BGO.C.D.: Jane, You Ignorant Slut...

[Boone]

Like that infamous SNL 'Point/Counterpoint’ spoof, the NFL Draft debate among Redskins fans has never been hotter. To go QB or not to go QB – that...

More...

 

[Burgundy Burner]

Eh, only you could turn the Redskins drafting a QB into a slutty situation. Roflmbo!

I'm still hoping for Mallet in the 2nd round.

 

[Elephant]

Eh, only you could turn the Redskins drafting a QB into a slutty situation. Roflmbo!

I'm still hoping for Mallet in the 2nd round.

You see Mallette on Gruden QB Camp? Kid was very respectful and seemed eager, but he appeared about as sharp as a bowling ball. Don't want to bad mouth the kid, he was very polite....seemed like a fine young man. I just didn't see someone who would be able to walk to the line, scan an NFL defense and be able to manage the play. He seems like the one who has the physical tools without the mindset to run an NFL offense much less one like Shanahan's.

I know it was just one instance, but I was told I was crazy when I saw Jason Campbell's first interview and I came to the same conclusion. In fact, I was ostracized over at the other site for such an assertion.

What do you see in him that suggests he is the pick we should take in the 2nd round?

 

[Elephant]

I have a serious question. who was the last franchise QB we had?

sonny?

billy?

sammy?

Stan Humphries

 

[Om]

I have a serious question. who was the last franchise QB we had?

sonny?

billy?

sammy?

The temptation is to go back to Sonny. I think that's unfair to Joe Theismann though.

Yes he had Riggins. Yes he had the Hogs. And yes he had Gibbs. But I've got a decent memory and some VHS tapes that remind me every time I pop 'em in that that guy was GOOD. And smart, tough and competitive as hell too.

I think the fact he ran his yap too much, and does to this day, has diminished him as a player in a lot of people's eyes.

He wasn't as good as Jurgensen as a passer, no doubt, but then, few have ever been. Joe T was a damn good all around NFL QB though.

You could pin the Franchise QB label on him and sleep at night.

 

[Neophyte]

The temptation is to go back to Sonny. I think that's unfair to Joe Theismann though.

Yes he had Riggins. Yes he had the Hogs. And yes he had Gibbs. But I've got a decent memory and some VHS tapes that remind me every time I pop 'em in that that guy was GOOD. And smart, tough and competitive as hell too.

I think the fact he ran his yap too much, and does to this day, has diminished him as a player in a lot of people's eyes.

He wasn't as good as Jurgensen as a passer, no doubt, but then, few have ever been. Joe T was a damn good all around NFL QB though.

You could pin the Franchise QB label on him and sleep at night.

You took the thoughts right out of my head.

I think you might have made a solid argument for Rypien as well if Gibbs had stayed on as head coach. He showed great promise under Gibbs and I think only would have gotten better had Gibbs stuck around and the team found a bit of youth to put out there with him.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Rypien = Dilfer. Decent QB in the perfect system with a spectacular team around him.

 

[Elephant]

See, if you are going to go with Joey T, then doesn't Mark Rypien deserve to be placed in there as well? They had about the same amount of success and duration as a starting QB for the Redskins.

Joey T started for about 7 seasons and Rypien started 6, both won a Super Bowl, granted Joey T won 2 NFC Championships. Rypien was SB MVP while Joey T was a league MVP. Joey played a little longer than he should have, and Rypien lost a tremendous amount of talent around him as he regressed.

I am not saying Theisman should not be considered a "Franchise QB", but that Rypien has met similar criteria. And hey, he's won as many Super Bowls as Peyton Manning.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

The 1991 team was top 5 of all time - At 12 years old I could have quarterbacked them to a 9-7 record. LOL.

 

[Elephant]

OK, I will grant you guys the 1991 team was outstanding, but Joey T won his SB in a strike shortened year, with Hall of Fame RB, a Hall of Fame WR until he got hurt in the playoffs, and an offensive line that had at least one Hall of Famer and 2 more that probably could or should be.

My argument in Rypien's defense was longevity coupled with success. Isn't that what we are looking for in a franchise QB. 6 seasons as a starter and a Suepr Bowl victory? Oh and the Rypien = Dilfer comparisons are just a little off. Rypien was a far superior QB.

I am not saying Mark Rypein was a world beater...he was no Sonny, or Sammy, but he ranks up there with Joey T, maybe just a rung below.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I wasn't trying to compare Rypien to Dilfer, just their situations. Both found themselves in the right situation. Strong running game, airtight defense with a hall of fame pass-catcher(s) to throw too.

 

[Burgundy Burner]

To me, franchise QB means hall of fame or darn close to it. If you include some of these aforementioned players, then you must include nearly every QB that has won a Super Bowl.

Doug Williams? Good QB and great Super Bowl game. But nah.

Jeff Hostetler? Come on.

Mark Rypien? Please.

Trent Dilfer? Seriously?

Brad Johnson? Hey, good QB. Not HOF worthy though.

Eli Manning? Only if he finishes his career on a tear like no one has ever seen.

Sonny was the last franchise QB we've had in the Redskins organization. But do we need a future HOFer to be Super Bowl champs? Joe T got us there. So did Doug. Mark too. Ditto for some of these other QBs I've mentioned. Heck, toss Billy K in as another good QB, but not a franchise HOFer.

Love and appreciate what Billy, Joe, Doug, and Mark did for the Redskins. They are in the Hall Of Very Good. Let's leave it at that and hope we find a HOF QB in this draft. At the very least, let him be in the HOVG.

 

[Elephant]

I wasn't trying to compare Rypien to Dilfer, just their situations. Both found themselves in the right situation. Strong running game, airtight defense with a hall of fame pass-catcher(s) to throw too.

Agreed, I wasn't trying to be disagreeable. I just think Rypien had more talent.

Edit: BB, I think where our discussion may have strayed a little is defining franchise QB.

By your standards, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are the only guaranteed franchise QB's in the league right now.

My definition would include Big Ben, Rodgers, Brees and QB's like Eli(Mediocre, but has started for them for years), Flacco(not great but is Baltimore's starter), and definitely Philip Rivers. Oh yeah, he is at the end but Matt Hasselback was a franchise QB.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Don't forget Matty Ice. He hasn't won anything yet, but I think he will bring a Lombardi to Atlanta before its all said and done.

 

[SkinsFTW]

rivers wont get a ring..theyre prone to self destruct and it starts from the top.

You know, I'm even tempted to go to some Chargers games, but then Norv will be on the sideline. Nope, not gonna happen.

 

[Om]

Anyone else amused at how Marty's year here continues to grow in stature as it recedes further in the rear view mirror?

The Sportstalk 980 guys were gushing over him yesterday in their joyful trashing of Daniel Synder in the wake of the City Paper story, talking about Marty's "amazing 6-2 finish." Not only were they factually wrong (5-3), they ignored the reality that anyone who actually watched that season unfold should remember.

The 0-5 start was a bad as any stretch in Redskins' history. Look 'em up. Those were some UGLY games.

2001 Redskins

- 30-3 to 0-0 San Diego (5-11)
- 37-0 to 1-0 Green Bay (12-4)
- 45-13 to 0-2 Kansas City (6-10)
- 23-9 to 2-1 NY Giants (7-9)
- 9-7 to 0-4 Dallas (5-11)

The 5-0 run after that to level their record, when the league had long since stopped taking the Redskins seriously, included:

- a fluky OT win against 1-4 Carolina (1-15) at home, then four semi-quality wins:

- 35-21 vs the 3-3 Giants (7-9)
- 27-14 vs the 3-3 Seahawks (9-7)
- 17-10 vs the 5-4 Broncos (8-8), and
- 13-3 vs the 6-3 Eagles (11-5)

Then, at 5-5, having gotten everyone's attention and when the games actually mattered, Marty's Redskins:

- lost 20-14 at home to the 2-8 Cowboys (5-11)
- beat the 5-6 Cardinals (7-9) on the road 20-10
- lost 20-6 at home to the 8-4 Eagles (11-5)
- lost 20-15 at home to the 10-3 Bears (13-3)

... to fall to 6-8 and out of the playoff picture.

They then closed with a

- 40-10 road rout of 7-7 New Orleans (7-9) and a
- 20-17 home squeaker against 7-8 Arizona (7-9)

... to finish at .500 and move instantly into Redskins lore.

NFCE record: 3-3
Record against winning teams: 2-3

Don't misundertand--this about comparing Marty's year to any other year or coach. And despite what I'm sure some of you are thinking it isn't to beat up ON Marty. It's simply to gently remind one and all that the reality then was a far cry from what many try very hard to paint it as today. It's to say that at least this one person isn't going to let the passage of time or the team's ongoing struggles since then paint a Wonder Year patina over Marty Schottenheimer's one season here.

Should Dan Snyder have fired him after one season? No, probably not. Year One of a new regime is just not long enough to judge what Marty or any other coach might have done had he stayed. But we also don't know the full story behind why he was fired (as opposed to the grossly oversimplified "Snyder couldn't stand that Marty had full control over personnel and wouldn't let Dan play with his toy, so Dan fired him" that so many people seem to have reduced the firing to).

If nothing else like to think the people who ARE supposed to remember this stuff--like say, professional radio broadcasters and longtime observers of the Redskins franchise--would have the professionalism and/or willingness to put some kind of meaningful context into their historial ruminations.

Yeah. That'll happen.

*

Heh. That started out as a quick reply. Don't hate if you see it appear again as a blog post.

 

[Elephant]

Om, I think you addressed it, but I want to emphasize that I don't think anyone "in their right mind" would suggest that Marty's one season was a major success. I think, for me at least, the memories are not of what was, but what could have been had Danny Boy allowed Marty to stay instead of bringing in Steve "Worst Coach in Redskins' History" Spurrier.

There was major rebellion by many of the veterans, I mean look at Deon...he left the second he saw there was a strict disciplinarian coming in. Many of the veterans rebelled at first. (I am using Lavar as my source here since he was outspoken about this years back). Once the vets started to see things could work, Marty's way, they began to buy in and the team got better as the season progressed. They did win 5 straight after they lost 5 straight. And they won 5 straight with Tony Banks at the helm!

 

[Om]

At the risk of sounding like I'm turning purely anti-Marty ... which I'm really not ... some quick thoughts in reply.

Om, I think you addressed it, but I want to emphasize that I don't think anyone "in their right mind" would suggest that Marty's one season was a major success. I think, for me at least, the memories are not of what was, but what could have been had Danny Boy allowed Marty to stay instead of bringing in Steve "Worst Coach in Redskins' History" Spurrier.

We agree--no one in their right mind would think that year was anything resembling a major success.

As to what might have happened had he stayed, like I said, without specific knowledge of the circumstances---all of them---that led to the firing, we can't know if Marty could have worked out here. Remember, he was GM and Coach and Team President and Chief Bottle Washer and everything else. Yes, that's what it took to get him to come here, but the result was you had one guy basically calling ALL the shots.

As a pure X and O football coach, I had no real problem with Marty (despite a limited offensive imagination). The choice to fire him might have bothered me more had he been "just" the Head Coach though. As a man wearing every meaningful hat there was to wear in the FO, I had less problem with it.

Never was a big fan of Marty the GM or Chief Cheerleader.

There was major rebellion by many of the veterans, I mean look at Deon...he left the second he saw there was a strict disciplinarian coming in. Many of the veterans rebelled at first. (I am using Lavar as my source here since he was outspoken about this years back).

You betcha. From Day One it was Oklahoma Drills with 67 year old Bruce Smith ... and so much more. I was there the day he was coaching Darrell Green on proper hand positioning while waiting to field a punt in front of the whole team ... and ran up behind center on a practice PAT, stopping the play, and physically moved the backup center's right ankle three inches to the right before backing off and blowing the restart whistle.

Marty was a control freak both off AND on the field. Sometimes that's a good thing. Sometimes not.

Once the vets started to see things could work, Marty's way, they began to buy in and the team got better as the season progressed.

We have different recollections on that. The way I remember it the discussion at the time centered more around how the veterans rallied together against General Schottenheimer, and the resulting turnaroud was attributed as much to them tuning him out and playing for themselves and each other as for their coach or team.

Does Marty get "credit" for doing that on purpose? I've heard some say yet. Me, I don't buy it. I think the man was, and is, the kind of guy able to see only one way of doing things. Ever. His way.

They did win 5 straight after they lost 5 straight.

Yes they did. And I tried to put those 5 wins in context above. The Skins were a league joke at 0-5 and were well on their way to 0-6 when LaVar tipped a pass and ran it back for a score that led to them squeaking out an OT victory against hapless Carolina. And no team took them seriously until they had reached 5-5 ... I remember clearly the talk about how "NOW the league is taking a look at this team; NOW we'll find out about these Redskins..."

We did.

Again, once they'd reached .500, they proceeded to lose 3 of 4, with all kinds of mistakes and sloppy, uninspired play. I think I still have some of the the VHS tapes from those games that would back that up. Not that I'm going to ever pull those damn things out without being well compensated to sit through them again.

The final two meaningless wins to reach .500 were "feelgooders" at the time, but meant very little in the grand scheme of things.

And they won 5 straight with Tony Banks at the helm!

You forget the epic Kent Graham stepping in for Banks and rallying the team to victory in Denver.

Heh.

Anyway. It's Draft Day. And this is old news. I just felt compelled to mention my reaction to the "Sports Reporters" gushing about the Marty Year in their zeal to pour gas on the Snyder/City Paper fire.

 

[Om]

Sigh.

..................

 

[Om]

You do, Mike. And I am.

No worries .... just remembering how hard it is to make subtle distinctions on message boards. I'm outta practice!