Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=fanarchist;845492]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]

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.

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=The Goat;845493]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, [B]especially when we have a hell of a RB corp,[/B] 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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=Lotus;845499]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=irish;845505]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=fanarchist;845512]I consider [B]one fascet of an offense overcompensating for a weaker area in the offense[/B], 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.[/quote]

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?

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=Lotus;845519]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?[/quote]

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.

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=fanarchist;845527]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

Shall we juxtapose a couple of quotes?

[quote=fanarchist;845492][B]Tell me when the last time a team has won a Superbowl [/B]without having some form of balance, [B]and barely eeking out wins on a weekly basis[/B], and maybe your case will hold weight. Otherwise go back to playing with your Tonka Toys.[/quote]


[quote=fanarchist;845527][B]Balancing out the loss of production in one area by creating it in another still accounts for a balance in overall yardage[/B]. 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.[/quote]

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 [I]you [/I]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.

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=Lotus;845531]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=fanarchist;845540]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;845536]Shall we juxtapose a couple of quotes?






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 [I]you [/I]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.[/quote]

So, just to clarify. By this logic a team that is ranked 32nd in passing, and 32nd in rushing is considered a "balanced attack".

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=fanarchist;845554]So, just to clarify. By this logic a team that is ranked 32nd in passing, and 32nd in rushing is considered a "balanced attack".[/quote]

probably...

[QUOTE=fanarchist;845554]So, just to clarify. By this logic a team that is ranked 32nd in passing, and 32nd in rushing is considered a "balanced attack".[/QUOTE]

Its awful but its a balanced awful. (And either the OC or the HC is joining ESPN the following year!)

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;845561]Its awful but its a balanced awful. (And either the OC or the HC is joining ESPN the following year!)[/quote]

This. That just means it's equal parts awful. Balanced yes, effective no.

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=44ever;845510]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.[/quote]

Between Torain, Helu and TH we shouldn't have to overwork any particular runner. Personally I think the long term picture for TH is more 3rd down back action, though I could be totally mistaken. Torain is a stud and Helu IMO is a very special RB.

I'm not too worried about leaning on the rushing attack. Mike has been doing it throughout his career. It also tends to wear out defenses much better right, which will be important down the stretch.

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

In case there were any questions on how to "be a man".

[url=http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2008/05/how-to-be-a-man/]How to Be a Man[/url]

(I didnt see anything regarding "taking responsibility for your Redskins fans message board posts" in there, oh well......)

another note.....what if fanarchist is a female? Should she still try and "be a man?" If yes, fanarchist, a helpful link below.....


[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_reassignment_surgery]Sex reassignment surgery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

I love this place. :)

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=fanarchist;845554]So, just to clarify. By this logic a team that is ranked 32nd in passing, and 32nd in rushing is considered a "balanced attack".[/quote]

You have a [I]stunning[/I] grasp of the obvious.

Of course, no one would refer to such a team as having a "balanced offense" as that term generally has positive connotations. Such a team's offense would just be called "awful" but, in fact, they would be equally awful at rushing the ball and passing it and, thus, they would be balanced.

BTW - I made reference only to fanarchist's weaseling. Although at times fanarchist does seem to be a weasel bitch, I certainly intended no gender related characteristics to be inferred. If the weasel reference was offensive to any actual [I]mustelidea mustelinea mustela[/I] among my fellow posters, I sincerely apologize for alluding to the negative aspects of your character traits. I promise to be less linear and more elusive in the future.

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

speaking of james thrash..he is appearing at the great big home show in waldorf, md. next sunday from 2-4pm

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

order: Caniformia
Family: Mustelidae
Subfamily: Mustelinae
Genus: Mustela
Linnaeus, 1758
Species

Weasel
Mustela range

Weasels (play /ˈwiːzəl/) are mammals forming the genus Mustela of the Mustelidae family.

Joe...that is Awesome! THAT is why he's the poster with the.......moster. Sorry bout' that... ....

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;845602]You have a [I]stunning[/I] grasp of the obvious.

Of course, no one would refer to such a team as having a "balanced offense" as that term generally has positive connotations. Such a team's offense would just be called "awful" but, in fact, they would be equally awful at rushing the ball and passing it and, thus, they would be balanced.

BTW - I made reference only to fanarchist's weaseling. Although at times fanarchist does seem to be a weasel bitch, I certainly intended no gender related characteristics to be inferred. If the weasel reference was offensive to any actual [I]mustelidea mustelinea mustela[/I] among my fellow posters, I sincerely apologize for alluding to the negative aspects of your character traits. I promise to be less linear and more elusive in the future.[/quote]

Joe, you are awesome. :)

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/post/john-beck-accepts-reserve-role/2011/09/07/gIQATa4f9J_blog.html]John Beck accepts reserve role - The Insider - The Washington Post[/url]
Beck hasn’t seen a regular-season NFL snap since 2007, but he knows as well as anyone that the No. 2 quarterback is just a play away from being the starter. Though Shanahan said he hopes to use Grossman all season, the coach also says he has every confidence that Beck could lead this team

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

Put Beck in Now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

Beck beck beck beck beck beck beck beck beck beck beck beck beck beck beck beck beck beck beck beck beck beck

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;843686]Wow. Just wow. Okay, Rex isn't great - but he is good enough. We have a team that is focused and, 3 times in 4, has found a way to get the job done. But, yeah, let's f*** with what's got us here just 'cause. If Beck were a definite upgrade, sure. But he's not.

When Rex loses a game or two, then, okay, yank him.

But, when you're winning, don't mess with success. Duh.[/quote]

Would this qualify? Or would he have to be ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY responsible for the Interceptions? Like walking up to Nate Allen and handing him the ball all wrapped up in philadelphia Eagles gift wrap?

Just wondering.....

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=Mattyk;843503]Dumb idea. Even worse to even entertain the idea at 3-1.[/quote]

Since we didn't we're now 3 and 2. The writing was clearly on the wall that Rex was rapidly regressing.

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

BECK! End of story...

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

We have seen enough of Grossman. THis is not just on bad game. Time to move on. Beck looked better suited to move the sticks. I hope the Shananhan's do not think about going back to Grossman. Enough!

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

All the Grossman supporters can go to hell. No effing way he should start anymore period after that bullshit

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

Que a different placeholder.

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

I seriously can't see Grossman starting the rest of the season unless Beck starts imploding. You can't throw 4 INTs in a divisional matchup and expect to start the next game. Beck showed he can move in the pocket and step up, he's mobile, he plays unafraid. He's not the answer but he's no worse than Grossman.

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=DynamiteRave;847952]I seriously can't see Grossman starting the rest of the season unless Beck starts imploding. You can't throw 4 INTs in a divisional matchup and expect to start the next game. Beck showed he can move in the pocket and step up, he's mobile, he plays unafraid. He's not the answer [B]but he's no worse than Grossman[/B].[/quote]

He is better than Grossman....and that ain't saying much!
I will be pissed at Shanny if he goes back to Grossman next week. PISSED!

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=Mechanix544;847525]Would this qualify? Or would he have to be ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY responsible for the Interceptions? Like walking up to Nate Allen and handing him the ball all wrapped up in philadelphia Eagles gift wrap?

Just wondering.....[/quote]

Yup. This qualifies. I had a disclaimer and I stand by it. Rex single handedly snuffed out any chance of victory. I gave him a pass on the first INT, but after that they were just horrible and he should not have even started the second half.

It's Beck job now and rightfullly so.

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

Now with the Oline missing our starting G, and we need to start shifting. There is NO WAY you can start Rex. Beck is more mobile and we are going to need his legs to make plays.

One example is the dropped pass of Stallworth. Beck made that play happen with his legs. Rex would of been run down from behind or something worse I fear.

Beck has a better ball. Rex and Beck both threw the SAME pass up the seam. Becks ball was tight and quick for a first down to Austin.

Rex threw a tight pass, but it lofted in the air and lacks zip like most of Rex's passes. So it resulted in a pass breakup

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

Again, I was never a Grossman "supporter" - I was a "don't mess with success" guy. Grossman just sucked beyond belief today. Horrible.

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

I dont hate grossman as much as I hate whichever shanahan decided let him pass so much in the first place. The eagles run defense is among the Worst in the league while their pass defense is one of the best. The run to pass ratio should have been 2:1

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;848025][B]I dont hate grossman as much as I hate whichever shanahan decided let him pass so much in the first place.[/B] The eagles run defense is among the Worst in the league while their pass defense is one of the best. The run to pass ratio should have been 2:1[/quote]

or keep him after the second INT.

How good does Jason Campbell look right about now? Better than Grossman and Beck IMO.

[QUOTE=BigHairedAristocrat;848025]I dont hate grossman as much as I hate whichever shanahan decided let him pass so much in the first place. The eagles run defense is among the Worst in the league while their pass defense is one of the best. The run to pass ratio should have been 2:1[/QUOTE]

Easy to say. They were stacking up against our run and it was going nowhere. Couple that with two starting OLs out for the game. Again, easy to say.

Re: Start John Beck Madness Thread
 

[quote=hooskins;848030]How good does Jason Campbell look right about now? Better than Grossman and Beck IMO.[/quote]

We have not seen anything of Beck yet. We do not yet know for sure what we have in Beck. Hopefully we will see in the next week or two. It is too soon to make that comment.