Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RGIII

  1. All the excitement I had vanished after he started blaming the Shanahan regime for what were largely his own problems.
  2. The tackle was a bit much, for sure. I'm just not sure if Robinson just went WAY overboard to make the big tackle or if he tried to make an adjustment to the receiver putting his hand down to stay up and put more into it than he needed to (it certainly turns out very different if thats a bigger/heavier player he's trying to wrangle). It's one of those tackles that looks more unreasonable in slow motion where you get a false sense of deliberation than in real speed.
  3. No. An independent NFL neurologist cleared him and then uncleared him after consulting with another independent doctor. This was actually a league thing and not a Redskins thing (for once).. unless you're big on behind closed doors, jet fuel can't melt steel beams level conspiracies. Statement from neurologist regarding Robert Griffin III not being cleared for Saturday. #redskins pic.twitter.com/iFIjpQlFDP — John Keim (@john_keim) August 28, 2015
  4. The offensive line isn't great but it's looked worse with Griffin under center than it has with anyone else. A large part of the problem there is that he has not developed any sort of pocket feel. He tries to escape the edge every time he senses pressure (he's unreliable in this regard) even when that's where the pressure is and he has room to step up in the pocket. Russell Wilson is the best in the game at sensing where he has to move to but it's still a trait that's common among even the more immobile succesful passers. Not even Big Ben or Cam Newton would do very well putting themselves in a lot of the positions Griffin does. At this point I don't think he has the mental makeup to make it as a starter in the league anywhere. He's proven to be too much of a basket case and his base nature seems to be to blame everyone else first and merely pay lip service to his own faults after the fact.
  5. Hi boys and girls, long time no talk. Absolutely you can label him a bust. It's no coincidence that Mike Shanahan, Kyle Shanahan, Jay Gruden, and now supposedly Scot McCloughan have all tried to create some distance from Griffin as a starter. The Shanahans in particular were by FAR his best opportunity to learn and mold himself in to a true NFL passer and he yet was resistant to adapting his game and ultimately instrumental in them getting the boot. The behind the scenes nonsense with Griffin turned out to be way more ridiculous than I ever imagined possible... but such is life with the Redskins. RG has (had? he still looks slower than he once was) all the physical potential in the world. He hasn't made an ounce of progress where it really counts, though, which is running an offense and making good decisions with the ball in his hands. His instincts are just all wrong, he'd have been fine if EITHER his passing or running instincts were better. Not only are those instincts not great on their own but they actively work AGAINST each other much of the time.
  6. Unless you're a scout with an eye for this sort of thing, saying that he absolutely couldn't transition to a 3-4 OLB is every bit as ridiculous as suggesting that it's a good fit for him. It's important not to forget that most of the better 3-4 OLBs out there got their start as 4-3 ends.
  7. I mean, I expected him to get heavily fined and suspended again at SOME point. This was kind of questionable, though. Usually Meriweather is about 10,000x more overt with the head-hunting.
  8. Maybe so but I'm not convinced Sanchez ever had it to begin with.
  9. For mostly self-interested, investigative reasons... RGIII. Former Redskin... easily Chris Cooley. Just seems like a cool guy and is one of the more knowledgeable and enjoyable media personalities we've got. If I had the chance to actually talk football with someone... I think you'd almost have to go with Peyton, Tom, or a guy working the other end of the game's great mindgames like Ed Reed. If it could be ANYONE without regard for the laws of space and time... Sean Taylor. Would kill for an opportunity to even say something in passing but it's too late for that now. Thanks, man. You were a joy to watch.
  10. I mean, it really depends on circumstance. If they turn to Savage mid-season because the other QBs are failing and "we've got nothing to lose with the rookie", then that's not a great marker for personal success at all and often seems to bode poorly for young QBs. If someone goes down and Savage comes in off the bench and impresses, that's definitely a great sign. If he improves every week in practice and eventually they decide he's their best option and bump him up then that's also good... but with coachspeak being what it is it'll be hard to tell if this is really the case or they're actually back at that first scenario.
  11. I figured Johnny would disappoint on the field but now I don't know... That's the kind of training and supplementation regimen that did wonders for the 90s Cowboys.
  12. The thing about Romo is that he's played at a consistent level throughout his career. He started VERY strong after riding the bench a few years and his production hasn't wavered much at all from year to year. I bring this up because you talk about Romo not being successful because the Cowboys have no defense but fail to realize that for much of his career he's actually had a VERY good defense. The Cowboys D was on the rise under the infinitely amusing Bill Parcells (ft. Mike Zimmer) and was consistently in the top 10 during Wade Phillips' tenure as head coach. Romo played just as well then as he does now (at a very high level 90% of the time) but still couldn't get postseason results (always playing his worst in December and falling apart completely going into January) and rightfully earned his reputation for being anti-clutch. That monkey has been riding his back his entire career and is why I also hesitate to put him up a level despite believing he has more than enough raw ability to play at that level. The difference between Wilson and Romo definitely isn't the defense, though, or even run game for that matter (MBIII was a terror during his short run and DeMarco Murray is legit). I think what Romo lacks that Russell has now is really quality offensive coaching and playcalling. He developed fantastically under Sean Payton, who most would agree now is a certifiable offensive mastermind, but Payton was out by the time Romo got his chance on the field. As a starting QB he's been working mostly with the dreadful Tony Sparano and highly dubious Jason Garrett. If you kept him with Sean Payton his entire career or even put him in a situation like Denver under Shanahan or Philly under Andy Reid or any team with Norv as OC (but, dear god, NOT HC), I guarantee his potential would have been better tapped into and his weaknesses would have been managed better. Also, please don't rate Trent Dilfer on the same level as any even serviceable modern starter. He's a relatively smart dude but he was questionable even as a game manager (career 55% completion, more INTs than TDs thrown, only 1 quality season in a 13 year career). It took one of the best defenses of all time to carry him to a Super Bowl win and there have been numerous rookie QBs recently who have been better players day 1 than Dilfer was (Wilson, Luck, Griffin, Dalton, Cam, Tannehill, Foles, Glennon).
  13. You're honing in on a single phrase without reading the context.
  14. The Graham hearing had important implications regarding the franchise tag. It will have zero impact on what Graham earns if he is allowed to negotiate a contract with the Saints or another team. He will absolutely command money befitting a top WR if his performance doesn't suddenly decline. The market ultimately cares less about position than production and on-the-field value. Just look at what happened to safety salaries over the last decade. It used to be that the gulf between CBs and safeties was similar to the gulf between WRs and TEs. However, as more and more dynamic playmakers have emerged at the safety position salaries have gotten more and more similar. These days top safeties routinely command money commensurate with top CBs. Richard Sherman's contract, for example, is worth only about 1.5mil more per year than Earl Thomas'. Notorious, big-time playmakers like Ed Reed, Troy Polamalu, Bob Sanders, and Sean Taylor played a pretty pivotal role in getting the ball rolling here. Now mega-athletic TEs like Rob Gronkowski, Jimmy Graham, Julius Thomas, and Jordan Cameron are poised to have a similar effect for their position.
  15. This actually has no impact on his asking price. TEs can and will be paid like WRs if their performance warrants it when it comes time to work out a long-term deal (see: Gronk's contract). The whole point of the franchise tag is to avoid paying a valuable player their asking price and/or market price.
  16. I try to give rival players credit where it's due even though I still revel in their failures. I always thought Romo gets WAY more flack than he deserves and would have been thrilled to have him as our QB even with his obvious shortcomings in the clutch. He's a really quality QB that (thankfully) doesn't get enough help from his supporting cast or coaches. I've never felt that way about Eli, whose play on the field has never overly impressed me. For most of his career he was propped up heavily by a fantastic offensive line, top notch run game, the most lethal pass rushing front four in football, and receivers who thrive off of making plays on questionable throws. You NEVER fear Eli, you fear Tiki or Plaxico or Jacobs or Bradshaw or Shockey or Nicks or Cruz or Strahan or Umenyiora or Tuck. He is basically the QB equivalent of how I used to feel about ex-Cowboy Roy Williams (the safety). At the height of their popularity people only recalled the big hits/throws and forget how maddeningly limited the player is in certain facets (Eli's decision-making and accuracy are suspect, Roy Williams couldn't tackle properly and was atrocious in coverage). Regarding Luck, I think Wilson is a clear step ahead. Even if he is more of a system guy on the whole he plays too flawlessly with just enough innate playmaking ability not to be considered a cut above. All of the T2 guys have really polished games, in fact. Luck has more room for development (which is absolutely a good thing, I'd say) that needs to be exploited to really fit that group or even push it beyond. He could conceivably step up big and play at a T1 level next season, that's not totally unreasonable, although it'd take a repeat season or two for me to officially put him or anyone else on that elite level. It's just a case where I think that the difference between Wilson and Luck is bigger than the difference between Luck and Cam. Foles actually might prove to be better than all of them with how his 2013 season went but we need to see more of him to really know where he stands. You could probably argue that I grade out inconsistent play unusually harshly, I suppose, given that all of these players I'm talking down fit under that umbrella. I could see that. I am the kind of guy who valued prime-Matt Schaub way more highly than prime-Mike Vick. I guess it depends on what you're looking for in a QB.
  17. The more obvious implication is that they're BOTH crazy.
  18. So... what you're trying to say is that you're a crazy person?
  19. Hoo boy... there is a lot that is wrong with that second sentence. Weight does correlate to a capacity for strength/power but certainly tells you nothing about whether that capacity is utilized or if it is distributed in a manner conducive to success at a given activity, so it's really not that helpful of a number on its own (outside of the obvious application of telling you how hard someone is to move if you consider them and inert object). You are right that lower body strength is tremendously important for defensive linemen as their primary source of explosiveness off the line. Having a substantial amount of well-allocated lower body mass can even lower your center of gravity which makes you naturally more stable and harder to budge off a spot. Incidentally, this is why centers and nose tackles tend to be real short, squat guys compared to OTs and DEs - they're working in a small area and dealing with multiple bodies so trading reach (arm length and height strongly correlate) for sheer stoutness is naturally advantageous. Upper body strength shouldn't totally be slept on, however, as it plays a pretty crucial role in how you manipulate the weight of opponents to gain leverage against them (which is why the combine bench press is a HUGE deal for DL prospects). That said, cardio is an extremely poor developer of pure, explosive strength for anyone who isn't in a severely untrained state and it doesn't translate particularly well to what linemen are asked to do on the football field. Cardio best develops oxygen uptake and the ability to do sustained low/medium intensity work. NFL players are heavily oriented towards brief bursts of very high intensity work. As a result, a focus on cardio would actually be fairly detrimental, particularly for the bigger guys on the field. Heavy resistance training is, instead, the core fitness component for NFL players mixed in with some more creative functional strength work. Squats and deadlifts will do 100x much more for pure, unadulterated lower body strength than any sort of cardio regime ever will. It's also worth noting that there's no reason that cardio would necessitate a lower weight. Cardio does burn additional calories which can create a net caloric deficit but it does so incredibly inefficiently compared to the metabolic effect created by other forms of exercise or by simply creating that same caloric deficit by eating less. When you consider that most NFL players take great pains to control their food intake against their workload to maintain a specific weight range, it becomes a moot point entirely.
  20. Like your list for the most part, Supes, but I'd tweak a few things at the Tier 2 and Tier 3 levels. I think you're doing a disservice to the other T2 QBs by including Eli among them (I'd put him in the middle of the pack in T3 at best) and are probably being a bit biased towards Luck, who is without question on the rise but seems better suited to be in the company of Newton, Romo, and Foles at present (all guys who I'd unquestionably put at the top of the T3 group). I'm a little iffy on Palmer being T3, I'm not sure I'd call him "solid" these days and he's definitely not a riser. Eli, Flacco, and Stafford probably should just be removed entirely as they all deserve their own special place on the outside of the list as oft overrated, wildly inconsistent volume passers. It would be a special QB purgatory, if you will, for a group of guys who regularly dance between T2 greatness and T5 atrociousness for no discernible reason.
  21. That's actually pretty consistent for a five year span by real world standards, especially when you consider the coaching changes and highly unstable QB situation up until last season. If you took a similar 5 year snapshot of any point of Tony Gonzalez's career, for example, I'm sure you'd see a similar level of "inconsistency". However, you'd find very few people willing to say that Tony was anything but dead consistent out on the field.
  22. Never heard of it. The Redskins (and I think most teams) do this kind of thing with a team that isn't on their regular season schedule. We've usually opted for AFC teams like the Ravens, Steelers, or Patriots but that probably doesn't matter all that much. The Broncos and Texans are playing in the preseason, IIRC, but not during the regular season.
  23. Think about preseason games and training camp days that are open to the media/public. What do they typically show about a team's philosophies or gameplans? Essentially nothing. Everything is stripped down so that there isn't much to learn other than who looks good individually. You'll have receivers running the route tree and blockers working within their normal gameday assignments but everyone in the NFL is familiar with this kind of stuff. What you won't get is the substantial element of deception you'd expect in practices behind closed doors or during games. Same goes for these types of arrangements. It's just an opportunity to get a little more practice variety and competition in for the players. Coaches also have an additional opportunity to mingle and bounce ideas off of each other, which is always an important part of the development of the game.
  24. You've brought some historical references to this thread with the post but absolutely no historical context. The term redskin has far more ambiguous origins than the other terms you likened it to. Gooks, for example, supposedly originated as a slang reference for prostitutes while savages is pretty blindingly obvious racial mischaracterization. Linguists have actually looked into the term and determined that it was initially adopted by Native Americans themselves and was far from derogatory at its inception. What it became is more murky and is where there may actually be some merit to the outcry of the current vocal minority. The thing is, though, that the negative turn was the product of strong popular perception that painted pretty much anything to do with American Indians in a harsh light and also, rather unfortunately, coincided with the rise of mass media (movies, large and unscrupulous national publications, etc.). It's not that redskin was ever explicitly derogative in and of itself. Instead, pretty much any and all characterizations made from the 1850s through a decent chunk of the 20th century carried inherent, ingrained undertones of racism. What you make of that is entirely up to you. For me, the term has fallen out of the average American lexicon so much that I only typically associate it with the team and haven't been exposed to any usage of it that is negative. When I look at the root of the word and what it's been through, it seems more like a fairly innocuous descriptor that got caught up in fairly dark and deplorable times. At it's core, it's a term that's really not that different than white or black are as simple adjectives. When put in the right contexts the usage of black or white can be used to construct some fairly insidious and inflammatory speech. However, they're socially acceptable in most every day contexts and are completely neutral terms when isolated. tl;dr - Etymology is stupid complicated.
  25. This wouldn't be an issue if Dan Snyder had any clue whatsoever when it comes to PR. He's kind of been digging himself a hole throughout the whole manufactured controversy, which has been enough to keep it going when it would otherwise have fallen out of public interest. Also doesn't help that he previously ticked off prominent local media like The Washington Post, who are now keen to jump all over every little misstep the organization makes. There's a pretty tremendous anti-Snyder media market in DC that's being actively tapped due to stuff like this (and also the team just not being very good since he bought it).
  • Create New...