Redskins Comprehensive Draft Notes

fansince62 said:
ok...I'll give you Riley. not a game change but a starter. that makes two. and one from 2011.

my point stands.

we can get to quality at some other point.
Click to expand...

One from 2011? Try 3: Helu, Kerrigan & Hankerson. It took him awhile, but eventually he was starting. And right when he started to hit his stride, he hurt his hip.
 
Lanky Livingston said:
One from 2011? Try 3: Helu, Kerrigan & Hankerson. It took him awhile, but eventually he was starting. And right when he started to hit his stride, he hurt his hip.
Click to expand...

dude..there must be somthing in the air in Houston. hankerson didn't complete one game.

I want the best for these guys. I'm just not willing to jettison common sense. neither am I willing to substitute dreams for reality. when sustained performance is there I'll join the same queue. until then...promise aint reality.

if your standard for starting is simply getting penciled in for one game...well...no sense in continuing this exchange. we have had plenty of no account starters. my notion of starter is precisely what Kerrigan brings - a quality player who is not a place holder until we can find a real NFL caliber player to deal with the Gints and Boys of the world. In my book...that means playing a season...not catching 10 passes and then watching the rest of the sesaon from bedside. much as it hurts to say....none of this makes a difference if it doesn't produce results against the competition.
 
fansince62 said:
not quite.

I grew up in a business where "coulda, woulda, shoulda" basically meant...you were dead. I like the direction the team is headed in as much as the rest of you. the difference is this: until I see real results...I have had enough of the local ritual of off-season self delusion. I saw one really good player last year.....one promising player in Riley...and the rest who couldn't keep from being injured or couldn't crack the line-up for significant playing time.

we're so happy with the change in direction that we're jumping the gun...IMO.
Click to expand...

I think you're last sentance is key, FS. The new direction is much, much better, imo, but I also agree with you. We have been in the wasteland for so very long that when we finally see an oasis out in the desert, we want to believe it is the Promised Land. Really though, it may be the PL, but it also may be just a watering hole on the way to the PL.
 
fansince62 said:
dude..there must be somthing in the air in Houston. hankerson didn't complete one game.
Click to expand...

You said "starters." Hankerson started two games, the second of which he caught 8 balls for 106 yards. Not sure what else to call him except a starter when he earns his opportunity and makes the most of it...

I want the best for these guys. I'm just not willing to jettison common sense. neither am I willing to substitute dreams for reality. when sustained performance is there I'll join the same queue. until then...promise aint reality.
Click to expand...

You jettisoned common sense from this argument a long time ago.

if your standard for starting is simply getting penciled in for one game...well...no sense in continuing this exchange. we have had plenty of no account starters. my notion of starter is precisely what Kerrigan brings - a quality player who is not a place holder until we can find a real NFL caliber player to deal with the Gints and Boys of the world. In my book...that means playing a season...not catching 10 passes and then watching the rest of the sesaon from bedside. much as it hurts to say....none of this makes a difference if it doesn't produce results against the competition.
Click to expand...

What is your standard for "starting," if its not in fact STARTING?
 
Goaldeje said:
I think you're last sentance is key, FS. The new direction is much, much better, imo, but I also agree with you. We have been in the wasteland for so very long that when we finally see an oasis out in the desert, we want to believe it is the Promised Land. Really though, it may be the PL, but it also may be just a watering hole on the way to the PL.
Click to expand...

bingo!

I'm in no position to really assess these o-line draft picks. who the heck here is? for me...I'm willing to allocate unreserved praise for RGIII because there has been so much info on him. this guy is the real deal.

for the rest of the draft picks.....I'm not critical in the sense of "what a waste" (like the rest of you I'm thinking Jenkins is a steal)....but none of this has happened yet. we were....afterall.....5-11 last season. a lot of teams had good drafts this year. it's real easy to think we have done well......but doing well really only gets validated against the competition. and our picks haven't been in there long enough to make that sort of assessment. we're all pretty happy with the change in direction...I'm just not going to get sucked into the same trap of high expectations until I see a real team on the field executing successfully and winning games.
 
whatever...........the standard for NFL starter is one or two games. by that measure...we were even more successful than your wildest imagination last year! throw in the two tackles.....royster.......woo hoo! validation!

got it.
 
fansince62 said:
whatever...........the standard for NFL starter is one or two games. by that measure...we were even more successful than your wildest imagination last year! throw in the two tackles.....royster.......woo hoo! validation!

got it.
Click to expand...

He got injured in his second game, then went on the IR. Its not a standard by any means - it was impossible for him to start more than 2 games.

And you'll notice I did not include Royster in my list. Don't consider him a starter. But don't let reality get in your way!
 
the discussion is most surely about standards.

you and I are employing different concepts for what we consider to be a starter.

You're unsing a very narrow defintion - who actually started a game.

I'm thinking in broader terms - a need answered that becomes a fixture.
 
fansince62 said:
the discussion is most surely about standards.

you and I are employing different concepts for what we consider to be a starter.

You're unsing a very narrow defintion - who actually started a game.

I'm thinking in broader terms - a need answered that becomes a fixture.
Click to expand...

A WR who comes in and catches 8 balls for 106 yards in his second game starting does not answer a need? He got injured...but removed all doubts with that performance. Not really sure what your concept is. What did he need to do, shatter the single game receiving records to be validated in your eyes???
 
fansince62 said:
whatever...........the standard for NFL starter is one or two games. by that measure...we were even more successful than your wildest imagination last year! throw in the two tackles.....royster.......woo hoo! validation!

got it.
Click to expand...

This is going to surprise some folks but we got 40 starts out of last year's draft class.

Kerrigan - 16
Hurt - 8
Helu - 5 (appeared in 15)
Gomes - 5
Hankerson - 2
Paul - 2
Royster - 2

We also got 3 starts out of UDFA Willie Smith for a total of 43 starts by rookies last year. I am sure a lot of other teams can post similar numbers but my guess is that most of their starts came from 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounders while the Skins didn't get any starts from Jenkins because a pre-season blown ACL and only got 2 out of Hankerson because of a freak hip injury.

And most of these guys played pretty respectably. Even so that I am excited to see what they can all bring this year with a full off season under their belts.
 
Lanky Livingston said:
One from 2011? Try 3: Helu, Kerrigan & Hankerson. It took him awhile, but eventually he was starting. And right when he started to hit his stride, he hurt his hip.
Click to expand...


I will give you Helu and Kerrigan, but Royster proved more than Hankerson did. I know he was injured Lanky, but that's part of it. Hank had one good outing all season, that's it. I am not trying to say he won't be solid this year. With all the other weapons we are piling up and a QB who can get him the ball, I look forward to seeing what the kid has, but he should not be included the successful draft pick column yet.

Edit: I didn't read through the rest of the thread, I see my post has been answered.
 
fansince62 said:
the discussion is most surely about standards.

you and I are employing different concepts for what we consider to be a starter.

You're unsing a very narrow defintion - who actually started a game.

I'm thinking in broader terms - a need answered that becomes a fixture.
Click to expand...

Fansince, I'm not entering into the discussion from an argumentative "he's right/he's wrong" perspective I'm just looking for clarification in order to gain a better understanding of the difference between perspectives. This is not meant facetiously but a question occurs to me. Am I understanding your perspective correctly in that the fact of starting x number of games is not the qualifying criterion but the production improvement vis-a-vis team performance is the criterion you are using?
 
Lanky Livingston said:
A WR who comes in and catches 8 balls for 106 yards in his second game starting does not answer a need? He got injured...but removed all doubts with that performance. Not really sure what your concept is. What did he need to do, shatter the single game receiving records to be validated in your eyes???
Click to expand...


cmon Lanky. I'm not going to fault you for your enthusiasm. but that's one game for goodness sake! against a second tier team no less.

my rec is you give it some time. a track record matters. we're moving in the right direction......but calling any of the these players beyond kerrigan and maybe Riley is a stretch IMO. when we have a whole season with no kidding results against the Iggles, Gints, Boys, etc.....when we know we can draft and sign FAs for other needs...then we know we have starters.

love your enthusiasm...I'm not ready to go there yet.

that help Serv? I'm looking at starter in the wider context of the competition......and sustained performance. just cause a guy starts a game doesn't make him a starter.
 
fansince62 said:
cmon Lanky. I'm not going to fault you for your enthusiasm. but that's one game for goodness sake! against a second tier team no less.
Click to expand...

One game, and then he got injured. Apparently you're just as quick to write him off as I am to give him credit. The truth is, who knows what he would have done with the rest of the season - but I'm willing to bet we hear the name Hankerson a lot on Sundays this season.
 
As a test of my understanding let me introduce the concept of "starter quality"player. In other words, an assessment-or grading, if you will-of a players value to a team. An example might be someone who is just a body among the eleven on the field during a game as opposed to a player whose play contributes to the likelihood of a win.

Using that parameter would I be correct in substituting the phrase "starter quality" as being equivalent to what you are referring to when you use the term "starter"?

This may sound awfully picayune but nuancing helps me gain a better understanding when analyzing opinion differences.
 
Lanky Livingston said:
One game, and then he got injured. Apparently you're just as quick to write him off as I am to give him credit. The truth is, who knows what he would have done with the rest of the season - but I'm willing to bet we hear the name Hankerson a lot on Sundays this season.
Click to expand...

ok..I see the problem here.

nowhere have I stated or implied that I have written him off. I'm just not going to hand him the bouquet in the winners circle until there's a track record.

we're cool on this since...as you well know...:smile2:....one of my pet themes for years now has been a bigger, possession type receiver.
 
servumtuum said:
As a test of my understanding let me introduce the concept of "starter quality"player. In other words, an assessment-or grading, if you will-of a players value to a team. An example might be someone who is just a body among the eleven on the field during a game as opposed to a player whose play contributes to the likelihood of a win.

Using that parameter would I be correct in substituting the phrase "starter quality" as being equivalent to what you are referring to when you use the term "starter"?

This may sound awfully picayune but nuancing helps me gain a better understanding when analyzing opinion differences.
Click to expand...

your on the right path. it's funny...don't ask me why...but during these posts on starters...I keep having visuals of the Hogs. guys who were there for a period of time and produced.

lanky and I have different definitions. I should have been more clear on what I was thinking from the outset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top