Skip to content

Need to Know: Where should Redskins’ quarterback RG3 be ranked?

Jul 9, 2015, 5:23 AM EDT


Here is what you need to know on this Thursday, July 9, 21 days before the Washington Redskins start training camp.

Griffin No. 31?

There has been plenty of talk about an article in which Robert Griffin III was ranked at No. 31 on the list of starting NFL QB’s. And that, of course was one of the reasons the article was written, to generate talk. There has to be a conversation starter in there and saying that Griffin is better than only Matt Cassel of the Bills certainly accomplishes that.

Although I respect Andy Benoit, who did the rankings in the post, I just can’t buy the notion that Marcus Mariota and Jameis Winston, who haven’t taken an NFL snap, will have better seasons than Griffin will. I think that if you told 32 NFL coaches that they had their choice of starting Griffin or starting Geno Smith or Josh McCown I think the vast majority would take Griffin. I’m not sure that Blake Bortles will have a better 2015 season than Griffin will. For that matter, I’m not sure that Sam Bradford, who has piled up much more time on the injured list than Griffin, should be above him in the rankings. Heck, let’s put him in front of Jay Culter, who Benoit says is fine except for “mistakes and leadership” problems. Oh. I tend to think those are pretty big issues for a quarterback.

So where should Griffin rank? Let’s give Griffin all of the benefit of the doubt against all of the quarterbacks above. That means putting eight quarterbacks occupying in slots 25-32 in some order. So that means that Griffin is the 24th-best quarterback in the league.

Go team.

My deep analysis of that is that 24th out of 32 is still not very good. It’s just outside of the bottom fourth in the league. It’s third in the division and 14th in the NFC. The Redskins will play 16 games and they will have the better quarterback on the field in four of them.

It should be said that it’s possible that Griffin will improve this season. July predictions about his regular season performance have been wrong all three years that he has been in the league. Nobody thought he would be as good as he was in 2012 and few thought he would regress to where he is now prior to the 2013 and 2014 seasons. So maybe he will substantially exceed expectations.

But if he plays down expectations the Redskins are not necessarily doomed to a repeat of 2014. Scot McCloughan invested a lot of money and several draft picks, including their second rounder, on the defensive side of the ball. He took the top pick and upgraded the offensive line with Brandon Scherff. That should help the running game, which wasn’t a whole lot more effective than the passing attack last year (19th in yardage, 15th in average per attempt). Even if Griffin does struggle the Redskins could still be respectable.

That’s respectable as in seven wins or so, not as in playoff contenders. The will have to get better play out of the quarterback position, whether it’s Griffin or someone else, if they are going to improve to the point that fans want them to. But for 2015 they will have to do what they can to help out the 24th-best quarterback in the league and take it from there.


—It’s been 193 days since the Redskins played a game. It will be 66 days until they play the Dolphins at FedEx Field.

Days until: Redskins training camp starts 21; Preseason opener @ Browns 35; final cuts 58

Like Real Redskins on Facebook!

In case you missed it

116 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. Skulb - Jul 9, 2015 at 6:13 AM

    Not looking for a fight but just thought I`d post last year`s QB rankings from the NFL. Geno Smith was #25 and Griffin #33 out of 32. The reason for that was that Cousins was ahead of him on their list as a sub. I get what you`re saying and that Griffin by rights should have been much better last year than he was. But he wasn`t. If Benoit is basing this ranking largely on a combination of rookie expectations and last season`s performances then putting Griffin at #31 is slightly generous, because he belongs firmly at #32 from this perspective. If we`re basing it on those two things and performances in 2012 then #24 sounds about right to me. I`m just not sure we should or if we should expect others to. Terry Bradshaw wasn`t on this list either. Just saying. No shortage of has-beens we could inject into rankings if we want to. And right now that`s what Griffin is. Hopefully he`ll fix that in 2015 though and be back in the top 10 where he belongs when Benoit ranks QBs again next summer.

    • Stephfan - Jul 10, 2015 at 12:02 AM

      You are just a griffin hater

      • Skulb - Jul 10, 2015 at 12:29 AM

        No I`m actually a hater of crappy performances followed by endless, nonsensical excuses. If anyone is a Griffin hater it`s the NFL who were the ones who ranked him as the 33rd best starting QB last season and who ranked the Redskins`s offensive line at 17th of 32, unlike some disinfo being spread here by certain people. I don`t hate griffin. I just think he stinks and I have the stats to back it up.

        • skinsgame - Jul 10, 2015 at 12:43 AM

          Having eyeballs and stats is what makes you a hater.

        • Skulb - Jul 10, 2015 at 12:46 AM

          Oh yes I see now. How evil and racist of me to be defending Geno Smith`s stats.

      • abanig - Jul 10, 2015 at 8:17 AM

        No he’s not he’s a realist and he’s just stating facts. He wants Griffin to start and thinks he should, he’s stated, he’s just also not going to be blind to griffin’s faults as some redskins fans are.

      • abanig - Jul 10, 2015 at 8:24 AM

        I’m wondering if you take the two games Griffin had to play w/o Trent protecting his blind side – Tampa & SF – what that does to Griffin’s seasonal sack rate. I bet it bumps it up an entire % point. Didn’t he get sacked 14 times in just those two games?

        And then he was benched.

        • abanig - Jul 10, 2015 at 8:31 AM

          Ok, it was 11 times in those two games 6 & 5 and then he was sacked 7 times against the Giants. Probably mostly in the second half when Gruden’s scripted plays – that he had originally designed because they thought Griffin would be starting – ran out and they had to come up with plays to actually call and like the geniuses they are called mostly drop back passes with a qb who was not comfortable in the pocket.

          Ughhhh the misery!

          Anyways, Griffin followed the 7 sack performance up with only getting sacked twice against Phila & three times against the Cowboys, so obviously at the end of the year he was getting more comfortable in the offense and improving.

        • Skulb - Jul 10, 2015 at 9:51 PM

          Yes I know that but now we`re making excuses again. All the bottom half QBs in the NFL could make just as many excuses as Griffin. Some of them could make tons more, Blake Bortles in particular. And on the flip side of course Aaron Rodgers isn`t really a good QB. He only looks good because he`s playing on a good team. And this argument goes for all the top half QBs. So it`s impossible to evaluate QBs because of [insert excuse/rationalization here].
          What I am seeing right now is a QB who can`t stay on the field, can`t get rid of the ball, can`t adjust to new systems at all and who is spending the offseason talking about his catchphrases. I`ll give him a catchphrase: “GET RID OF THE BALL DUMBO!” Hopefully he can use it in one of his shoe commercials.

        • abanig - Jul 11, 2015 at 7:43 AM

          What your seeing is a qb that has only been primarily a drop back qb for 7 games in his life. You think that transition is going to happen overnight?

          If you do you’re an idiot.

          What matters is that Griffin makes progress and I’ll say again, after he was benched after the Tampa game, when Griffin played next against the Giants, Eagles & Cowboys the last 3 games of 2014 he made a lot of progress.

          Fast forward to 2015 and if he keeps progressing, then he’ll be a 65%, 4,220 yds and around 20 tds or more – hopefully more and I’m hopeful Griffin runs the ball more around the goal one like in 2012 & vs the Eagles and can score 5 tds rushing or so.

        • Skulb - Jul 11, 2015 at 8:36 AM

          Overnight schmovernight. It`s been two years already! And it hasn`t been two years of average while we wait for him to adjust but two years of injuries and utter awfulness made worse by cartoonish marketing campaigns and weird press conferences.
          I was able to be very patient with Griffin in 2013, even when he was being weird. But during 2014 he managed on several occasions to convince me that the Redskins would never score a TD again. It was just that bad. It`s not about being a drop back passer. It`s about looking at the ground or over the sidelines when you should be looking for receivers. It`s like preschool level football stuff here.

          So no I don`t buy your explanation. I hope he improves in 2015 of course. I`m just not feeling it right now, And Catchphrasegate with Larry and Bob isn`t making me any more optimistic. He really is behaving like a cartoon character at times.

        • abanig - Jul 11, 2015 at 9:36 AM

          So, you’re telling me that after the first few games of 2013 that the Redskins didn’t run a lot of read option which once again opened up the passing game, slowed down the pass rush and helped Griffin have a decent season as a passer?

          You’d be wrong if you think otherwise. 2014 and only 7 games was the only time Griffin was primarily a drop back passer and it took him a while to get comfortable with it and I don’t think he even truly is right now but he is progressing. He progressed the last 3 games of 2014 after he was benched for the Rams & Giants games.

        • Skulb - Jul 11, 2015 at 9:53 AM

          Well the offensive scheme was changed for the 2013 season too you`ll recall, so it`s not quite as simple as this. Because of the knee brace the Shanahans were trying to use Griffin more as a passer than a running threat because he couldn`t really run. So looking at it from that perspective he`s had 13+7 games to adjust to not being a running back/screen passer.
          And whatever the case is with dramatic change in Griffin`s life that he can`t handle is, the fact is that he never held onto the ball for 5+ seconds in 2012 unless it was a running play. If it was a passing play he got rid of it. He didn`t always hit receivers but he got rid of the ball. So if he could do it in 2012 why couldn`t he do it in 2014?
          Truth is he reminds me of Vince Young. Huge college phenomenon but too immature and/or lazy to adjust to pro football. All this catchphrase/shoe commercial stuff isn`t changing my mind at least.

        • abanig - Jul 11, 2015 at 10:41 AM

          Seriously bro…

          The read option offense in 2012 allowed for the middle of the field to be wide open all game long because Griffin and Morris were such great running threats.

          The read option and play action off of it pulled linebackers up to stop the run, it froze the pass rush and confused defensive backs which allowed for Griffin to hit Garçon on a dig route all game long and to hit the deep ball with Garçon or mostly Robinson a few times a game. It opened up crossing routes and intermediate routes in the middle of the field for Morgan and Moss because there were no linebackers.

          With no pass rush, no linebackers in the middle of the field and dbs confused on who had the ball, Griffin was mostly sitting back there and playing easy pitch and catch with Garçon, Morgan, Moss and Robinson.

          Your ignorance on this is as bad as those saying that Griffin having the highest sack rate of the 3 redskins quarterbacks has nothing to do with how Griffin’s pocket presence is poor and he holds onto the ball too long because he’s not seeing the field well.

        • Skulb - Jul 10, 2015 at 10:48 PM

          Just to over-explain myself some more, I want to hear what his plan is for fixing all this nonsense. I don`t want more clichès. I don`t want catchphrases and feelgoodery. I want specifics. And what does he do? “This is just for me. Others can use it but it`s for me. me me me me me me me me me me!” Who cares?

          PASS THE BALL DUMBO!!!

        • abanig - Jul 11, 2015 at 7:35 AM

          Griffin doesn’t need a plan, the coaches need a plan for Griffin. Fans get this confused too much, the coaches are supposed to coach the players and make them better and then the player is supposed to execute that plan.

          Now, last year neither the coaches didn’t do a good job coaching and none of the QBs executed the Vosges game plans very well except for 4 games.

    • lorcanbonda - Jul 10, 2015 at 3:01 PM

      The rankings you are use include total yards. Of course a quarterback with less games is going to have a lower ranking.

      He’s still only 29th by Passer Rating — but it is better than Collins.

      • Skulb - Jul 10, 2015 at 9:28 PM

        I`m not interested in the details. He stunk and that`s the end of it. I just can not believe that what he wanted to talk about on Redskins Nation was catchphrases. It`s like he`s a 13 year old girl or something. God I miss Lyle Alzedo…

        • abanig - Jul 11, 2015 at 7:46 AM

          He can only answer the questions that the dunce Larry Michael asks him or the idiot fan questions

        • Skulb - Jul 11, 2015 at 8:28 AM

          Haha, I suppose that`s true. Still I have to say that RGIII interviews are becoming more and more painful to watch for me. Or maybe grating is the right word, like someone scraping a fork round and round on a plate. Please man just talk about football for at least ten seconds straight and not how you want to inspire kids. I mean who gets inspired by 3-13 and dislocated ankles anyway?

        • abanig - Jul 11, 2015 at 12:03 PM

          Yeah, but the questions are stupid. They bait him into trying to throw his coach under the bus, even if Robert wants to, he’s not going to do that directly in an interview.

          He’s not going to throw himself under the bus when an idiot fan asks a question from 2013 about the Shanahan’s and if Robert told them how to run the offense. I thought Robert answered that question great!

          If they ask about what he’s doing to improve and what the teams doing, your going to get cookie cuter answers.

          I really don’t know what else you’d expect.

  2. colorofmyskinz - Jul 9, 2015 at 6:57 AM

    Well first off – I am sick and tired of the liberal pulse of the United Socislist States of America (USSA) attacking the REDSKINS and our name. The Appellate and Supreme courts will have to really look inside and take a non biased look at this issue. DEMOCRATS are to blame here REDSKINS fans, they support it and drive it behind the scenes.

    Now RGIII… He is talented and better than the rankings. 2012 showed him he could not get away with Baylor style QB play in the NFL when Nagata took him out. Then add the mismanagement of starting him in 2013 completely prematurely – that created more damage to him and the team than any other decision. There was no reason to start him prior to the bye that year. And it was down hill every since. RGIIIs biggest problem is confidence and instinct. If RGIII believes in himself and the system and the play design, he could be unstoppable.

    • abanig - Jul 9, 2015 at 8:23 AM

      Just stop it, the federal court system is full of conservative right wing judges due to how many judges retired or died last decade under George W. The Supreme Court has more republican appointees on it than it does democrat appointees.

      Take your political views somewhere else. People come to this website to talk football, NOT politics.

      • colorofmyskinz - Jul 9, 2015 at 8:44 AM

        Question, do you like the REDSKINS name or not? If you do, and you are upset about the attack, then blame your own party. Accept the fact that this attack on our team is political period.

        • abanig - Jul 9, 2015 at 9:34 AM

          I like washington DC sports all the teams it does not matter what the names of the teams are. If the Redksins do have to change the name of the team someday I’ll have to bare it and live with it like when the Bullets changed their name.

          IMO changing the name may actually bring some much needed good luck to the organization. Ever since they’ve been fighting some Native American and civil rights groups on the Redksins name, the team has been horrible and that dates back nearly 20 years.

          It’s time this org gets back to focusing on football and not PR or marketing.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jul 10, 2015 at 6:20 AM

          “IMO changing the name may actually bring some much needed good luck to the organization. Ever since they’ve been fighting some Native American and civil rights groups on the Redksins name, the team has been horrible and that dates back nearly 20 years.”

          Really? Looks like a veiled attempt to support a name change to me.

      • berniebernard666 - Jul 9, 2015 at 9:49 AM

        lol that’s a good one. People come here to talk Washington D.C. football…..Washington, home of politics. ha ha ha. Just like we go to ESPN to watch Sports and end up seeing Michael Sam kiss his boyfriend on national t.v. Wake up Libby. Our whole system has been infected with this politically correct nonsense. You are naive if you think you can go anywhere or read anything that has not been infected.

        • abanig - Jul 9, 2015 at 9:58 AM

          I think it’s ironic to call a dem the political correct party when extremely conservative republicans have been doing that for a century unless it involves freedoms for every person born on the earth or social and economic justice for minorities.

      • bangkokben - Jul 9, 2015 at 1:24 PM

        Republican judges generally base the case on how the law is written. Democrat judges generally base the case on what they feel to be right. Therefore you get the verdicts you had two weeks ago as well as yesterday’s verdict. These decisions bypass representative government and create new law. Whether you agree with the principal behind the decisions is not the point. ‘Merica was created to avoid one person (a monarchy) enacting his wishes on the people. Now we have judges who know better than the people. Who needs representative government?

        • abanig - Jul 9, 2015 at 3:06 PM

          Seriously, that’s such a biased statement and totally unfounded.

        • bangkokben - Jul 9, 2015 at 8:23 PM

          If you don’t think the Democratic judges didn’t make their decisions based on what they thought was the right thing for the country or the just thing then you’re much more naive then I thought. These are highly intelligent people that know exactly the ramifications of their decisions.

        • abanig - Jul 9, 2015 at 3:09 PM

          Judges have never created law not now, not ever. Laws and cases are brought before them and then they decide on the merits of ten case, it’s the same today as it was 239 years ago in 1776 when the judiciary system was formed.

          Just because you may not agree with a decision does not mean that the judge decided on it by ideology or politically.

        • bangkokben - Jul 9, 2015 at 8:43 PM

          Their decisions have forced states to enact laws that the majority of their citizens did not wish. Abortion? Of course state rights was the central reason for the founding of the confederate states and the Civil War. Clearly, the states seem to be on the wrong side of these ‘battles’ but that does not change the fact that the process for change was originally the legislature not the judiciary.

          Now in the trademark case we have the Redskins being approved trademarks for years and now the government basically says, “what we were comfortable with in the past, we no longer are comfortable with.” Right or wrong that is dangerous precedent and more power to the government than i want it to have.

        • abanig - Jul 9, 2015 at 9:04 PM

          The judges didn’t write laws. There were cases brought to them, and from a basis of the case they ruled. In case you didn’t know, the church & state are separated by the constitution. So really, by the law of the constitution the church has no say on laws written in this country.

          So the justices had a ruling and then the state legislators wrote laws.

          Justices don’t write laws. They make decisions on court cases. You can’t say that only liberal justices make decisions on

        • bangkokben - Jul 9, 2015 at 10:54 PM

          Really? Where is that in the constitution? The separation of the church and state was a judicial ruling to protect the country from one denomination of church

        • abanig - Jul 10, 2015 at 8:51 AM

          The term is not used, but in the first amendment it says as much in different terms.

          What the Constitution’s First Amendment does say is that government shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is well to attend to the actual words of the Constitution.

          Nowhere is this more important than with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: forbidding an official establishment of religion. The Constitution forbids government sponsorship and compulsion of religious exercise by individual citizens.

          There’s also this:

          John Adams signed the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli, which reassured that Muslim nation that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

        • bangkokben - Jul 10, 2015 at 9:17 AM

          The Founding father’s very much did not want any one religion imposed on any other, but it’s a big jump to say this country was designed therefore to be devoid of religion and religion in politics.

        • abanig - Jul 10, 2015 at 10:10 AM

          Well that’s how I interpret it, I wasn’t in the room so I can’t say for sure. Different people interpret certain parts of the constitution in their own way and it’s always been that way and will always be that way as far as I’m concerned. Some will preach about one part but then at the same time ignore other parts while they’re preaching – Ted Cruz & Rand Paul are great at this – and it happens all the time.

        • abanig - Jul 9, 2015 at 11:09 PM

          Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women’s health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

          Right of privacy kid… Since when does a citizen of the USA not have the right of privacy to do what they want with their own body. Women dont need old white men in their bedrooms, they don’t need politicians in their doctor offices. It’s a right to privacy. And separation of church and state. The Catholic Church is against it but the Catholic Church doesn’t have a say in the laws written in the United States of America and no religion ever has. The founding fathers made that clear in the constitution that the laws of this nation weren’t based on any religion.

        • bangkokben - Jul 10, 2015 at 12:00 AM

          The Founding Fathers didn’t want a Catholic government or an Anglican government or a Baptist government. They assumed their descendents would remain their own religion. Religion was a part of American government throughout U.S. politics until about 1950. It was integral in the 100 year fight for abolition. Jefferson’s quote: “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ That wall must be kept high and impregnable.” Is from a letter he wrote to a group of Baptists who feared that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. If you still believe that religion in the general sense has never been apart of the founding fathers, take a stroll in the Jefferson Memorial and get back to me. As for privacy, taking a life inside you is a giant leap from old white men in your bedroom. So yeah I don’t agree with the court’s decision. Where’s JPP’s privacy? Look, I don’t want to reverse abortion laws but the constitutional right to privacy was determined by those nine justices which legalized abortion in every state that previously overwhelmingly were opposed to it bypassing the state legislatures by an implied right.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jul 10, 2015 at 6:32 AM

          “Just because you may not agree with a decision does not mean that the judge decided on it by ideology or politically.”

          sobriety checkpoints violate 4th amendment and judges admit as much but still enabled states to use them. Why? because they feel is create a safer society. If that is not allowing law based on ideology then I don’t know what is. Btw – I’m not getting into the whole liberal/conservative debate here but stating an example activist judges going as far as to comprise Constitutional rights for the sake of what they “feel” is best for all.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jul 10, 2015 at 7:02 AM

          “Now in the trademark case we have the Redskins being approved trademarks for years and now the government basically says, “what we were comfortable with in the past, we no longer are comfortable with.” Right or wrong that is dangerous precedent and more power to the government than i want it to have.”

          You’re overrating the ruling made in this case: Even if the Supreme Court were to rule against the organization desire to maintain trademark protection, it really only means the name Redskins is no longer assured of federal protection in terms of use of the name and other aspects like the logo. However, any company attempting to use the name or logo for other products, services, etc. can still be sued by the organizations and courts would most likely still back them in any ruling. Washington Redskins is a rich and powerful organization that can and will continue to use litigation to protect it’s right of controlling use of name Redskins.

        • abanig - Jul 10, 2015 at 7:22 AM

          Well it’s not like this case about the trademark just happened yesterday. People who haven’t followed the case since the 90s act like this is some new issue. It isn’t it dates back to at least the 90s.

          Again, it’s happened because the Oneida Nation and others have brought it court. The trademark office and no one in the govt just did this on their own.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jul 10, 2015 at 7:34 AM

          Actually there have been protests back in the early eighties. Again though this is a small minority just like it is today back by now activists and politicians. It wasn’t the Oneida Nation as a whole but a few activists attempting to represent a nation of people. The real facts to bare are that the name Redskins today is innocuous to society in general and if you ask most men, women, or children what Redskins means to them they’ll respond it is a NFL Football Team or a football nickname. Words change meaning throughout time and what you have seen taken place recently is a few fanatical activists trying to redefine the modern day meaning on a population in order to fit a false narrative.

        • abanig - Jul 10, 2015 at 8:13 AM

          “Words change meaning all the time” is not s reason to continuously call a football team by a racial slur. It does matter if 100 years later it’s no longer a slur, at one time it was and educated people who’ve studied the history of the term “redskins” know that.

          That’s like saying we could name a team the “niggas” because young African Americans have changed two letters and adopted the term and using it in multiple different ways from meaning a guy, a friend, a thug, an enemy etc, etc.

          The term shouldn’t be used because at one time it was a racial slur and I honestly feel sorry for the native Americans who don’t know that it was once a racial slur that my race used to describe scalping a Native American.

          That speaks to a larger problem of lack of history and education passed on throughout the last century from older native Americans to younger Americans because U.S. White people nearly eliminated the race so we could have their land two centuries ago.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jul 10, 2015 at 9:29 AM

          The name Redskins was only defined as a slur in recent times (1983). Educated people actually know the facts support the usage was used synonymous with Indian. Indian has a far more nefarious usage in history and it’s origins of the name was given by a person known for inhuman treatment. This name Indian is even inaccurately coined since it describe a completely different people in a completely different region. Educated people today have already proven the name Redskins was created and used by Native Americans. It is uneducated to buy into the notion that was commonly used as a reference for scalping. That is already been proven false by ones that are actually educated.

    • gurnblanstonreturns - Jul 9, 2015 at 9:14 AM

      Dude, ask your mommy to get your sippy cup and your blankie and take that nap.

    • berniebernard666 - Jul 9, 2015 at 9:45 AM

      no doubt the libtard stuff influences every evaluation of the Redskins. Meanwhile the Cowboys are set for life with all pro players everywhere according to the media.

    • dcfaninecuador - Jul 9, 2015 at 9:54 AM

      Geez… The Bullets changed their name and the world didn’t come to an end. It is not up to some middle class white guy to determine what is offensive or not to a Native American. Remember, Redskins was a marketing ploy by George Preston Marshall to tap into the familiarity that Boston (where this team was born) fans already had with the Boston BRAVES and Boston REDsox baseball teams. BTW, GPM was a notoriously “racially insensitive” dude. So, if it is the name that is the problem, change it to Warriors. You wouldn’t have to change the song, the logo, the colors…nothing. They could then join the ranks of the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Chicago Blackhawks, KC Chiefs, etc. who honor native Americans without disparaging them at the same time.

      • timwillhidetimwillhide - Jul 9, 2015 at 11:03 AM

        The Team was Originally named the Braves the name was changed for the move to Washington try again

        • dcfaninecuador - Jul 9, 2015 at 2:27 PM

          Perhaps you should try again. The name was changed to Redskins in 1933. They didn’t move to DC until 1937.

          Initially, the new team took the same name as their landlords, the Boston Braves, one of the two local baseball teams at the time. The Braves played their first game on October 2, 1932, under the leadership of coach Lud Wray, against the Brooklyn Dodgers, to whom they lost 14–0.[11] The next week, the Braves recorded their first win, beating the New York Giants, 14–6.[12] Despite the presence of two rookies; halfback Cliff Battles and tackle Glen “Turk” Edwards — the new franchise’s losses during the first season reached $46,000 and Bendix, O’Brien, and Doyle dropped out of the investment, leaving Marshall the sole owner of the Braves.[13][14] The team moved to Fenway Park[15] (home of the Boston Red Sox) the next year, and Marshall changed the name to the “Redskins.” A 1933 news article quotes Marshall as saying that he did not name the team specifically in honor of Dietz or any of the team’s native members, but because Marshall wanted to avoid any confusion with the Braves baseball squad while still keeping the native connotations of the previous moniker (unlike “Indians,” used by another baseball team, no professional sports team at the time was using the name “Redskins”).[16]

      • bangkokben - Jul 9, 2015 at 1:27 PM

        You’re right about the name change. But the same groups that want Redskins changed also want Chiefs and Indians changed.

      • Skulb - Jul 10, 2015 at 2:57 AM

        Yes but how many American Indians have you actually asked about their thoughts on this? Russell Means (RIP) said before he died that being called a redskin was much less offensive to him than seeing his people succumbing to alcoholism and unemployment in reservations, or for that matter the attempted extermination of American Indians in the 19th century by the US government. Does his opinion count? How many American Indians need to be offended before something has to be banned, as if we were living in the USSR?

        It`s just words. I`d say the people who get offended by words are the ones who have a problem. Me I get offended by actions.

        • abanig - Jul 10, 2015 at 7:28 AM

          Russell didn’t say the term “wasn’t offensive” he just said they had other problems but that doesn’t make the team name right. Me personally, I asked people who work on the Navajo nation because at my job we represent all of the workers there and the ones I know and I asked said the name needed to change. That’s all I need to know. If some people are offended it needs to change otherwise, we’re just suppressing minorities again in this country and that’s wrong.

        • Skulb - Jul 10, 2015 at 9:22 AM

          I just don`t agree because it`s an infringement on freedom of speech. And without that we`re slaves, whether we`re in chains or not. That`s what freedom of speech there for: to protect unpopular speech. If I`m only gonna say popular things everyone agrees with what on earth do I need the First Amendment for? Nobody is gonna censor me anyway. And although it`s just a brand this is exactly the same thing. As long as Dan Snyder is not calling for violence against Indians there`s no crime and there should be no censorship.
          If people absolutely have to waste their time with this emotional nonsense then organize boycotts and other consumer campaigns to force the issue. That`s how you deal with things you disagree with and how you hit the fatcats where it hurts. But you don`t demand censorship. At least not if you understand where that road leads.

          I could now run down all the things it is already basically forbidden to speak of or criticize in the USA and in most western countries. But I`m sure you have some idea yourself. And that`s why I`m opposed to changing the Redskins name. Not because I`m a racist or because I want to “disparage” Indians.It`s the principle of the thing. Indians need freedom of expression too, and if they are now dumb enough to limit other people`s freedom of speech they are at the same time limiting their own. That`s what I wish people would understand here: I know Russel Means understood it.
          The only way I`d support a name change, given all this PC baloney going on in general in society these days, is if Snyder trolls the whiners by changing the name into something even more “offensive”. All hail the Washington Wife Beaters!

        • abanig - Jul 10, 2015 at 10:05 AM

          There’s always been PC in society, the other side does the same thing, PC used to be a heck of a lot worse 50-100 years ago.

          That’s never going to exit society because no one is every going to agree on everything.

          And I’d say the only way to get true change and things to really happen is through grassroots and protesting. When those efforts are successful things change; labor movement did it, civil rights, women’s rights, lbgtq, tea party, etc, etc.

        • Skulb - Jul 10, 2015 at 10:16 AM

          Sure, but one thing is equal rights, which are a necessary consequence of human rights, and another thing is to attempt to prevent people from having thoughts and opinions or from saying something.
          I just instinctively oppose control freaks who want to control people`s minds. To get back on topic, the brand “Redskins” is only offensive if you want it to be. It`s just a word. And it could only possibly be offensive to anybody in the USA, and only to people who understand English. It wouldn`t be the slightest bit offensive in Swahili or Norwegian.

          And the reverse of this; what about things that offend me. Are we going to ban them too? I am deeply offended by televised pageants for children, commercials and politicians. Can we ban all that? How many people need to be offended before we have to ban stuff? Is one enough? Ten? A hundred? Who decides this stuff? Once you see how absurd this gets because everyone gets offended by different things you see why fighting to keep the Redskins brand makes about as much sense as anything else. It`s the same apparent war on common sense.

      • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jul 10, 2015 at 8:03 AM

        “It is not up to some middle class white guy to determine what is offensive or not to a Native American.”

        Then why is that that most of the ones trying to force the misnomer that the name is disparaging to Native Americans are middle class white guys?

        • abanig - Jul 10, 2015 at 8:58 AM

          Yeah, well it’s not “mostly middle aged white guy’s who are” its people of all races. If anything is mostly run by middle aged and older white men it’s the Republican Party and white supremacist groups. That’s why I can’t associate myself with that party.

          When you look at the other side it’s more like what our founding fathers envisioned when they said every man is created equal and what civil rights leaders envisioned like Dr. Martin Luther King. Conservatives are trying to hold on to and remake the past of the 1950’s and before when white power was stronger and everyone else is trying to move the country toward in unity and representing every person as equal.

        • Rich Tandler - Jul 10, 2015 at 9:13 AM

          And speaking of another “debate” that is getting contentious and needs to end, the name thing is getting personal, devolving into name calling, and the like. Let’s cut it out, stick to football. Again, will be deleting any more posts pertaining to the name debate. I’m not shutting anyone up, it’s quite apparent that everyone has had a chance to express his viewpoint. But it’s time to end it and I’ll be deleting any subsequent comments on the matter.

    • Skulb - Jul 9, 2015 at 7:22 PM

      I have always though that they could just change the name to the Washington Greenskins and have a little alien in a UFO as the logo instead. Perhaps they could play their home games in Area 52 even! I guess you`d have to change the colors to green and burgundy though, which might annoy Eagles fans..

  3. deddmunnie - Jul 9, 2015 at 7:25 AM

    Why is everyone constantly trying to gift this kid props? He is where he is until he isn’t.

  4. murphsman - Jul 9, 2015 at 8:08 AM

    I’d say he’s average, putting him around 16 or so

    • Skulb - Jul 9, 2015 at 7:23 PM

      Not based on last year`s stats he isn`t. I expect that`t what Benoit is basing his ranking on, and not how people played in 2012. I mean Dan Marino had an awesome 1989 so clearly he should be in the top 5 right? Wrong!

  5. abanig - Jul 9, 2015 at 8:15 AM

    It’s hard to rank Griffin because he missed two moths and when he came back the first few games he was obviously limited.

    If you judge how he played the final 3 games of the season – which was similar to the Griffin we saw in 2013 – you’d put Griffin in the late teens or early 20s.

    • abanig - Jul 9, 2015 at 10:04 AM

      Look at this picture of the Aryan Nation and the KKK picketing in front of RFK 45 years ago saying the redskins shouldn’t integrate and tell me there isn’t a problem with the name.

      • timwillhidetimwillhide - Jul 9, 2015 at 10:37 AM

        True Redskins Fans Know the true meaning of the name and how the team and Fans Use it…. It stands for STRENGTH, INTEGRITY, and a WARRIOR MENTALITY. If you don’t like the name Find a Team with a name you like. Ive never heard of a true team fan Ever wanting to change their teams name. Thats not a Fan

        • ET - Jul 9, 2015 at 2:19 PM

          It’s just a frackin’ name, man.

          I understand people’s attachment to the name, logo and colors over a lifetime of fandom, but … They’re still our team whether the name changes or not. And the name will change eventually, whether Snyder likes it or not. It’s not a winnable battle in the long-term.

        • timwillhidetimwillhide - Jul 9, 2015 at 2:41 PM

          My fiancee is Native American and she doesn’t have a problem with it. She thinks people are making a big deal out of nothing

      • bangkokben - Jul 9, 2015 at 1:33 PM

        Symbols are strong. And if that happened today, everyone would want to disassociate themselves with the people in the picture. That is the only reason the confederate flag is being removed from so many places now. Not because people have one singular thought behind it’s meaning but because it associates with one recent heinous act.

      • ajbus1 - Jul 9, 2015 at 1:37 PM

        That’s a completely different issue in that picture. It doesn’t have anything to do with Native Americans. That’s about as strong an argument as some of these whiteskin politicians make to change it. Let’s stop pointing fingers and falling into the political trap that’s been set. The unfortunate truth is that if enough Natives come forward and say it offends them, Dan Snyder will have no choice. My personal opinion is everyone is over sensitive and looking for a cause these days. I think it’s ridiculous that people want to jump on one side or the other so quickly to make sure everyone around them knows where they stand. Many times not even having good knowledge of what they’re supporting.

        • colmac69 - Jul 9, 2015 at 2:53 PM

          With all headlines bout banning flags and changing names america doesnt appear to b the land of the free anymore………..

      • skinsgame - Jul 10, 2015 at 12:49 AM

        I looked at it. There isn’t a problem with the name.

      • redskinsnameisheretostay - Jul 10, 2015 at 7:23 AM

        abanig, this is one pathetic attempt to denigrate the name Redskins and also a weak effort to misrepresent what it really means to society today. If anything that ignorant picture of yours demonstrates the irony of the name! “Keep Redskins White”! What does that tell you about what the name means to so many people? it obviously proves that many then and even today see the name Redskins as a different meaning than what a minority contingent of activists, like yourself, are attempting to making it into. When most hear or see the name Redskins they think of a NFL football team. If anything you further prove false that the name Redskins is disparaging or pejorative. Also rarely in historically was Redskins disparaging or pejorative to Native Americans. You can try to contrive and falsify facts all you want about the meaning of the name Redskins. You and others of you ilk will fail in the end!

  6. troylok - Jul 9, 2015 at 9:01 AM

    No one argues about who came in 24th in a race. Even though he might be ranked near the bottom in the league, he’s still number one on this team. The coach has to find a way to make the offense work with RG3 at the helm. It’s a make or break year for both Gruden and Griffin.

    • hk2000 - Jul 9, 2015 at 10:08 AM

      I completely agree. I got tired of repeating this line, and everyone on here seems to be tiring of hearing it.

    • ET - Jul 9, 2015 at 2:30 PM

      You’re completely right.

      But if Scot & Co. have stacked the personnel correctly, Robert doesn’t need to be a savior, just an average QB. And he certainly has the ability to do that.

    • Skulb - Jul 9, 2015 at 7:26 PM

      In reality he was number two on this team last season. I do wish people would bother with reality before proclaiming truths like this.

  7. gurnblanstonreturns - Jul 9, 2015 at 9:17 AM

    The only rankings that matter are Scot McClouhan’s rankings. Going into 2015, Griffin is his #1 QB and Gruden is his #1 coach. Performance will determine whether either, both or neither maintain their positions.

  8. dcfaninecuador - Jul 9, 2015 at 9:38 AM

    First of all, any post that even ranks QBs who have yet to take a snap in the NFL is stupid. Secondly, this is the year for Griffin and Gruden. Pieces are in place, from front office to coaches to players to afford some modicum of success for both. If they fail, then they need to look elsewhere for a QB and head coach. But, they both need to be given this year to determine if the decisions to bring these two to DC were correct or not. In 2013, Griffin was brought back too soon from an injury that was devastating. 2014, he gets hurt again and plays badly (along with both other QBs). As a coach, Gruden did not have the players or supporting staff to execute his vision (and lay off the “pass happy” offense…you are being out scored by over 8 points a game and you still rank 16th in pass run ratio does NOT make for a pass happy offense). If Griffin and other key players stay healthy, this team will show marked improvement in play and could finish anywhere from 6-10 to 10-6.

    • hk2000 - Jul 9, 2015 at 10:27 AM

      It’s not pass-happy offense per se, it’s his transparent schemes that some how teams figured out from day one, and he was unable to adjust or scheme any differently. I said it before and I’ll say it again, Gruden is just too transparent and one dimensional. Like I said before, he thought he was going to win games 13-10!!! That tells you all you need to know about this coach. Unfortunately, too many voices in the fan-base and the media are just shifting all the blame onto Griffin, even after they saw the other 2 QBs get beat just as badly. So I think it is more likely Gruden will stay on, but Griffin will be on a different team next year.

  9. berniebernard666 - Jul 9, 2015 at 10:01 AM

    This is the BOTTOM of the barrel. It may not be where RG3 is talent wise but regarding his evaluation and national stature, he is right there at the bottom of the barrel.

    He has been torn apart on TV by his coach, he has been torn apart on NFL LIVE, he has been torn apart and dissected on ESPN, the fans on ESPN 980 have called in and torn him apart, Tom and Kevin have torn apart SuperBob, the pitiful stats from last season are there in full view to be laughed at, and now this QB ranking chart.

    The Redskins are being attacked everyday for their name and the Liberal judges are attempting to force sponsors to dump them and this article is pretty much the last straw. There is only one thing left to do. Griffin and the Redskins need to adapt an “us against the world” attitude and come out swinging.

    If they lose this year then the punishing attacks will just become more severe. ONLY ON WAY OUT!

    • hk2000 - Jul 9, 2015 at 10:39 AM

      You’ll be surprised how many on here just regurgitate what they hear from Cooley and Russel and the rest of the jerks on 980. As far as I’m concerned, I’d rather listen to the national media than DC media when it comes to the redskins- at least you’re not listening to someone whose pretending to be a fan of the team. And like you said, the coach is all over the QB as well, I don’t see any better results this coming season as long as Gruden is in charge of the offense.

  10. xskulldog - Jul 9, 2015 at 10:37 AM

    On the ranking…Who cares? The only ranking that matters is the post season ranking. Low expectations are good, considering we have won only 7 games the past two years. I like the “Us against the World Attitude” because that is the attitude needed to stay focused on winning.

    On the Redskin name issue, they need to only change the mascot from and INDIAN to a REDSKIN POTATO. We can still be the Washington Redskins, but have a big RED POTATO mascot running around instead of an Indian. That will SHUT-UP all the Redskins Name haters because the Indian is OUT!

    I would laugh my butt off if they really did it!

  11. sidepull - Jul 9, 2015 at 10:57 AM

    Where he is ranked? Really makes me no nevvermind. Its where our team ranks at seasons end. So far its mostly been cellar dwellers recently except some glimmers of hope that were soon dashed.

    I don’t care anymore about QB rankings, I just am hoping at seasons end all the QB experts can just stop. Either 3 makes a go of it and leads the team or he does not. It all subjective. I mean what does it take to accept 3 is a bust? Everybody accepts Shuler was a bust, now. My point is it takes time to come to grips with that simple fact that a qb is a bust no matter his potential or how he was coached. How long does the list of excuses go on, really how many years before we are able to come to agreement that a QB is a bust? If 3 leaves the Skins he will land someplace else. Then we get to see him coached somewhere else. Surely that will help solidify his “ranking”. Was it him or the Skins? Right now he has the chance to turn things around and make a nice comeback. He has my sincerest wishes that he is successful. I love a great underdog story, and he can have one this year. Just improve the ranking of the team. Make the team respected and competitive so we know, like in years past, we were going to be fighting for a playoff spot and more It is tiring watching as the seasons go by without much fanfare from the Redskins. 3 gave us that shot of what it could feel like again. This town was his until it wasn’t.
    Just change this stinking losing culture. Whatever QB helps get us there he will be king.

  12. timwillhidetimwillhide - Jul 9, 2015 at 10:58 AM

    I think RG3 should be Ranked #1…. Lol Just Kidding.

    Skill wise I think he has the Potential to be a top 10 guy in the Right System.

    With a better Oline I think he is mid range possibly better.

    With the Oline he had last year (Ranked 31st in Pass Blocking by Football Outsiders and The NFL) They were credited with 41 of the 58 sacks per Washington Post individual player stats for each Olinemen……. They were Ranked 31st I can see why our QB would be ranked 31st also. A QB is only gonna be as good as his blocking is and Our Oline was Horrible.

  13. gonavybeatarmy - Jul 9, 2015 at 11:11 AM

    I’m cheering for the guy as having the QB position addressed long term would be one less major thing for the team, but Griffin, as of right now, is a low bottom quartile NFL QB until he demonstrates otherwise. He’s a virtual project, learning how to play the QB position from the pocket and basic footwork while entering his fourth season as a professional football player.

  14. brucefan1 - Jul 9, 2015 at 1:03 PM

    What a joke these whole off-season “ranking” processes are.

    And don’t take it from me — take it from the mouth of the reporter who did the rankings ! LOL!

    I heard this guy Benoit on ESPN980 yesterday. One of the first things he pretty much confessed was that exercises like this one were mainly BS, something they do to fill up the dead times in the NFL season. He then went in to verify that admission throughout the rest of the interview.

    When asked what system or criteria he used to rank the players he admitted that he had no “system”; he just asked himself if I had to choose between two QBs to start for his team, who would he pick; strictly a “gut” decision. To his surprise (he claimed), after working his way thru the entire list, Griffin ended up near the bottom of it!

    When asked how he was able to judge the newly-drafted QBs who have NEVER yet played in NFL to be better than Griffin (including RG3-clone Mariota), he admitted he had no real way of knowing HOW they’d pan out, he just took a guess.

    Benoit was also asked why he chose to put those highly questionable QBs like G. Smith & McCown ahead of RG, he said that he chose them because they showed a few more pocket-skills. Even though they STUNK in the pocket, at least they had more presence than Griffin.

    (He also went so far as to predict that Griffin would NEVER develop these skills because in his opinion, few who learned them late ever did master them. He seemed to feel pocket skills were the key to any success in the NFL)

    All in all, Benoit did VERY little to make any case for the validity of his rankings.

    Come to think of it, he didn’t even really try!

  15. bangkokben - Jul 9, 2015 at 1:10 PM

    Rich is spot on! There really should be little debate to where Griffin should rank and little debate as to whether the team’s 2015 future is completely dependent on quarterback play. The investments across the team should improve this year. From 2012-2014, quarterback success was paramount for team success. Not so this year.

    • timwillhidetimwillhide - Jul 9, 2015 at 7:19 PM

      Bang you still have not answered my question ast to how many sacks in 2013 were the Olin’s fault and how many were RG3’s fault . You just keep posting totals. Is Half of the sacks in 2013 on RG3 like you say last year was? Why do you refuse to answer this question. Am I not clear on what Im asking? Do I need to rephrase it? You seem to be able to say that RG3 is to blame for Half the sacks last year but won’t say how many he is to blame in 2013. Im curious as to what you think it is.

      • bangkokben - Jul 9, 2015 at 10:52 PM

        I responded to this at 10:40 am. Do you want me to cut and paste?

        “how many sacks in 2013 were the Olin’s fault and how many were RG3’s fault?”

        Who cares? You do. I’ll get back to this.

        “Is Half of the sacks in 2013 on RG3 like you say last year was?”

        I have told you what THE COACHES have told John Keim. He and others have reported this.

        “Why do you refuse to answer this question?”

        I don’t refuse to answer this question. I have thoroughly answered this and you refuse to accept my answer. But, since you ask, why do you care? Why is so important to you? What does it matter? Why are you so interested in 2013?

        “You seem to be able to say that RG3 is to blame for Half the sacks last year but won’t say how many he is to blame in 2013. Im curious as to what you think it is.”

        I said it has been reported that the coaches attribute half the sacks on the quarterback. The only one seeking blame is you.

        Now for your answer. How many sacks did Griffin take in 2013? 38. How many did he take in 2014? 33. At the time in 2013 when Robert was benched. Shanahan stated that it was to protect him for next season and Griffin was taking a beating – one he hadn’t took in 2012. All the fans thought it was the line or his injury since it was the same line the year before. At the time, I thought it was the line. Then Kirk came in and DIDN’T win a game but was hardly sacked. 2014 Kirk eight sacks; Robert 33. ALL of the sacks are on the quarterback! Literally. Sure. Sometimes the QB had no time but how many times? There is no way for either of us to know. But you can discount Cousins lack of sacks with the same o-line as if it didn’t happen and I’ll keep posting:

        • timwillhidetimwillhide - Jul 10, 2015 at 1:13 AM

          I didn’t ask you how many Sacks RG3 took in 2013. Ive Bin asking you How many you Blame on the QB and How many you Blame on the Oine in 2013,,,,,, You seem to have no problem Proclaiming that most of the Sacks were RG3s fault in 2014 but refuse to say How many were his fault the year before in 2013. You Keep saying How many times he got sacked which EVERYONE KNOWS so I must assume you Blame them all on the QB and no OLinemen has ever Blown a Block. Which means Big Ben who had 40 sacks last year was worse than RG# in 2013 same with Phillip Rivers he took More Sacks last year than RG3 did in 2013. Some one was to Blame for RG3s sacks in 2013 and You were Pretty Shrewd not to answer the Question Directly so you couldn’t be proven wrong yet again…… You see Bang Who’s to Blame for each individual sack is something that is tracked by Football Outsiders. It’s there yearly Sack Breakdown it’s at the Bottom of their 2013 True QB Sack Rate article Here is the Link for Who was Responsible for all the Sacks in 2013
          SPOILER ALERT!!!!! it wasn’t RG3 Check it out for Yourself

          Its Broke Down By Blown Block, Coverage Sack, Rusher Untouched, Other Pressure, QB Fault,Failed Scramble.

          What I think is Funny is You dismiss The Washington Post’s Stats as to each Olinemen’s blame, but you quote one of there Columnist thoughts as Gospel.
          You Dismiss Football Outsiders 31st Pass Blocking Ranking but Quote their QB Pressure article as Gospel.and the reason you give is because you would rather believe a persons Opinion and not the actual stats and come to your own conclusion off of them. I share this Link because I will be shating the 2014 version when I become a member of Football Outsiders and The Time Till Pressure stat which messures how long the Oline holds there block I just want you to see an example of why this Oline has Bin Horrible this is not a new thing, The Major Change is the amount of plays that were called that slowed the rush and covered up the Bad Oline Play.

        • abanig - Jul 10, 2015 at 7:35 AM

          1. Those sack rate stats are based upon the 2013 season, not 2014 season. That’s pretty clear.

          2. Griffin is rated 25th, so I’m not sure what you’re so excited about?

          3. Jason Campbell is 5th and that’s the guy most in redskins nation killed for 4 years because they always insinuated he wasn’t smart enough by saying he was slow in every way, and they also said he held onto the ball too long!

          Really, who’s holding onto the ball too long now?

        • bangkokben - Jul 10, 2015 at 8:57 AM

          Yeah be sure to share the 2014 article. Let’s see if you do when you read the facts. I haven’t dismissed the “pass blocking” stats. You have. You even mentioned total sacks for other QBs that had lower rates than Griffin as evidence when you dismissed Cousins rate with same line as Griffin’s How about Griffin’s rate from 2012 to 2013? Same line; same coaches. Massive change. I’d be inclined to agree with you but Kirk Cousins proved that a QB need not take as many sacks as Griffin with same line in two different seasons. YOU SEEM TO THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE BLAME AND EXONERATION. BOTH Griffin and the line needed to improve! But your little mind can’t wrap yourself around the concept of two parties being at fault. Just like you can’t seem disguish John Keim’s conversation with the TEAM’S COACHES from my opinion. The reporter one-time worked as a columnist for the POST but hasn’t for years but even if he did, I’m sure you don’t vote for who POST suggests but use the stats freely. Such a TOOL!

        • timwillhidetimwillhide - Jul 10, 2015 at 7:56 AM

          WOW Did I not mention multiple times that it was a 2013 stat? OBVIOUSLY YOU DON’T READ PEOPLE’S POSTS THAT YOU ARE COMMENTING ON. The point is out of all the sacks he took most were atributed to the Oline. Out of all the things in that atat pointing to this you miss the part where it has QB Fault 0.

        • timwillhidetimwillhide - Jul 10, 2015 at 8:03 AM

          Anothe Reason I know you didn’t read my Post before commenting because you didn’t even scroll down to the set of stats I posted. You 3 Cousins Fanswill Dismiss any thing and everything that points to a bad Oline Causing the sacks so you have Something to distract from how bad Cousins is and to Blame RG3 regardless if the FACTS are there that this Oline that we have bin using is Horrible LEARN THE GAME YOU NEED PASS BLOCKING TO SUCCED WATCH MORE THAN THE QB DURING THE GAME.

        • bangkokben - Jul 10, 2015 at 9:00 AM

          Tool man. I support Griffin. Cousins was better at getting rid of the ball with same line. Keep putting your head in the sand and quote stats that lump ALL THREE together.

        • Rich Tandler - Jul 10, 2015 at 9:09 AM

          Guys, this “debate” is going in circles and it’s just cluttering up the board with repetitious junk. Please agree to disagree and knock it off. I’m going to start deleting posts if this goes on any more. Thanks.

        • timwillhidetimwillhide - Jul 10, 2015 at 8:09 AM

          BTW 41 Sacks given up by the Olin is not Half its Closer to 75% Of the Sacks Were on the Oline the 17 left over are split up among the RBs, TEs, and QBs.

        • bangkokben - Jul 10, 2015 at 8:58 AM

          Cousins 8. Griffin 33.

        • timwillhidetimwillhide - Jul 10, 2015 at 10:16 AM

          RICH I agree I’ve posted actual stats that point to how many sacks the Oline caused and these Guys keep posting Total Sacks wich is actually a Team Offensive stat not an individual stat. So your right it’s pointless to post individual stats to people thatdont know the difference bbetweenstats caused by an individual and stats caused by Multiple people.

  16. mr.moneylover - Jul 9, 2015 at 5:36 PM

    Rg3 shouldn’t have been rank 31 he had multiple things going against him…1 he have a running back who struggle in pass protection 2 he had a very weak O-line 3. It was his first year learning a new playbook and running a pro style offense 4. He had an ankle injury …this year he should be better with running jay gruden offense and he should look better overall but if the redskins still have these problems around him then we will continue to look bad ….let me say this you can still win with average play from the QB ask the browns with brain hoyer ask Seattle and Russell wilson….fix the problems arounds rg3 first before you judge the QB

    • Skulb - Jul 9, 2015 at 7:31 PM

      Oh the excuses never end do they?

      • brucefan1 - Jul 9, 2015 at 9:34 PM

        Haha! I love that hoary old “no excuses” line!

        Tell me, what’s the difference between an “excuse” and a “reason” for why something happened?

        • Skulb - Jul 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM

          Yes but don`t you understand that about half the teams in the NFL had exactly the same conditions? I mean do you really think Geno Smith`s o-line was elite or something? Still, no excuses for them and RGIII is secretly better because of this endless litany of excuses.
          Stop it already!

        • Skulb - Jul 9, 2015 at 11:25 PM

          Oh yes before I forget: what about Blake Bortles who played behind the NFL`s worst offensive line by far and still managed to put up better stats than Griffin? Not by much granted but his line really did make the Redskins o-line look like all an pro bowl assembly of guys. Any excuses for Blake Bortles from you or are they reserved for Griffin? I just have such an issue with this delusional what-if approach to football because then you can`t evaluate anybody. I mean clearly Tom Brady and Russell Wilson were CHEATING in the rankings by playing on GOOD TEAMS. Why if they had been QBs in Washington they would have been just as useless as RGIII!
          And you can take it from there. And this is your entire defense of RGIII`s horrible play last season. Delusion and fantasies.
          He belongs in #32 on the list of QBs for the upcoming season simply based on available stats for last season. And don`t give me rookies with zero NFL snaps. It`s rare for a rookie to be as bad as Griffin was in 2014 and chances are none of them will be. Could he improve? Yes but so could Blake Bortles and Geno Smith, who were both better than Griffin last year anyway. You can`t base everything on what ifs like this and expect anybody to take you seriously.

  17. redskinsnameisheretostay - Jul 10, 2015 at 7:59 AM

    I’m fine with RG3’s ranking of 31st right now but I will continue to stress this is a far bigger failure of this organizations ability to groom the QB than it is failure of his potential. This is the teams last attempt in making RG3 into our franchise QB. If the team fails, I believe that under the right tutelage he’ll make us pay even more somewhere else.

  18. warpath1 - Jul 10, 2015 at 9:07 AM

    I think that’s right where he belongs until he can prove that he can stay on the field and show a better command of the offense.

  19. lorcanbonda - Jul 10, 2015 at 3:20 PM

    I would rather have a quarterback rated highly at the end of the year rather than in July.

  20. RealRedskinsPoster - Jul 10, 2015 at 5:25 PM

    “The Redskins will play 16 games and they will have the better quarterback on the field in four of them.”

    That logic is unsound. The Redskins don’t play every team in the league.

    QBs are overrated in pro sports, anyway. Per Football Outsiders, 60% of a football team is comprised of its offense; even if you give a QB full credit for that 60% (which is absurd; I have QBs being responsible for about 50% of their team’s offense) that still leaves 40% of the game that they have no control over. That’s a significant amount. The other problem is the scheduling imbalance and small sample size theater in the NFL; especially in the playoffs. That’s why simply having the better QB doesn’t translate to titles as much as top players in some other team sports. (FiveThirtyEight also did some analysis of the impact of a single player on a team in different sports awhile back).

    • abanig - Jul 11, 2015 at 7:23 AM

      I agree. That’s why the redskins can have a winning season even if Griffin isn’t awesome like he was in 2011, as long as Griffin takes care of the ball and the offense runs the ball effectively and they play good defense and special teams the redskins can be around .500 or better like 00, 01, 05, 07 and 08.

      • abanig - Jul 11, 2015 at 7:24 AM

        * I mean how Griffin was in 2012

  21. RealRedskinsPoster - Jul 10, 2015 at 6:08 PM

    As for Griffin’s ranking, QBs are so difficult to rank that it’s comical to comment on this article. There’s a reason why the NFL is so popular in Vegas; not even the analysts can figure this league out.

    • RealRedskinsPoster - Jul 10, 2015 at 7:19 PM

      Ranking as to figuring out how they’ll perform going forward.

      • abanig - Jul 11, 2015 at 7:28 AM

        The rankings are based off of the QBs performances from last year, no one has a crystal ball and can tell anyone how these QBs will perform in 2015. If Griffin doesn’t get injured, he would have been better last year – especially the second half of the season when he got more comfortable in the offense – if Griffin stays healthy in 2015 at worst his stats are that of an average qb.

  22. RealRedskinsPoster - Jul 10, 2015 at 6:41 PM

    “It`s rare for a rookie to be as bad as Griffin was in 2014…”

    Adjusted Net Yards Per Attempt is arguably the best stat available to the public for passing offense strength. Assuming that the QB is responsible for his team’s entire passing offense; let’s look at all the rookie seasons since the merger with at least 200 pass attempts, and rank them according to that stat (each season is adjusted for era):

    Out of 91 such seasons, 51 were on-par or worse than Griffin’s 2014 season. So, no. This is not correct. Archives

Follow Us On Twitter