Re: Super Bowl XLV
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;783225]Like Tiki and Tom Coughlin? Its a good general statement, but there is more to it then just that. And again Shanahan has been successful in the past and hopefully will be in the future.[/quote]

Shahahan has been successful with one of the best, if not the best QB of all time. He's already proven that he's really not a great personel man. Say what you will about Coughlin but he's a damn good football coach. I wouldn't want to play for him but he's a proven winner with two teams.

Re: Super Bowl XLV
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;783049]Exactly

QBs are the most important part if a team[/quote]



........let me point out Trent Dilfore(sp)

Re: Super Bowl XLV
 

[quote=Giantone;783277]........let me point out Trent Dilfore(sp)[/quote]

Very rare does that happen though most SB teams have big time QBs

Re: Super Bowl XLV
 

[quote=Giantone;783277]........let me point out Trent Dilfore(sp)[/quote]

That's called an exception to the rule.

And it's Dilfer.

Re: Super Bowl XLV
 

[quote=skinsfan69;783235]Shahahan has been successful with one of the best, if not the best QB of all time. He's already proven that he's really not a great personel man. Say what you will about Coughlin but he's a damn good football coach[B]. I wouldn't want to play for him [/B]but he's a proven winner with two teams.[/quote]

That was kind of my point. Not every SB winning coach, or great coach, has perfect people skills. Shanahan may or may not be able to get past AH/McNabb of this year, but people have to remember this is year 1. Regardless of win now, he had to get on the playing field and see who could do what. I personally think he just didn't want the ongoing JC saga to distract and thought, mistakenly, that McNabb would give him a non-distraction at QB. His first year in Denver he went 8-8. It was an up and down season. He went 6-10 here. Let's give another year (maybe 2) and see how many distractions the team has. My guess is it will be fewer each year, and our win loss record will improve each year as well.

Re: Super Bowl XLV
 

[quote=Mattyk;783297]That's called an exception to the rule.

And it's Dilfer.[/quote]

It's not even an argument, you need a big time QB to compete in this league year in and out Bottom Line.

Re: Super Bowl XLV
 

So the redskins were 3-1 vs the NFC Playoff teams (3-2) vs the entire playoff field. Hey at least we can beat the good teams.

Re: Super Bowl XLV
 

I think Sally Jenkins states her case very well:
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/07/AR2011020705610.html]Sally Jenkins - After a bloated Super Bowl in Dallas, it's time to rein in big game[/url]

450,000 for a flyover of a closed stadium?

Re: Super Bowl XLV
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;783316]So the redskins were 3-1 vs the NFC Playoff teams (3-2) vs the entire playoff field. Hey at least we can beat the good teams.[/quote]

Yes we play to our opponents. We need to play great against the bad teams, then we can do some good in the playoffs.

Re: Super Bowl XLV
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;783446]Yes we play to our opponents. We need to play great against the bad teams, then we can do some good in the playoffs.[/quote]

Seems like thats our story almost every year. Sad

Re: Super Bowl XLV
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;783436]I think Sally Jenkins states her case very well:
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/07/AR2011020705610.html]Sally Jenkins - After a bloated Super Bowl in Dallas, it's time to rein in big game[/url]

450,000 for a flyover of a closed stadium?[/quote]

Yep....I think its pointless if the stadium is closed. And they don't even mention that they are Navy F-18s and they dont eve get a closeup shot. Most people cant tell if it was Navy or Air Force or whatever.....
They could do a lot more with it if its justified for Navy recruiting purposes.

Re: Super Bowl XLV
 

[quote=Mattyk;783297]That's called an exception to the rule.

And it's Dilfer.[/quote]


Thanks ...at 4 in the am I wasn't sure.

Re: Super Bowl XLV
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;783295]Very rare does that happen though most SB teams have big time QBs[/quote]

In addition to Trent Dilfer let me point out Brad Johnson, Mark Rypien and Jim McMahon, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler as Super Bowl winning QBs.

SB participants on losing teams include Stan Humphries, Neal O'Donnell, Earl Morrall, Craig Morton, Billy Kilmer, Vince Ferragamo, David Woodley, Tony Eason, Chris Chandler, Kerry Collins and Rich Gannon.

Re: Super Bowl XLV
 

[quote=Giantone;783277]........let me point out Trent Dilfore(sp)[/quote]

The Giants didn't have much of a QB when they beat the Pats a few years ago...or the Bills in XXV. (Jeff Hostettler)

Eli was garbage until the last 4 games of that season. Finished the year with 20 TDs, 23 INTs. 56% comp rate.


Nice 25 INTs this season too. :D




Point is, Difer is not the only mediocre QB to win a SB. Brad Johnson won a QB too...and even Mark Rypien's SB-winning season was an exceptional season in his career. He never matched those amazing numbers again.

It happens a little more often than people mention. Of course, there are always star QBs who win in bunches (Montana, Bradshaw, Brady) who fill up the list of SB-winning QBs, making it APPEAR that a star QB is a necessity to win it all. Most of those QBs also have dominant defenses on their sideline too, as do the Dilfers of the history books.

Re: Super Bowl XLV
 

This may have been hit somewhere else, but I just was thinking about it today and wanted to pass along:

How close do you think Aaron Rodgers was to being a Redskin? The Packers selected him one spot ahead of where we took Jason Campbell, and I mean I'm sure there was a lot of debate for Green Bay as to weather to take him or not... I just thought it was kind of interesting. I know Campblel was Gibbs guy, but Rodgers was also projected to be long gone... just something I was thinking about.....

Also looking through that draft board... was Rogers (Carlos) the best player taken in the top 10? Maybe Antrelle Rolle, but I think otherwise he actually might be. Thats a pretty weak top 10 for 2005

Re: Super Bowl XLV
 

[quote=Gmanc711;783908]This may have been hit somewhere else, but I just was thinking about it today and wanted to pass along:

How close do you think Aaron Rodgers was to being a Redskin? The Packers selected him one spot ahead of where we took Jason Campbell, and I mean I'm sure there was a lot of debate for Green Bay as to weather to take him or not... I just thought it was kind of interesting. I know Campblel was Gibbs guy, but Rodgers was also projected to be long gone... just something I was thinking about.....

Also looking through that draft board... was Rogers (Carlos) the best player taken in the top 10? Maybe Antrelle Rolle, but I think otherwise he actually might be. Thats a pretty weak top 10 for 2005[/quote]

[url=http://bleacherreport.com/articles/600927-lets-be-honest-why-aaron-rodgers-wouldnt-have-been-a-great-qb-for-the-skins]Aaron Rodgers: Why He Wouldn't Have Been a Great QB for the Redskins | Bleacher Report[/url]

Mind you Gmanc those are not my words, but the writer does make some indisputable points.

Re: Super Bowl XLV
 

Like a seed in soil without much nutrients, Aaron Rodgers have not developed and produced as well as he did in Green Bay. Sure, he would have developed some, but not to his maximum capabilities.