Random Commanders Thoughts

[Elephant]

Pretty sure i clearly stated that he...

"He was a good QB."

Not arguing AGAINST him, but realizing who he was is not a stretch.

Look, I know the subject matter has shifted since the last reply, but I have to address this, ST.

I said, when he was in Tampa he was a damned good QB. I don't understand where this idea that I thought he was the GOAT came from, like Boone stated it's a straw man. In fact, I clearly stated he was not even close to Hall of Fame material. I mean it cannot get much clearer than that....damned good in Tampa, not Hall of Fame material.

You stated he was a one Q wonder, a good QB...which alone contradicts the whole idea that he was "mediocre at best."
Mediocre does not equal good, and good does not equal great, neither does damned good equal great. If I thought he was a great QB, I would have said great. I used my words carefully.

My argument from the start was that he was better than "mediocre at best." I have seen arguments in this thread that go against that idea, but those arguments include only his time in Washington, ignoring his clear success in Tampa.

Why is the 5 years he was in Tampa, where he almost got them to a Super Bowl, being ignored? Again, while in Tampa he took the worst team in the history of the NFL to the NFC Championship, 3 playoff appearances in 5 years. Damned good QB's have success like that, not QB's that are "mediocre at best."

 

[Primus Porcus]

Look, I know the subject matter has shifted since the last reply, but I have to address this, ST.

I said, when he was in Tampa he was a damned good QB. I don't understand where this idea that I thought he was the GOAT came from, like Boone stated it's a straw man. In fact, I clearly stated he was not even close to Hall of Fame material. I mean it cannot get much clearer than that....damned good in Tampa, not Hall of Fame material.

You stated he was a one Q wonder, a good QB...which alone contradicts the whole idea that he was "mediocre at best."
Mediocre does not equal good, and good does not equal great, neither does damned good equal great. If I thought he was a great QB, I would have said great. I used my words carefully.

My argument from the start was that he was better than "mediocre at best." I have seen arguments in this thread that go against that idea, but those arguments include only his time in Washington, ignoring his clear success in Tampa.

Why is the 5 years he was in Tampa, where he almost got them to a Super Bowl, being ignored? Again, while in Tampa he took the worst team in the history of the NFL to the NFC Championship, 3 playoff appearances in 5 years. Damned good QB's have success like that, not QB's that are "mediocre at best."

lol wanna make a strawman argument? I never said he was a 1 Q wonder... I said.....

I think the overall point here to keep in perspective, is that Doug Williams is not, and will never be viewed as, one of the greatest of all time. Neither will Rypien. That's what made Gibbs so special. He knew what his guy could do, and he used that to the best of their abilities. Rypien was really good at a deep ball, and we had the team in 91 for all of that to come together. That TEAM is arguably the best team to ever win a SB, and Rypien will NEVER be considered as a top 10 QB with a ring.

Like Mike, I've never viewed Williams as elite, or even much higher than Rypien when referencing the type of QB he was. He will go down as a Redskins legend because of 1 quarter in the biggest stage there is. It's something I will always be proud of... but he was never viewed as the top QB in the league... he wasn't even the clear cut starter on the team that won the SB. This is not taking anything away from his accomplishment, but understanding what that accomplishment is... was a good QB who had the greatest single quarter as a QB in the Superbowl. He's above Trent Dilfer as a SB winner, but he's clearly not on the same level of Brady, Brees, Mahomes, Young, Montana, Manning (Peyton), Bradshaw, Rodgers, Aikman (bleh), Simms (also bleh)....

I wouldn't even put him above Elway, who he beat in that game, or Kurt Warner.


I'm not hating on the guy, just trying to be realistic about who he was as a QB. He will ALWAYS be a major piece of my fandom for my favorite team in the world... but he's Howie Kendrick. He had one of the biggest moments in the history of my favorite team.... but he's never going to be, nor should he, considered one of the best in the league... heck, he's not even the best on player on the team.

Never did I say mediocre at best. Never did I say he was a BAD QB...

I even admitted that maybe I was misreading the conversation on the last reply to Boone, and that it felt a lot like there was a condemnation because Doug Williams isn't valued on a certain level. Like some sort of defense was needing to be made on his behalf because where he was being spoken about was far below some ranking that he deserved and I don't agree. I'm closer to Mike on this conversation that I don't think Doug is more that what he is. A good QB that will forever have a place in my heart because of what he did in the Super Bowl.

 

[MikefromOH]

I ended up watching highlights of the 91 super bowl again.

Remember how big Alvin Walton's shoulder pads were? That dude was a hitter!!

But, the only person who could have "maybe" outclassed Joe Gibbs as a human being was Charles Mann. That is the kind of person I would want to teach my sons and mentor if they ever played. Just so well spoken and nice.

 

[Elephant]

...was a good QB who had the greatest single quarter as a QB in the Superbowl.

OK, I paraphrased, but these are you words exactly....greatest 1Q/good QB.

I don't think it's making a straw man to say you think he was a 1Q wonder and a good QB if you make that claim, then you go on to say this...

...the rest of the resume is meh at best.

You're making the claim that his career was, "Meh..." outside of a Skins' uniform.

I just don't know how you can come to that conclusion unless you ignore his time in Tampa altogether. I mean seriously, if Dwayne Haskins wins the division 3 out of next 5 times, and takes us to the NFC Championship in one of those seasons, will you call him meh at best?

Hell, I can even admit that at his best, RG3 was better than mediocre. At his best he was rookie of the year, pretty amazing.

Websters defines mediocre as...of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate. Yeah, that ain't "the best" that DW did in his entire career.

At his best, Doug Williams was MVP of the Super Bowl, not mediocre. That may not be your argument, but that is the argument you are defending, and the reason I have spoken out. It simply doesn't add up.

So minimize his career outside a Redskins' uniform all you want, hold on to the idea that he was "meh" his entire career outside of the Super Bowl victory, but he achieved success while in Tampa, success we long for around here, repeated playoff births/ victories and a conference championship game with a chance at a Super Bowl.

I will state, and stand by with a body of evidence, and an overwhelming majority of football pundits to support it...Doug Williams was a damned good QB in Tampa. For his entire body of work, over his entire career he was better than "mediocre at best."

 

[MikefromOH]

I remember the story of the 79 Bucs. Ricky Bell ran for 1200 yards that year and was as big a part of it as anyone else.
They also tied the Bears record wise and that is how they won the division

Doug threw for 2448 yards with 18TDs and 24INTs. Not exactly lights out.

He threw for 144 yards in the playoffs that year with 1TD and 2INTs
Ricky Bell ran 38x for 144 yards and 2TDs in the game they won

They lost the next week 9-0.

His best year he had 3563 yards with 19TDs and 14INTs

His career was not elite.

 

[Primus Porcus]

1978	23	TAM	QB	12	10	10	4-6-0	73	194	37.6	1170	7	3.6	8	4.1	56	6.0	4.9	16.0	117.0	53.4	6	69	5.51	4.41	3.0	1	1	5
1979	24	TAM	QB	12	16	16	10-6-0	166	397	41.8	2448	18	4.5	24	6.0	66	6.2	4.4	14.7	153.0	52.5	7	57	5.92	4.14	1.7	3	4	7
1980	25	TAM	QB	12	16	16	5-10-1	254	521	48.8	3396	20	3.8	16	3.1	61	6.5	5.9	13.4	212.3	69.9	23	194	5.89	5.30	4.2	5	4	11
1981	26	TAM	QB	12	16	16	9-7-0	238	471	50.5	3563	19	4.0	14	3.0	84	7.6	7.0	15.0	222.7	76.8	18	135	7.01	6.50	3.7	2	3	13
1982	27	TAM	QB	12	9	9	5-4-0	164	307	53.4	2071	9	2.9	11	3.6	62	6.7	5.7	12.6	230.1	69.6	11	128	6.11	5.12	3.5	2	2	13

1982	NFL	Tampa Bay Buccaneers*	5	4	0	3rd of 5	Lost WC	158	178	-20	McKay	Selmon	Williams	Wilder	Giles	18	13	16	3	19	19	4	28	-2.2	3.1	0.9	-0.4	1.3
1981	NFL	Tampa Bay Buccaneers*	9	7	0	1st of 5	Lost Div	315	268	47	McKay	Williams	Williams	Eckwood	House	18	18	4	13	2	12	17	28	2.9	0.1	3.0	-1.4	4.4
1980	NFL	Tampa Bay Buccaneers	5	10	1	4th of 5	271	341	-70	McKay	Selmon	Williams	Bell	Jones	23	15	20	20	25	22	18	28	-4.4	-0.7	-5.1	-3.5	-1.6
1979	NFL	Tampa Bay Buccaneers*	10	6	0	1st of 5	Lost Conf	273	237	36	McKay	Selmon	Williams	Bell	Hagins	21	14	1	1	16	9	5	28	2.3	-5.1	-2.8	-4.6	1.8
1978	NFL	Tampa Bay Buccaneers	5	11	0	5th of 5	241	259	-18	McKay	Selmon	Williams	Bell	Owens	25	28	7	4	8	17	22	28	-1.1	-2.2	-3.3	-4.1

The tables are inverted because for whatever reason that is how it shows up on Pro Football Reference.

TB did not win the division 3 out of 5 years... in 1982 they were the WC team... 3rd of 5 in their division going 5-4 behind Williams in the strike shortened year. In 1981 they won the division as a 9-7 team that beat out an Eric Hipple led Detroit Lions team in the final game of the season to secure the division win.... He also didnt have MULTIPLE playoff victories in TB... he had 1. In 1979 they beat the Eagles, then went on to lose to the LA Rams 9-0. In 1981 they didnt have a WC game... their ONLY postseason game that year was against Dallas that they lost 38-0. In 1982 they lost to Dallas again in the strike shortened season, Dallas went on to lose to..... you guessed it!

 

[Elephant]

So Derek, are you still defnding that Doug Williams was "mediocre at best?"

Because while I made a couple of mistakes, it doesn't eliminate the fact that Doug Williams turned a dead franchise around, that he was better than mediocre or meh at best.

 

[Primus Porcus]

So Derek, are you still defnding that Doug Williams was "mediocre at best?"

lol no i'm saying he was a 'good qb who had the single greatest quarter of any QB in the Super Bowl.' The same argument I've been making the whole time. That career in TB is not overwhelming. It's 'meh.' It's not terrible or embarrassing, but it's not exactly worth getting excited about either. He's in a middle tier of QBs that A LOT of 'good' QBs fall into.

 

[Elephant]

lol no i'm saying he was a 'good qb who had the single greatest quarter of any QB in the Super Bowl.' The same argument I've been making the whole time. That career in TB is not overwhelming. It's 'meh.' It's not terrible or embarrassing, but it's not exactly worth getting excited about either. He's in a middle tier of QBs that A LOT of 'good' QBs fall into.

Again, mediocre suggests less than good, by definition.

mediocre[ mee-dee-oh-ker ]
adjective
of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate:

You say he was good, and that at his best he had the greatest Q in a Super Bowl.

So then why do you continue to defend the claim he was "mediocre at best?"

That is contradictory.

 

[Primus Porcus]

Again, mediocre suggests less than good, by definition.



You say he was good, and that at his best he had the greatest Q in a Super Bowl.

So then why do you continue to defend the claim he was "mediocre at best?"

That is contradictory.

Show me WHERE i said he was mediocre at best...

Bad QBs dont last that long in the NFL. He's not a BAD QB. He did little to excite me outside of the previously mentioned accomplishments. He was put in a position to excel playing for one of the greatest Head Coaches in the history of the NFL and he rose to the occasion on the biggest stage. He DID take TB to the playoffs 3 times in 5 seasons, which puts him into a tier of QB that is better than 'mediocre at best' in my personal opinion. Looking at his CAREER.. his resume outside of a Redskins uniform is not exactly earth shattering. I never said he was 'meh' at best either Brian, you're taking my words and spinning them. I said the rest of his resume was 'meh.' That does not mean he's a 'meh' at best QB, it just means that ME PERSONALLY am not impressed by what he did in Tampa.

 

[MikefromOH]

Ricky Bell did as much to turn them around as Doug.

Hell, I would say he was MORE important.

Doug only ALMOST threw for 2x the yards Ricky ran for, Ricky is the reason they won that playoff game, and he had only 11 less TDs. Compared to a QB that is pretty damn impressive.

Guess that is why he got MVP that year

 

[Elephant]

Show me WHERE i said he was mediocre at best...

Your argument started out with he doesn't deserve to be considered among the greats...when no one said he did, and it is correct. So my 1st question would be...why even bother making that defense when no one was arguing Williams was elite.

So when you continue to attack the assertion that Williams was a damned good QB while in Tampa when your first argument was that he wasn't elite, then follow it up in subsequent posts like, "...meh at best" you clearly infer it.

Furthering his role in Tampa, here is the A Football Life episode with him, the Bucs are the focus from 12 minutes to 16 minute of the video...

Joe Gibbs, John McCay, Howard Cosell, Jon Gruden, most of his team mates in Tampa all believe he was responsible for the turnaround...he was their leader.


[media]

 

[MikefromOH]

Quarterbacks usually get all the glory. Hence why he got the MVP over Ricky Sanders. The fact that Ricky Bell got the MVP on the "super bowl caliber team" shows he was far more instrumental in the turnaround.

But, numbers dont lie. he had mediocre stats and one great quarter when it counted most.

 

[Primus Porcus]

Your argument started out with he doesn't deserve to be considered among the greats...when no one said he did, and it is correct. So my 1st question would be...why even bother making that defense when no one was arguing Williams was elite.

So when you continue to attack the assertion that Williams was a damned good QB while in Tampa when your first argument was that he wasn't elite, then follow it up in subsequent posts like, "...meh at best" you clearly infer it.

Furthering his role in Tampa, here is the A Football Life episode with him, the Bucs are the focus from 12 minutes to 16 minute of the video...

Joe Gibbs, John McCay, Howard Cosell, Jon Gruden, most of his team mates in Tampa all believe he was responsible for the turnaround...he was their leader.


[media]

Maybe I read it wrong then... but what I saw was a back and forth about Williams and it read a lot like he wasn't getting enough credit. I was just clarifying that Mikes opinions are shared. I don't doubt that Williams is comfortable with his position, in fact he's in a hell of an enviable one. We all wish we could have the success he did.. i was speaking in a vacuum regarding him as a player trying to be objective.

dude, i clearly said right here that I possibly read it wrong... the tone of the conversation when i walked into it was that Mike was some how crazy because he didn't feel the inflated love of Doug Williams regarding his status as a QB.

NOTHING I said spoke to what type of a leader he was. I don't agree with you that he was a damned good QB and nothing on his resume leads me to think any differently. He may have turned around Tampa as a leader, but leadership and QB production are not 1 in the same. I never questioned his leadership, I never even discounted his accomplishments, but a QB who only had 1 season in TB where he completed 50+% of his passes... had a 33-33 record, averaged no more than 230 ypg for a single season, averaging 188 as a whole, is not a 'Damned good QB.' Sorry dude.

 

[Boone]

I'm almost done with this convo - but a couple final points. First of all, you are NOT arguing what Mike argued ST. Mike wouldn't even give Williams credit for the best quarter in Superbowl history. He literally chalked that quarter up to other players and luck. He also hasn't called Williams a 'good' QB, far from it. That's your right Mike, but you guys aren't making the same argument by a longshot.

Secondly, you judge a QB based on the whole package - not just physical skills. Good QBs make those around them better. When Williams was in the game, be it for the Bucs or the Skins, the guys around him loved him and played for him.

Finally, as far as judging his stats and physical ability, there's a little bit of modern bias going on here. Dan Marino, probably considered the finest QB of that era, completed 58% of his passes the year after Williams won the superbowl (I'm only using that season because it was the most games Williams played in a season for the Skins). Only the top 10 QBs that year even broke 3000 yds. It wasn't today's game. That also contributes to an understanding of why RBs were getting a ton of carries and lots of yards. It wasn't because the QB sucked. It was because QBs were only getting 25 pass attempts a game or in that neighborhood.

 

[Elephant]

dude, i clearly said right here that I possibly read it wrong... the tone of the conversation when i walked into it was that Mike was some how crazy because he didn't feel the inflated love of Doug Williams regarding his status as a QB.

But it wasn't an attack on Mike, that's what got lost. There is a lot of support that contradicts what he was saying. I literally know no one but Mike who thinks Doug Williams was less than good.

That is why I didn't understand where your argument originated...other than to argue against what I was saying. On most things I support and agree with Mike, but I vehemently disagree with him on this notion that Doug Williams was anything less than a good QB. I think he was better than just good, not great, damned good for a fair portion of his career, and the overall consensus is the same.

 

[MikefromOH]

I posted stats and numbers. I am sorry they don't support the fact you guys love DW so much. I hold no grudges, but my case was proven to the best of my ability.

Ricky Sanders set a super bowl record in that quarter, too.
Ricky Bell was the teams MVP that year.

he was mediocre in my eyes. In the era or Moon/Elway/Marino/etc. he didn't crack that list. He was just somewhere in the middle of the pack.

I'll walk away from this conversation now like I did yesterday, but I based mine off of numbers and stats. all I've seen from you guys is "great leader" and "made those around him better". If he wasn't on the Redskins would you still call him one of the best? Charger fans call Rivers one of the best of this decade...does that make it true?

 

[Boone]

 

[MikefromOH]

 

[Burgundy Burner]

I always thought that Ricky Sanders, Doug Williams, and Timmy Smith should've been named co-MVPs of that Super Bowl. That would've been the right thing to do.

I tend to side with Mike in this debate. It reminds me of Eli Manning having two good games when it mattered most and was mediocre the rest of his career.

I'll just leave it at that.