Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Tim Wakefield Retires

A Fan!!!... No BS!!!... Who is a lock to start?

I am a fan that expects the best out of every player on the roster. I dont except excuses, I dont except the fact that we were 4-12 just because our coaches sucked. If it were just a case where the coach could take all the blame then why the mass dumpoff of starting talent. Why tender your QB for a handshake and a lollipop. The Coaches coach and the players play. Everyone is at fault. Everyone has a piece of the pie in a game.

Topic of this post:

The overtime show on 106.7 posed a question to everyone. Who on the team is a lock to start this year. Im talking about mainly Offense and Defense. I know alot of us have many favs on here but I am talking about the 100% dead locks that will with out a doubt start this year. Name them and if any of your choices have struggled in the past but you feel they will start explain why you think they will be in the starting 11.

Here are my picks:

Offense:      Cooley, Rabach, Moss, Sellers

Defense:     Fletcher, Orakpo, Haynesworth, Hall

Thats all I can think of off the top of my head that are dead locks as starters

 

On the fence.... Campbell, Thomas, Carter..

My Opionion on Campbell (if you missed it)
I have like him as QB and have been totally disgusted with him every season he has played for us. I am sold on Campbell. Im sold on the fact that he is good but I know that he isnt good enough. Im just a fan that wants a new Joe Theisman  (in his Prime) clone rolled every year. I am a fan that expects the best out of every player on the roster. I dont except excuses, I dont except the fact that we were 4-12 just because our coaches sucked. If it were just a case where the coach could take all the blame, then why the mass dumpoff of starting talent. Why tender your QB for a handshake and a lollipop. If he is here, I say he will be the starter. I think it will come down to the wire in the late time frame of Free Agency as to him being here this season or not. His tender is too tempting for some struggling teams or even teams that are looking for a good backup to pass up.

I say Thomas is on the wire cause we still dont know what the FO is gonna do in FA with WRs. He could very likely be a starter this year.

Comment 37 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I think Thomas is a lock to start

and i’d put Macintosh on the fence for sure
But it is hard to narrow the group down much further…

by skinsfan28 on Mar 17, 2010 8:47 AM EDT reply actions  

Likely Thomas but

I just wonder if they bring in another big name WR it would be Thomas, Kelly and Mitchell competing for the third position… That is the only reason i didnt count him as 100%…

" IF YoU Are aRgUinG WiTh ME, YOU ArE WRonG!!!! "

by milcmann on Mar 17, 2010 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

You said something I don't get (twice)
Why tender your QB for a handshake and a lollipop.

He got tendered for a first-round pick. If you like drafting lollipops in the first round, that’s cool. Just keep that in fantasy leagues, because I personally like starting players to be drafted in the first round.
I have a question for you, though, since you’re someone who wants to get rid of Jason Campbell. Would you really want to draft Jimmy Clausen over Russel Okung if given that choice? Bradford is one thing, but Clausen is just a kid who is getting a lot of buzz because he’s the second-best QB in a very weak QB draft class. And let’s not forget that the last QB to come out of ND (Quinn) looked even more ready for the pros than Clausen ever has. And what has he done so far?

by kseandoyle on Mar 17, 2010 12:25 PM EDT reply actions  

lol... I have never said anything about drafting another QB except it is a bad Idea...

My handshake and a lillipop comment.. is what it is….

Handshake = trading your starting QB for only a first rounder (means we are willing to give you a vet and we will draft the Rookie but still want our original #1 pick for other purposes..) Basically the FO is calling Campbell expendable…

LilliPop = the less than 5 million is all they want on top of the trade… It is what it is… A slap in any starters face…

Its all a mute point no cause we just drafted Rex Grossman for competition… Like I said above Campbell is not a lock to start this season… But I think he is better than Grossman

" IF YoU Are aRgUinG WiTh ME, YOU ArE WRonG!!!! "

by milcmann on Mar 17, 2010 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think you're really undervaluing a first round draft pick plus compensation

especially since any team that desperate for a starting QB is going to be a team w/ a pretty high draft pick, but whatever… In the end, high tenders are really there to force trades; how often do teams actually give up one or two first-round draft picks instead of trading other assets? There’s a reason Peppers and Haynesworth didn’t move while they were franchised players. Like I said though, whatever. Agree to disagree.
What I can’t accept, however, is the thought that Grossman would ever be considered competition for JC. You said that Campbell is good, just not good enough. Can you even said that Grossman is good? OK? Honestly, I’d make him compete for the number 2 spot with Colt Brennan, and I don’t even like that kid.

by kseandoyle on Mar 17, 2010 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

What I am trying to say is as much as I dont want Campbell here in the future, I think he is our best option for next year. All I was trying to point out is that JC17 is getting a bad deal...

Grossman somehow got the credit for the Bears going to the Super Bowl…hahahahaha The One Year contract cements the fact that we will be draft a QB next season…

Your still not gtting the Handshake and a lollipop comment…. For you Starting QB to tendered for basically only a first round pick is an insult. I agree that a first round pick is high dollar… However, for that to be all you want for your starter is only for trade bait.. One of these other teams that need a QB would take probably want a starting veteran over an unknown rookie. If you are even tendering a QB it is an insult to him…

The only reason I can gather that they would tender him all is that they know next year is gonna be a rough year for us anyway.. Rather than killing Campbell’s career they will use him to gain an extra #1 (for a sorry ass rookie to develop for the future) and give him a chance with another team…

" IF YoU Are aRgUinG WiTh ME, YOU ArE WRonG!!!! "

by milcmann on Mar 17, 2010 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

OK...
If you are even tendering a QB it is an insult to him

That’s true. Part of that, I think, is these guys still not knowing if they actually want Campbell as their guy, but also recognizing that he’s too talented to not see what you have first. Of course, he hasn’t signed his tender yet, so he at least is still holding out hope to impress enough in the offseason to get a real contract. These guys have only seen Jason Campbell running their plays since Monday; they might still be willing to offer him a contract if he looks good this spring and summer (and if they decide not to draft a QB in the first or second round). Tenders aren’t necessarily permanent, and with a new FO and coaching staff, it’s not surprising that so many players were tendered this year. Like I’ve said elsewhere, these guys are clearly building for what their system demands, not simply on talent or reputation (cough Vinny cough). By the end of the summer, I wouldn’t be surprised if a few tenders become actual contracts and a few get either released or traded. By doing any of that, the team might not be saying “this is the most/least talented QB/LB/CB/etc in the league,” rather they’re just figuring out who can and cannot play in the new offensive and defensive systems.
Contrary to your opinion — and I know I can’t convince you of this, but I’ll say it any way — we don’t need a Hall of Fame/All-Pro/Pro Bowl QB to succeed. We need someone working in a system that plays to his strengths and who has a talented enough team around him to support his hard work. I’m not necessarily talking about a system QB or a game manager; I just mean someone who actually fits with the identity of the team. For instance, putting JC in an Al Saunders offense was not in keeping with what he actually brings to the table. The Zorn system worked better for him, but of course, we’ve gone over everything that was wrong with both system and personnel the last two years.

by kseandoyle on Mar 17, 2010 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

I totally agree with everything you have said above...
we don’t need a Hall of Fame/All-Pro/Pro Bowl QB to succeed

What is the goal of each season? What is the wish each and every fan has for thier team? To go to the big game. Then to win it.

Name me one team that has won the Super Bowl in the last Decade with a QB that has not been ProBowl.
I do not see a team that will succeed without a solid QB. I agree you can get far on a great running game with a mediocur QB but right now it does not look like we will have that.

" IF YoU Are aRgUinG WiTh ME, YOU ArE WRonG!!!! "

by milcmann on Mar 17, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

Super Bowls with non-Pro Bowl winning QBs

XXXV – Ravens, Trent Dilfer
XXXVIII – Patriots, Tom Brady (yeah, yeah, he’s been a bunch other times)
XL – Steelers, Ben Rothlisberger
XLII – Giants, Eli Manning
XLIII – Steelers, Ben Rothlisberger

You say you “do not see a team that will succeed without a solid QB.” We have a solid QB, do we not? Putting up career numbers over the past two years; improving steadily, in fact, as the OL and RBs steadily decline. Is he a Pro Bowl QB right now? No. But he could be as early as this coming season. And if not this season, the point is that he could be one. No, he’s not Tom Brady or Payton Manning or Drew Brees. But there’s only a few elite QBs in the entire world, and, in lieu of getting one of them (not likely), we should be happy that we actually have someone talented rather than trying to replace him with someone else who isn’t elite and who is probably a step down.

by kseandoyle on Mar 17, 2010 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

Dilfer, and Brady were not the starters those years… They were backups that carried the year but did not have all 16 games under their belts…

Eli and Rothlisberger were back-ups for the pro bowl… They were beat out by other QBs but did make the back up list.

" IF YoU Are aRgUinG WiTh ME, YOU ArE WRonG!!!! "

by milcmann on Mar 18, 2010 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions  

So some teams re: "Dilfer and Brady were not starters"

can win the Super Bowl with back-up QBs. Your argument is further diluted.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

by Scott E on Mar 18, 2010 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions  

the milcy argument has turned to cheese

limburger that is

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

by GeoFly on Mar 18, 2010 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

You forgot Dockery

And I think Sellers is still on the fence personally. Hall is only a lock because of the amount of money and the shortage of CBs. Landry is almost certain to start (partly raw talent, partly money), just don’t know which safety position they’ll have him playing at this year. McIntosh is going to start. He might not be a pro bowler, but that kid is far from a liability. Campbell will only be pushed if a QB is drafted in the first or second round.
Contrary to what Misters Vermeil and Edwards think, Larry Johnson is not a lock to start. In fact, I’m gonna go ahead and say he’s a lock to not start. Prove me wrong, ladykiller, prove me wrong.

by kseandoyle on Mar 17, 2010 12:30 PM EDT reply actions  

Yeah i personally dont think Johnson will get the start...

Yeah i personally dont think Johnson will get the start…I think he was only brought here to be a jersey seller until he retires. McIntosh I agree has a heap of tallent and Im a big fan but I just worry that he will be pushed out possibly… Sellers I locked because there isn’t any competition against him if we go with a fullback…

Well at least we all can be better asured that we are not going to draft a rookie QB.. The Grossman signing has sealed Campbell here unless someone bites at the tender…

" IF YoU Are aRgUinG WiTh ME, YOU ArE WRonG!!!! "

by milcmann on Mar 17, 2010 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

Amen!!!!

There are several teams needing QB`S but knowing the state of those teams they have holes to fill too otherwise they would not be drafting in the top 10. The leverage we have is what we may do with our pick, and most all agree we need a left tackle to come in and be a difference maker. Possibly after Bradford I don`t see any other QB worth the top ten pick this year and have to wait and see how the other teams manuever around.

by mybluebone on Mar 17, 2010 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sean Ryan could be a FB

Blocking TE and FB are pretty much the same thing in the end. If Sellers can’t get back to his old form, I could see the coaching staff starting Ryan (or Cooley and Davis) just to send a message. Yes, he should be the starter, but that guy needs a wake up call.

by kseandoyle on Mar 17, 2010 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

IM hoping after seeing Davis work

that there are plans for a duel TE scheme.

" IF YoU Are aRgUinG WiTh ME, YOU ArE WRonG!!!! "

by milcmann on Mar 17, 2010 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Carlos Rogers

If he’s not traded, Carlos is certainly going to start. Who else is there? I also think Portis will undoubtedly start. Agree on Dockery, too.

by Donnio1234 on Mar 17, 2010 12:39 PM EDT reply actions  

I dont know

Portis I would agree but not with a 100% lock…

" IF YoU Are aRgUinG WiTh ME, YOU ArE WRonG!!!! "

by milcmann on Mar 17, 2010 1:13 PM EDT reply actions  

Artis Hicks

He will be starting somewhere on the line. Yes he was a back up last year, but on a Vikings team with an o-line that way more talented than ours. He was their number one back up and can play any position on the line except center.

I’m thinking he’ll start at RG with Randy Thomas being gone. Who else can challenge his spot? Mike Williams? ha, no thanks

by travisjh86 on Mar 17, 2010 2:51 PM EDT reply actions  

Moss

I don’t know if he’s a lock, if Shanahan sees enough in Thomas and Kelly he could be put in the slot.

by travisjh86 on Mar 17, 2010 2:54 PM EDT reply actions  

Thats why I was calling him a lock...

Any way you look at it he is starting at one of the three positions.

" IF YoU Are aRgUinG WiTh ME, YOU ArE WRonG!!!! "

by milcmann on Mar 17, 2010 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

But the slot receiver isn't a starter

You only start 2 WRs (generally). That being said, I still think Moss starts this year because he still has plenty that he brings to the table. In the end, he’s built like a slot receiver, but has too much talent to be limited by that role. If he doesn’t start, I still see him lining up wide out when he does play. We’ve got two good TEs. One of them can run slot routes for all I care; Moss needs to run deep routes (as long as our line starts blocking for more than 1.2 seconds, of course).

by kseandoyle on Mar 17, 2010 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

You only start 2 WRs (generally).

Depends on your offense set-up. Most passing setups are set for 2 WR’s + 1 slot = 3

" IF YoU Are aRgUinG WiTh ME, YOU ArE WRonG!!!! "

by milcmann on Mar 17, 2010 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

But that's not starters...

5 linemen + 1 qb + 1 rb + 1 fb + 1 te = 9 non-WRs. There’s only two spots left. If Moss is designated as our slot guy, that makes him a non-starter. He might be the first guy off the bench; he might see more time than any other backup. But unless he’s the X or the Z, he’s not a starter.

by kseandoyle on Mar 17, 2010 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

UMMMMM

5 linemen + QB + RB + TE + 3 WRs = 11 that is a passing set-up… Thank you for drawing the I formation which is mainly a run based hence the reason you only have 2 WR. A single back or split back minus a TE is made for passing…

" IF YoU Are aRgUinG WiTh ME, YOU ArE WRonG!!!! "

by milcmann on Mar 18, 2010 10:21 AM EDT reply actions  

I gotta agree with ksean

When you look at the list of ‘starters’ the slot receiver isn’t credited with ‘starting’.
ARE was not a ‘starter’ last year.

by DoWork on Mar 18, 2010 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

No cause Slot isn't a position...

Its a placement description of a position… ARE was a starter.. He was our #2 WR. He was the #2 (most of the year) and if they went to the 3 WR set he was in the slot. Since we did not start a FB in our main Offense (IF WE HAD ONE) and we only ran with one TE then where does that 11th player go… Oh thats right WR…. That is how most teams do it unless they are running double RBs…

" IF YoU Are aRgUinG WiTh ME, YOU ArE WRonG!!!! "

by milcmann on Mar 19, 2010 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Media Requests please email hogshaven@gmail.com

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Arnold-schwarzenegger-kindergarten-cop_small
Trading Up Is Not The Solution. Here's why.
Super_47_small
I Ran Into Jim Haslett and We Talked QB Draft, Manning, Trading Up
Images_small
SB Nation 2012 NFL Mock Draft

Recent FanPosts

Small
Offseason Position Primers: Defensive Backs
Small
Offseason Position Primers: Defensive Line
Small
Offseason Position Primers: Offensive Line
Small
WR is the key....
Redskins2_small
WR’s the Redskins Should Consider in 2012 Draft
298012_1597734759305_1714091948_855549_1285303626_nedited_small
Would RG3 Pull a ELI/ELWAY
Small
Whats so good about Tannehill?
Small
Who will we be pursuing this FA 2012?
Small
I'm Torn...
Small
Manning to Texans

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Superbowl_small Kevin Ewoldt

Riggins_small Ken Meringolo

Editors

Fb_small Parks Smith

Chalkboard_football-opt403x300o00s403x300_small UkRedskin

Washington_redskins_helmet_small Redskins News

Authors

Badshirt2__2__small fatpickle

Paterno_tribute_small Tiller56

Small Steve Shoup

Defaukt_small HTTR4LIFE

Hh_small Ronnie Adkins