Charles Romes Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Hanging on to the ball too long is a sickness that is not fixable. Its a function of not having pocket awareness. Ask rj1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 (edited) Lets see what happens in a real game type simulation over 7 on 7 drills from camp. That's my reality check... however The Skins are bringing back last year's offensive line, and two of the starters are already injured in their OTA's So... if you want to assume the same 10 sacks effort with a lesser D in 2011 then We might see RGIII look like this Crank up the Zeppelin Dazed and Confused Edited August 3, 2012 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 I'm just looking forward to laughing at the posters who demanded that we auto-accept that as a great deal.... on a team...who has no offensive line, or "save RG3's ass" WRs, TEs...on and on. What's more funny? They demanded that we auto-accept the soundness of a deal...that involves the Redskins, and player personnel decisions. (Adam Archuleta says hi). The all-time best: the only way this deal makes any sense at all? RG3 MUST be a first ballot HOFer, that will be better than Montana, etc. Why? Because all of them but a few were acquired for a single draft pick. So really, we don't have to wait 10 years to find out they were wrong, we already know. Value is value, period. The value doesn't add up here. It never, ever will, even if RG3 is good. Good is not all-time great, and that's what 2 #1s and a high 2 absolutely require....especially given the new CBO. But really? Even that isn't enough. The definition of "draft value" has changed. Why? Because with each of these high picks, while paying "good" money", not great money you have way less risk, more money that can be used to sign/re-sign FAs, and more years of play for less money. Would you rather have 1 good/great player that you are underpaying, for 5 years ...or 3 of them? See? The RG3 deal is sheer idiocy....it's just that they don't understand the new CBO yet....or much about the concept of diversification. But, they are not alone. The "we should trade up" morons, like Jerry Jones, also don't understand that it costs you the ability to "underpay" good players for at least 4 years, if not 5. Bill Belechik also fell into this trap this year. Trading up 2x in the 1st...for what he got? Idiocy. This thinking is not just short-sighted, it's just plain wrong. You want to play the trade game? Use 4th round and below. Eventually this will be common knowledge. You nailed it right on the head! The entire media is expecting everyone to auto-accpet this move. Your first round players are suppose to be impact players that stay on your team for around 10 years. With those picks, the Foreskins could have used them on O-linemen (which they really need) and/or other areas of need. Like you said Robbie G needs to be a first ballot HOF, because the Redskins gave up 3 draft picks, which essentially could have been 3 starters for them. Either way you look at it, the Foreskins are not going to the Superbowl anywhere in the near future, let alone the playoffs. Even if Robbie G turns out to be a good QB, this move sets them back years. If he turns out to be a bust, then this will set the Foreskins back more years than it did when the Bills traded for Bledsoe and when they traded draft picks for Loseman. Lets see what happens in a real game type simulation over 7 on 7 drills from camp. That's my reality check... however The Skins are bringing back last year's offensive line, and two of the starters are already injured in their OTA's So... if you want to assume the same 10 sacks effort with a lesser D in 2011 then We might see RGIII look like this Crank up the Zeppelin Dazed and Confused I think the new Bills D-line will get 10 sacks before they exit in the 1st quarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLFan Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Three years of Shanny-Ball and their O-line still sucks. Compare that to Chixley. LOL. Not so sure. Granted it's the first preseason game but on the other hand, this is a guy they are planning to start as a rookie… so he might get more PT than a veteran starter would typically get. According to the Shanahan this morning, quoted in the Washington Post, Griffin will get 12 to 20 snaps in the Buffalo game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 I hope our first string guys see a quarter or two worth of action since we're installing a new defense and have a couple new players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonechiller Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Holy crap! I read the title and thought maybe the games started and I was missing something. Really? too many sacks the first week of camp. whoopee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 Holy crap! I read the title and thought maybe the games started and I was missing something. Really? too many sacks the first week of camp. whoopee! If you don't think it's relevant, considering the Bills are playing the Redskins in 6 days then good for you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts