesting how the Bears structured his contract (they essentially have an out after year 1 if they don't like his play or if a CBA makes his contract prohibitive). Pretty sad that there are some doubts on a guy who you just gave $40 mill guaranteed...
it would be nice if we could sign some of our own guys to similar contracts - ones that would allow us to keep them and pay them appropriately if they play well, but cut them "no strings attached" if they dont adapt to the 3-4 well and a CBA with a cap is in place by 2011.
|