The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Shabutie wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Actually, Jay Schroeder was the last Redskins QB to throw for over 4 Thousand Yards. In 1986.

McNabb has played some ugly games, but not ugly enough for me to forget the last 20 years of UGLY QB play that we've had.

Incorrect. Brad Johnson had 4000+ yards, I think it was 4005 yards in 1999.

Correct. Brad Johnson threw for 4,000 yards in 1999. 11 years ago. And, we went to the NFC Divisional game that year. Before that, Jay Schroeder was the last QB to throw for more than 4k in a season.

So, let me check that math. 2 QBs in the past 25 years to do what he's on pace to do. And, both of those teams went deep into the playoffs.

As for his TD and INT pace. You can't project that stat after 7 games as easily as you can with yardage. QB's are much more likely to have multiple TD games, than they are to throw for enough yards + or - in either direction to substantially change their yardage average. Unless McNabb has some 500 yard games or some 70 yard games, his average is going to be right around the mid 200s.

The Hogster wrote:

Shabutie wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Actually, Jay Schroeder was the last Redskins QB to throw for over 4 Thousand Yards. In 1986.

McNabb has played some ugly games, but not ugly enough for me to forget the last 20 years of UGLY QB play that we've had.

Incorrect. Brad Johnson had 4000+ yards, I think it was 4005 yards in 1999.

Correct. Brad Johnson threw for 4,000 yards in 1999. 11 years ago. And, we went to the NFC Divisional game that year. Before that, Jay Schroeder was the last QB to throw for more than 4k in a season.

So, let me check that math. 2 QBs in the past 25 years to do what he's on pace to do. And, both of those teams went deep into the playoffs.

As for his TD and INT pace. You can't project that stat after 7 games as easily as you can with yardage. QB's are much more likely to have multiple TD games, than they are to throw for enough yards + or - in either direction to substantially change their yardage average. Unless McNabb has some 500 yard games or some 70 yard games, his average is going to be right around the mid 200s.

He has had a 357 yard game as well as a 125. So that could still be subject to change.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

brad7686 wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Well I'm not sure what expectations you had, so I can't speak to those, but McNabb has been playing at just about — or slightly below — what I expected we'd see out of him this year.

You really expected a qb rating of 76 (which is below Seneca Wallace, Matt Cassell, Kyle Orton, Chad Henne, Josh Freeman, Shaun Hill and David Gerrard), a completion percentage below 60 percent and more int's than td's??? I wasn't expecting a Pro Bowl season but I was expecting production that was close to what McNabb did the last two seasons and at this point he isn't going to come close to that.

I certainly expected a completion percentage under 60%, That's what McNabb usually does. At least he's made some big plays, though. Hopefully there will be some improvement, but as is always the case here, he's not working with much from a receiving standpoint, and until that changes we won't have a dynamic passing offense. The team has obviously not picked up on that.

I fail to see that our receivers are weak. Moss and ey are still two of the better receivers in the game and Armstrong is developing quickly. The problem is the OL. McNabb didn't have time to find receivers this week. He was buried in a pack play after play. Williams was the best of the lineman, but even he had a poor game.

Come on. It takes more than one good receiver and a TE to say you have a good receiving core. That statement is just plain ludicrious.

And to say that Williams had a poor game is certifiably INSANE!!! Williams isolated Peppers -- one of the best D linemen in the game right now.

I am just not sure what you expect from an OL. A QB isn't going to have 10 seconds in the pocket to make a decision. They are going to get pressured. That is part of the game. I actually agree that we need to upgrade our OL, but to say that Williams had a bad game is just plain crazy.

What difficult position will we be in? Do you expect another 4,000 yard, .600 win percentage QB to come available all of a sudden? Or, do you think we draft a Rookie with one of our first 2 picks who can come in and do that?

You see, it's one thing to say he needs to play better. Everyone on the team does. It's quite another to complain about our QB play, when there isn't a whole lot better out there.

I said difficult position, not replace him immediately. If McNabb continues on this course and throws more pics than td's and completes under 60 percent of his passes with a qb rating under 80 it is going to cast serious doubt on how long he can still be a starter in this league. Does that mean that he would have to be replaced right away? No. But it does mean that we would likely have to start looking this offseason for his eventual replacement (which likely means a top 3 round qb pick in the draft), which is not something that I think the team was planning on for next season.

The Hogster wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Shabutie wrote:At this point, I cannot say what Jason Campbell would have done or not done with the new staff.

It's called "intangibles." You can't quantify it, but you know it when you see it. JC didn't have it, McNabb does.

He has intangibles, but his physical skills are certainly in question at this point.

Was I arguing that?

Not at all. But intangibles only get you so far if you're physical skills are diminished. Mark Brunell is a perfect example of that.

So what is your point Cane Skins, Shabutie, Vet Skins. You guys sound like desperate housewives living in your husband's mansion, spending his money, but complaining to each other about not getting flowers.

What is your point? Do you want to go screw the Pool Guy? (Rex Grossman) Or, do you want to stop complaining and enjoy what you've got, albeit as "imperfect" as it is.

The point is that McNabb is playing poorly and needs to start playing better. We traded multiple picks for a guy that pretty much all of us thought could start for 2-3 years. That, however, is certainly in question at this point and if he struggles like this the rest of the season we are going to be in a very difficult position come next offseason. Many here were wondering why the Eagles were willing to trade McNabb within the division, well I think the answer to that question is starting to become clear.

Really? He's still on pace to throw for over 4 thousand yards this year. His career win percentage is still over 60%, and we're currently winning at just about that rate. Do you know the last Redskins QB to throw for over 4 Thousand Yards?? Mark Rypien. (I'm going off of pure memory, but I don't think anyone has done that for us since the early nineties)

What difficult position will we be in? Do you expect another 4,000 yard, .600 win percentage QB to come available all of a sudden? Or, do you think we draft a Rookie with one of our first 2 picks who can come in and do that?

You see, it's one thing to say he needs to play better. Everyone on the team does. It's quite another to complain about our QB play, when there isn't a whole lot better out there.

Yardage is a poor indicator of qb performance, especially when you are chucking the ball up 35 times a game on average. McNabb's yards per attempt is actually quite low at 7.1

CanesSkins26 wrote:

What difficult position will we be in? Do you expect another 4,000 yard, .600 win percentage QB to come available all of a sudden? Or, do you think we draft a Rookie with one of our first 2 picks who can come in and do that?

You see, it's one thing to say he needs to play better. Everyone on the team does. It's quite another to complain about our QB play, when there isn't a whole lot better out there.

I said difficult position, not replace him immediately. If McNabb continues on this course and throws more pics than td's and completes under 60 percent of his passes with a qb rating under 80 it is going to cast serious doubt on how long he can still be a starter in this league. Does that mean that he would have to be replaced right away? No. But it does mean that we would likely have to start looking this offseason for his eventual replacement (which likely means a top 3 round qb pick in the draft), which is not something that I think the team was planning on for next season.

It is a big and unlikey IF to assume that McNabb will throw more Ints than TD's this year. He is the least intercepted QB in NFL history. Let's not act like McNabb is an interception machine based on that stat. He has 7 picks so far this year. (one came on a Hail Mary against Green Bay) Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Eli Manning, Brett Favre, and Sam Bradford all have more than him. The problem is he has not thrown as many TD's as he could have this year. If you want to think that "stat" is sustainable for the whole year, then knock yourself out.

I don't know why you didn't think the Skins would be looking for McNabb's eventual replacement next offseason. I don't think Shanahan thinks McNabb can play for another 5 years. I think the plan all along is for us to compete very hard and try to win now, and add the pieces gradually. It is much better to have a young QB come in next year, or the year after, and have a year or so to learn. So, I don't think McNabb's performance this year will drastically alter the team's strategy to build going forward.

The Hogster wrote:I don't know why you didn't think the Skins would be looking for McNabb's eventual replacement next offseason. I don't think Shanahan thinks McNabb can play for another 5 years. I think the plan all along is for us to compete very hard and try to win now, and add the pieces gradually. It is much better to have a young QB come in next year, or the year after, and have a year or so to learn. So, I don't think McNabb's performance this year will drastically alter the team's strategy to build going forward.

I like McNabb, but I totally agree with you here. We should always be looking for his replacement. The only question in any given year is how hard we look. For us, that also depends on our ability to re-sign him. Though again we look anyway, just depends how hard. A third developmental QB always makes sense anyway.

It is a big and unlikey IF to assume that McNabb will throw more Ints than TD's this year. He is the least intercepted QB in NFL history. Let's not act like McNabb is an interception machine based on that stat. He has 7 picks so far this year. (one came on a Hail Mary against Green Bay) Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Eli Manning, Brett Favre, and Sam Bradford all have more than him. The problem is he has not thrown as many TD's as he could have this year. If you want to think that "stat" is sustainable for the whole year, then knock yourself out.

We aren't in week 3 or 4 anymore. We are just about at the halfway point of the season and I have seen nothing from McNabb at this point that makes me think he is all of a sudden going to starting throwing a lot of td's. Since the Houston game McNabb has thrown 7 int's and 5 td's, which includes int's in each of his last five games, two each in each of the last two games. Through 7 weeks he's almost matched his total from all of last season.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

The Hogster wrote:So what is your point Cane Skins, Shabutie, Vet Skins. You guys sound like desperate housewives living in your husband's mansion, spending his money, but complaining to each other about not getting flowers.

What is your point? Do you want to go screw the Pool Guy? (Rex Grossman) Or, do you want to stop complaining and enjoy what you've got, albeit as "imperfect" as it is.

The point is that McNabb is playing poorly and needs to start playing better. We traded multiple picks for a guy that pretty much all of us thought could start for 2-3 years. That, however, is certainly in question at this point and if he struggles like this the rest of the season we are going to be in a very difficult position come next offseason. Many here were wondering why the Eagles were willing to trade McNabb within the division, well I think the answer to that question is starting to become clear.

we only gave up 2 picks - don't try and make out like it was a bad deal

we needed a QB and we not only got a real QB - we got one that is IMO a great choice because of his intangibles and so far is really great value

Everyone including McNabb would like for him to be playing a lot better but his value should not be measured by what sort of production we get from this position but more importantly how he seems to affect everyone else on the field

I think that the defense and the offense are playing better because they know that this guy seems to find a way to get the win despite all his warts


The QB position is the most important position on the team - we could get a QB that might (almost certainly) play the position better BUT if we had to give up leadership and the fact that the defense AND offense have so much faith in McNabb then having better play at that position does not translate into better play from all the other players simply because these guys seem to me to be supporting and almost playing harder for this guy


McNabb is here and I'd rather have him than a lot of other QBs that are statistically better because those stats don't mean we might have a lot of players on both sides of the ball playing and knowing that the QB is most likely going to find a way to get the W


McNabb might also start to play better so we're big time winners - if not we're still a lot better off than just having a good QB that doesn't do anything else - those guys are certainly not worth "multiple" draft picks

CanesSkins26 wrote:We aren't in week 3 or 4 anymore. We are just about at the halfway point of the season and I have seen nothing from McNabb at this point that makes me think he is all of a sudden going to starting throwing a lot of td's. Since the Houston game McNabb has thrown 7 int's and 5 td's, which includes int's in each of his last five games, two each in each of the last two games. Through 7 weeks he's almost matched his total from all of last season.

Everyone thinks that we should get better play from both our O line and the QB - it is what it is - I cannot think of many QBs right now (that I'd prefer to McNabb) that were available when we got McNabb that we could have picked up for less than we had to give up to get McNabb

what's the point here

we have McNabb and aside from his QB play which is not atrocious he has already improved things a lot here - he's a better QB than we could get at the time AND we are definetly better than last year


what's so wrong about this picture

what's the point here

The point is that McNabb is showing his age much more than pretty much everyone thought he would and we have no player on the roster that is a viable alternative for the future.

I think that the defense and the offense are playing better because they know that this guy seems to find a way to get the win despite all his warts

I think that the offense and defense are playing better because of Mike Shanahan, not Donovan McNabb.

I think that some of you guys forget that you just can't bring in better players and hope that they'll make the other players around them better

we need to get a lot younger but until then some of these old farts will help the young guys out - we've already found 2 good young players (Torrain and Armstrong) that we did not think would be able to help much

we still have to replace most of the O line but we cannot get there as quickly as some would like

we're looking pretty good all the same

Irn-Bru wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

McNabb has played poorly at times, and never like an all-pro, but he's not as bad as you are making him out to be, IMO.

He's near the bottom in just about every statistical category for a qb. He has been terrible for the most part this year.

Since when are "awesome" and "terrible" the two basic options? Actually McNabb, purely in terms of playing, has been mediocre. His YAR (yards above replacement) is 11th, and adjusted for the strength of the defenses he's faced (DYAR) it's 14th. Those two statistics alone are worth more, in terms of analysis, than just about anything one can cherry-pick off of NFL.com or pro football reference. Weighted, statistical analysis just doesn't agree with your perspective here.

Throw in his leadership and his penchant for playing much better when the game is on the line — two difficult-to-measure, relatively uncommon qualities in quarterbacks — and you've got a QB who really isn't that bad.

We obviously agree that he's an upgrade over Campbell. But I really can't imagine how anyone would think we upgraded merely to "terrible" from [?? what adjectives are left?]. I'd say McNabb so far has been mediocre with some upside. The real experts (IMHO) in statistical analysis appear to agree with me, too . . .

They updated their stats today. McNabb is now 21st in DYAR.

SkinsJock wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:We aren't in week 3 or 4 anymore. We are just about at the halfway point of the season and I have seen nothing from McNabb at this point that makes me think he is all of a sudden going to starting throwing a lot of td's. Since the Houston game McNabb has thrown 7 int's and 5 td's, which includes int's in each of his last five games, two each in each of the last two games. Through 7 weeks he's almost matched his total from all of last season.

Everyone thinks that we should get better play from both our O line and the QB - it is what it is - I cannot think of many QBs right now (that I'd prefer to McNabb) that were available when we got McNabb that we could have picked up for less than we had to give up to get McNabb

what's the point here

we have McNabb and aside from his QB play which is not atrocious he has already improved things a lot here - he's a better QB than we could get at the time AND we are definetly better than last year


what's so wrong about this picture

McNabb isn't that bad. Not as bad as his stats show. He isn't all that great either. I still think he is/was over rated but I think he can get the job done even if it is ugly. I am still not sure he was worth the picks we spent but maybe he can prove me wrong.

He might need someone like MS to light a fire but I think he still can win a game for us or three.

I wanted to say this to you Skinsjock.....Our defense played much better. I hope it keeps getting better. I am still not sold on it because the Bears offense isn't all that but at least he was running more 43. Maybe JH is learning. We shall see.

Did anybody else notice the body language McNugget was displaying early in the game when he was approached by Kyle on the sideline? I'm mostly deaf, and feel pretty good about reading people. It seemed to me that Kyle was attempting to find out what happened on a failed pass play (it might have been one of the deflected balls for an INT), and McNugget made a series of gestures and facial movements that indicated he'd taken offense to being held responsible for the failed play. He then basically turned his shoulder away from his OC...but when Mike came over seconds later, Donovan was all ears and suddenly interested in any input he might get.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but right then it didn't seem like Kyle had a whole bunch of credibility with No. 5 .

tcwest10 wrote:Did anybody else notice the body language McNugget was displaying early in the game when he was approached by Kyle on the sideline? I'm mostly deaf, and feel pretty good about reading people. It seemed to me that Kyle was attempting to find out what happened on a failed pass play (it might have been one of the deflected balls for an INT), and McNugget made a series of gestures and facial movements that indicated he'd taken offense to being held responsible for the failed play. He then basically turned his shoulder away from his OC...but when Mike came over seconds later, Donovan was all ears and suddenly interested in any input he might get.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but right then it didn't seem like Kyle had a whole bunch of credibility with No. 5 .

I actually got the same impression from that exchange.

You might be right but I think Kyle is the best thing out of all of our new coaches this year. He is the one I would have gambled on. I think for a young guys he might be the best thing that happened to us this off season. Just wait until he learns our division better. Here is to hoping!!!

Younger boss in the workplace always winds up with some senior guy feeling weird about it. Just curious here...how many other OC's in the league are younger than the starting QB?

tcwest10 wrote:Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but right then it didn't seem like Kyle had a whole bunch of credibility with No. 5 .

What you say is certainly viable, but there are other viable explanations. Maybe in the minute between them McNabb has cooled down from his initial frustration. Maybe Kyle said something way more specific and that's what McNabb reacted to. Maybe there was some history to the conversation with Kyle like they'd discussed a particular situation and reaction. Maybe he wasn't frustrated with Kyle, just more emotional. I'm not saying it's not a valid question, but you can't put blinders on that your interpretation is the only one.

KazooSkinsFan wrote: I'm not saying it's not a valid question, but you can't put blinders on that your interpretation is the only one.

Believe me, Kazoo... with my hearing, if I ever put blinders on, you might as well start calling me Helen Keller.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

tcwest10 wrote:Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but right then it didn't seem like Kyle had a whole bunch of credibility with No. 5 .

What you say is certainly viable, but there are other viable explanations. Maybe in the minute between them McNabb has cooled down from his initial frustration. Maybe Kyle said something way more specific and that's what McNabb reacted to. Maybe there was some history to the conversation with Kyle like they'd discussed a particular situation and reaction. Maybe he wasn't frustrated with Kyle, just more emotional. I'm not saying it's not a valid question, but you can't put blinders on that your interpretation is the only one.

That is a very good point. It did appear very bad, but a lot of factors we are not aware of were also taking place.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

what's the point here

The point is that McNabb is showing his age much more than pretty much everyone thought he would and we have no player on the roster that is a viable alternative for the future.

I'm not sure how you equate throwing pics to showing his age. I could understand if you said he was losing arm strength, or not running as fast (though that could be attributable to injury just as easily), but his INT to TD ratio is not something I think is age related.

tcwest10 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote: I'm not saying it's not a valid question, but you can't put blinders on that your interpretation is the only one.

Believe me, Kazoo... with my hearing, if I ever put blinders on, you might as well start calling me Helen Keller.

The Hogster wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Shabutie wrote:At this point, I cannot say what Jason Campbell would have done or not done with the new staff.

It's called "intangibles." You can't quantify it, but you know it when you see it. JC didn't have it, McNabb does.

He has intangibles, but his physical skills are certainly in question at this point.

Was I arguing that?

Not at all. But intangibles only get you so far if you're physical skills are diminished. Mark Brunell is a perfect example of that.

So what is your point Cane Skins, Shabutie, Vet Skins. You guys sound like desperate housewives living in your husband's mansion, spending his money, but complaining to each other about not getting flowers.

What is your point? Do you want to go screw the Pool Guy? (Rex Grossman) Or, do you want to stop complaining and enjoy what you've got, albeit as "imperfect" as it is.

You mean you didn't get my point? I'll requote it for you, maybe you misread it the first time.

VetSkinsFan wrote:So the defense gets 5-6 TOs and you attribute McNabb with credit for the win? Seriously? The offense scored ONE FREAKIN TOUCHDOWN...and you attribute the win to McNabb. Torrain had 125yds rushing and you attribute the win to McNabb? And since McNabb threw a pick 6, the defense only gave up 7 pts. But that's okay, let's attribute the win to McNabb.

I'll summarize:

McNabb didn't win this game for us with his mediocre play and I don't think it's fair to the defense or the run game that you do give him the credit. Is that plain enough for you or shall I use crayons? When I took my intro to psychology class many years ago, they said some people need colors to better learn and comprehend material. I'd do that for you, big guy.