PFT: Report: Redskins interested in Vincent Jackson

[Lanky Livingston]

Let me preface by saying I'm not trying to start a fight. I apologize for the research comment, I got a little snarky.

Nope you are wrong. George came in when Johnson was injured in week 9, and then replaced Johnson when he came back and stank although JG was 1-2 in BJ's absence so he wasn't setting the world on fire. He wasn't brought in to start. Robo started him 2 games after Norv was canned but again it was a shakeup going to the backup ala Babe Lauffenberg, not JG starting for even a majority of the season and doing it because he earned the job. Why bring a QB at all, oh I dunno in case your starter goes down for 3 games like he did that year? Nahhhhhh, that's CRAZY.

You said George never started. "Might have wanted George to start but he never did." He in fact started 5 games in 2000. And when Snyder signs him for 4 years and $18M (which was a huge contract back then), he's not signing him to ride the pine, he's signing him to compete for the starting job. On a team with a QB who just threw for 4000 yards. It was made clear from day one that it was an open competition, and that Snyder wanted George to be the starter.

Also, he did not come in for an injured Brad Johnson, he was named the starter (under pressure from Snyder) in week 10. He played 3 weeks, and then Brad Johnson got the starting job back, and THEN George came in for him. I can't remember if it was due to injury or not. He then started weeks 15 and 16. BJ started week 17.

See for yourself.

OK I get it, ditching a 4th string running back, 4th string emergency QB, 1st string kick returner was what was keeping that team firing on all cylinders. If cutting him was what "ruined" that team then it wasn't nearly as good as you or anyone else bills it. Yea Mitchell was a leader, he was also a locker room "bitcher" who had the same effect at times that Lavar did and since his production had been steadily declining he became expendable. NY and Philly picked him up and he had one or 2 solid seasons (funny they both cut him too, they were backstabbers too right? The cut was justified in the sense that he was a shadow of his former self but still ran that all world mouth like he was on top of his game. Then he proved the point by running his mouth non stop after leaving (loyalty...yea right)...as if the whiner hadn't been payed millions to do what he did. Get over it, you got cut move on and grow up. He never could, which lends credence to the reports that he was a pain in the ass behind closed doors more than once.

Depends on your point of view I guess. I remember him not being a "pain in the ass" until it was known he wasn't returning. That's when he started badmouthing the team and what not. Before that, I don't recall any problems. "Expendable" is also a POV thing I suppose.

Yep that's a stat I will never forget as it was obscured within the same season by the Rams. We broke it, they broke it further. Why is that such a stretch of the imagination when BJ had our most productive QB year ever, we had 2 WR's over 1000 yards and Stephen Davis had the best single season of any Redskin in history at that point? The reason it didn't get more billing is Norv coached another classic choke job and that team lost many games by actually being outscored with a 30th ranked D to go with the #2 O. I think the D allowed something crazy like 25 points a game that season.

Well, its not a stretch, its wrong. Maybe points per game is what you mean? We were on pace to break it? We never broke the scoring record that season - we scored 443 points, 100 less than the 541 scored 16 years earlier by the 83 Skins, and over 100 less than the 556 scored by the 98 Vikings. So, not sure where you're getting that info. The Rams didn't break the Vikings' record from a year earlier either.

-ASIDE: Are you TRYING to pick a fight here, because I'm doing my darndest to skip over your smart assed tone and stick to a legit debate. First I need to go research my team because I am evidently clueless, then I'm too dumb to know very basic knowledge of a season I obviously remember better than you do when I'm the one who called out Norv to begin with? Gotcha.

You say in one hand the 99 offense was so prolific, and Snyder didn't do anything to mess with it, then out of the other side of your mouth you say his biggest mistake was NOT firing Norv immediately. You can't have it both ways, dude.

No I didn't realize it at all, that's why I called him out because I had no clue what his tenure consisted of. I didn't leave off anything, those didn't happen after the 99 season which it was said is when Snyder ruined this team. Oh and I'd have canned Schottenheimer too the second he said " I see no reason to upgrade at the QB position. Tony Banks had a fine year and will be our starting QB next season" along with refusing to fire or move Jimmy "High School Offense" Ray as the OC. Bar none the most embarrassing offensive year In Skins history when opposing teams were literally calling out or next play at the line of scrimmage. To say defenses laughed at us would be an understatement. Throw in the treatment of Darrel green (talk about alienating your team, the Bitchell cut pales in comparison to alienating the team's leader who EVERYONE looked up to before the season even starts. I could go on but that would require facing some unpleasant facts. Snyder has made a clusterfudge of things no doubt but he had a hell of a lot of help. If Schotty does one thing and opens his door and starts teaching Snyder like Gibbs does then I'm convinced we're not sitting here debating this and Schotty would have coached this team for several years, hell he might still be our coach.

See, I'm confused again - you're saying two different things. Schotty should have been fired, but if he'd taught Snyder, he'd have stayed for several years and we wouldn't be where we are today? You gotta pick a side and stick with it.

Highly talented teams that were the softest in the league and couldn't win a close game to save their lives. Losing over 2/3 of our division games, being known leaguewide as Club Med to the point that guys like Bruce and Deion were calling around the league telling other slackers to come join the fun! That's a Norv Turner team alright!

I couldn't care less about the first 25 scripted plays of a game when the opposing D shows stoutness and the guy abandons the run at the first sign of true adversity. I also couldn't care less about his genius when the proof is in the record which pretty much sucked donkey balls under Norv. Norv made it embarrassing to be a Skins fan for the first time in my life and I put a mountain of the blame for the crappitude of the franchise on his shoulders.

10-6 don't mean jack anyone who watched that team could see it was vastly under-performing and soft as a babies snuggly. An owner who had even a slight clue about how to run a team would have canned his butt in a NY minute. The writing was clearly on the wall, that team was going nowhere but down....six years of pure embarrassing crap aren't erased by a half a season of success coupled with another half of mediocre choke festivals.

Oh I agree, I hated Norv. I'm certainly not defending him.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

The 1999 Skins did not break the single-season scoring record. That mark was held by the '83 Skins until the '98 Vikings broke it, and then after that the '07 Pats broke it.

Beat me to it.

Again, its nice to have Mike and Bruce in here now, but the quote from the other thread about how Dan "can sleep at night because he has a competent coach that will enable him to be less-hands on" is a bit alarming. Coaches that have back-to-back SBs aren't available every season. Snyder is going to have to go to a guy with less pedigree sometime in the future....lets see how he behaves then.

I think the plan is for Mike to groom Kyle, and have him takeover when he eventually leaves in 2-3 years (hopefully with more jewelry).

 

[Henry]

EDIT: I see I need to take a number.

Never mind. Carry on.

 

[CounterTrey]

Let me preface by saying I'm not trying to start a fight. I apologize for the research comment, I got a little snarky.

Water under the bridge, maybe I was being a bit thin skinned.

You said George never started. "Might have wanted George to start but he never did." He in fact started 5 games in 2000. And when Snyder signs him for 4 years and $18M (which was a huge contract back then), he's not signing him to ride the pine, he's signing him to compete for the starting job. On a team with a QB who just threw for 4000 yards. It was made clear from day one that it was an open competition, and that Snyder wanted George to be the starter.

Open Competition does not equal being given the starting job. This is where I though Brad was being a whiny b@tch....and every other QB who whines about having to compete to keep their job. Perform and it won't be an issue. But nope BJ acted like the spoiled child who couldn't handle someone else on the team who might potentially take their job. Meanwhile the entire rest of the team goes through that virtually every year. Wah basically. Its like Bitchell, you were payed to do a freakin job, shut your pie hole and do it. Knowing you may be losing your job does not change the fact that you've been payed MILLIONS to play a game and are still responsible to do it without making the lives of everyone around you miserable. Bitchell and BJ both were too immature to do that. That aint on Snyder no matter how much of a prick he might have been. That's spoiled entitled players thinking they have the juice to tell the freakin owner what to do.

Also, he did not come in for an injured Brad Johnson, he was named the starter (under pressure from Snyder) in week 10. He played 3 weeks, and then Brad Johnson got the starting job back, and THEN George came in for him. I can't remember if it was due to injury or not. He then started weeks 15 and 16. BJ started week 17.

Well to be fair we're both a bit off on the data here. Yes he did start (so I was technically off on that point initially) and yes it was 5 games like I said:
2000 Washington Redskins 6 5 113 194 58.2 1,389 7.2 7 6 12 94 79.6 7 24 3.4 0 3 1

That's the stat line from the link you posted and it clearly shows 6 games played with 5 started. I also am right about him taking over for an injured Brad Johnson although you might be right thast Brad was injured after JG had his first start. I'd have to see a quote from Marty to believe he did anything Dan wanted in terms of on the field moves. That team was clearly 100% under Marty's control. so much so that it tied in with his firing. No way he took orders from Dan to start JG...I'd need a direct quote to ever buy that.

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/g/jeff_george/index.html

"Washington Redskins backup quarterback Jeff George will start against Arizona Cardinals because of injury to Brad Johnson..."

See for yourself.

Depends on your point of view I guess. I remember him not being a "pain in the ass" until it was known he wasn't returning. That's when he started badmouthing the team and what not. Before that, I don't recall any problems. "Expendable" is also a POV thing I suppose.

So what? What difference does it make when or why? He acted completely unprofessional, like someone who hadn't been payed a FAT salary to play the game and been given leeway for his mouth more than once. You don't recall it? I surely do, players running their mouths to the detriment of the team has ALWAYS sent up red flags for me. Besides Bitchell never was able to counter the statistical and naked eye fact that his game had deteriorated and he wasn't playing the way he used to. His future stints bore that out. I wonder why Philly and NY didn't keep him? Why weren't they backstabbers for ditching him? The flaming hypocrite also had no problem coming back to Snyder later down the road, now he's come full circle again and is a whiny malcontent who bitches from afar and rarely if ever even makes it out to Redskins Park. Unlike Lavar though, at least he actually did something with his career.

Well, its not a stretch, its wrong. Maybe points per game is what you mean? We were on pace to break it? We never broke the scoring record that season - we scored 443 points, 100 less than the 541 scored 16 years earlier by the 83 Skins, and over 100 less than the 556 scored by the 98 Vikings. So, not sure where you're getting that info. The Rams didn't break the Vikings' record from a year earlier either.

I have no clue on this one, gotta cry mea culpa. I clearly remember some talking head stats junkie like Jaws saying it and it absolutely floored me at the time (HENCE ME REMEMBERING IT). Still I can't find any stats on anyone but the points leaders from each season and just looking at straight numbers that doesn't bear out.

You say in one hand the 99 offense was so prolific, and Snyder didn't do anything to mess with it, then out of the other side of your mouth you say his biggest mistake was NOT firing Norv immediately. You can't have it both ways, dude.

Sure I can and there's nothing inconsistent about it at all. You're just missing the point about Norv's asstastic tenure. It was prolific as a unit when playing with a lead and capable of putting up lots of points in a hurry but pretty much incapable of winning close games or beating a divisional opponent (history bore out that point, they had a consistent losing record in close games or divisional ones). That team had a cultural problem, they were collectively slackers and weak, they gave up during adversity, they didn't rise above it. Norv's teams were famous for being long on talent and short on performance. That's why the 10-6 record was a fluke and he still should have been canned. The writing had been all over the wall for over 6 years ownership situation not withstanding.

See, I'm confused again - you're saying two different things. Schotty should have been fired, but if he'd taught Snyder, he'd have stayed for several years and we wouldn't be where we are today? You gotta pick a side and stick with it.

No again you miss the point. (my wording blows lately)

Schotty should have been canned for the 3 reasons I listed previously(among others) but if he hadn't been canned that season and he had also opened up his door and taken Dan under his wing, the incentive would have been much less to can him because Dan would have understood where he was coming from. It also would have led to an on the job education for Dan ...a crash course in how to run a team that he desperately needed. Now we've had to watch him go through that growing process and it's been painful. I submit Marty's attitude and refusal to include Dan in any way dramatically extended that ignorance on Dan's part. That any clearer....about as clear as mud?

Oh I agree, I hated Norv. I'm certainly not defending him.

Hah! We've come full circle!

 

[Skinsfan76]

Anybody out there think that the Skins, Chargers and another team could do a three way trade? The Chargers play a 3-4 defense so they wouldn't be interested in Haynesworth (and he wouldn't be interested in them either) so Al goes to the third team that plays a 4-3. The Skins get V. Jackson and then the Chargers get something from the 3rd team that got Haynesworth.

 

[Sarge]

Don't get Fantasy Danny started............