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

Too bad he isn't accurate in the short and medium throws.

Too bad he isn't accurate in the short and medium throws.

chiefhog44 wrote:When GB drafted Radgers, the fans were like "HUH?" and 4 years later he leads them to a championship.

Championship of what?

PulpExposure wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:[And I don't recall Mr "three and out" leading a team in an out and out drubbing as Mr 'Intangibles' has, allowing teams to set records in our house.

Wasn't at our house, but this game was pretty ugly...

McNabb hasn't played well for the Redskins. But he brings an element of verticality (i.e., he actually can throw a deep ball) which JC never could.

Not only thaat, but he can ususally make the first pass rusher miss and escape to make a play, even if he often throws it in the dirt at the receiver's feet. And when he does get sacked, he hangs on to the ball. Both those qualities, JC just doesn't have.

Deadskins wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:When GB drafted Radgers, the fans were like "HUH?" and 4 years later he leads them to a championship.

Championship of what?

Weren't they division champs? Sorry, if they weren't, just got caught up in it

chiefhog44 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:When GB drafted Radgers, the fans were like "HUH?" and 4 years later he leads them to a championship.

Championship of what?

Weren't they division champs? Sorry, if they weren't, just got caught up in it

People don't usually use the term "Championship" for division titles. But to non-nit pickers it was clear what you meant.

PulpExposure wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:[And I don't recall Mr "three and out" leading a team in an out and out drubbing as Mr 'Intangibles' has, allowing teams to set records in our house.

Wasn't at our house, but this game was pretty ugly...

McNabb hasn't played well for the Redskins. But he brings an element of verticality (i.e., he actually can throw a deep ball) which JC never could.

I'm not arguing that JC's better. I never have. I don't like what we gave up for a QB that's going to be 34 in his first season with us and I don't like the fact we traded for said QB with a 2-3 year turnaround time until I think our team will be solid contenders, at which time, McNabb will no longer be starting for us I suspect.

And the people that think that McNabb is better for us now, technically are correct for the short term, but we're not contending in the short term. It's kinda like I joke with women: If it's on sale and you don't need it, it's not a good deal. That's how I saw McNabb. We don't need a QB with a short shelf life with a 3 year rebuild time.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:[And I don't recall Mr "three and out" leading a team in an out and out drubbing as Mr 'Intangibles' has, allowing teams to set records in our house.

Wasn't at our house, but this game was pretty ugly...

McNabb hasn't played well for the Redskins. But he brings an element of verticality (i.e., he actually can throw a deep ball) which JC never could.

I'm not arguing that JC's better. I never have. I don't like what we gave up for a QB that's going to be 34 in his first season with us and I don't like the fact we traded for said QB with a 2-3 year turnaround time until I think our team will be solid contenders, at which time, McNabb will no longer be starting for us I suspect.

And the people that think that McNabb is better for us now, technically are correct for the short term, but we're not contending in the short term. It's kinda like I joke with women: If it's on sale and you don't need it, it's not a good deal. That's how I saw McNabb. We don't need a QB with a short shelf life with a 3 year rebuild time.

I'm not sure I'm completely in agreement on your rationale for being against the McNabb deal. I admit its a tough one to decide given our needs for youth, our rebuilding plan and his age vs. our need to not be completely embarrased every single game. I guess I'm not convinced we couldn't contend in the short term, so I'm ok with hedging our bets between long term rebuild without stinking out the joint for a whole year.

However, I am in complete agreement with your "on sale" philosophy. I've said this to the wife so many times, she now tries to preempt it as she walks in the door loaded down with shopping bags. Just cause you "saved" $45 doesn't mean spending $200 on frivolity was a good idea!

emoses14 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:[And I don't recall Mr "three and out" leading a team in an out and out drubbing as Mr 'Intangibles' has, allowing teams to set records in our house.

Wasn't at our house, but this game was pretty ugly...

McNabb hasn't played well for the Redskins. But he brings an element of verticality (i.e., he actually can throw a deep ball) which JC never could.

I'm not arguing that JC's better. I never have. I don't like what we gave up for a QB that's going to be 34 in his first season with us and I don't like the fact we traded for said QB with a 2-3 year turnaround time until I think our team will be solid contenders, at which time, McNabb will no longer be starting for us I suspect.

And the people that think that McNabb is better for us now, technically are correct for the short term, but we're not contending in the short term. It's kinda like I joke with women: If it's on sale and you don't need it, it's not a good deal. That's how I saw McNabb. We don't need a QB with a short shelf life with a 3 year rebuild time.

I'm not sure I'm completely in agreement on your rationale for being against the McNabb deal. I admit its a tough one to decide given our needs for youth, our rebuilding plan and his age vs. our need to not be completely embarrased every single game. I guess I'm not convinced we couldn't contend in the short term, so I'm ok with hedging our bets between long term rebuild without stinking out the joint for a whole year.

However, I am in complete agreement with your "on sale" philosophy. I've said this to the wife so many times, she now tries to preempt it as she walks in the door loaded down with shopping bags. Just cause you "saved" $45 doesn't mean spending $200 on frivolity was a good idea!

at the second part, Very funny. Mcnabb deal is still up in the air but he did much better against a good defense (Titans). Let us see if he can keep it up.

VetSkinsFan wrote:I'm not arguing that JC's better. I never have. I don't like what we gave up for a QB that's going to be 34 in his first season with us and I don't like the fact we traded for said QB with a 2-3 year turnaround time until I think our team will be solid contenders, at which time, McNabb will no longer be starting for us I suspect.

And the people that think that McNabb is better for us now, technically are correct for the short term, but we're not contending in the short term. It's kinda like I joke with women: If it's on sale and you don't need it, it's not a good deal. That's how I saw McNabb. We don't need a QB with a short shelf life with a 3 year rebuild time.

So why won't you address my three arguments for that it does help us get prepared for the long term?

1) It allows us to groom a long term replacement with a mentor who's been to 5 championship games rather then throwing them in and letting career journeymen mentor them

2) It's not just QB's who need to develop, but it helps the rest of the offense progress while we find a younger QB

3) The price actually isn't high for a 2-3 year QB when you consider that a second rounder is unlikely to start immediately and is a tossup to ever start and the 3/4 is an even longer shot.

Games like yesterday show as well just how much better an attitude everyone has when there's hope over someone like JC who just couldn't move the ball until it didn't matter.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:When GB drafted Radgers, the fans were like "HUH?" and 4 years later he leads them to a championship.

Championship of what?

Weren't they division champs? Sorry, if they weren't, just got caught up in it

People don't usually use the term "Championship" for division titles. But to non-nit pickers it was clear what you meant.

Not to nit-pick, but I'm still not sure what he meant. Pretty sure it wasn't a division championship.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:When GB drafted Radgers, the fans were like "HUH?" and 4 years later he leads them to a championship.

Championship of what?

Weren't they division champs? Sorry, if they weren't, just got caught up in it

People don't usually use the term "Championship" for division titles. But to non-nit pickers it was clear what you meant.

Not to nit-pick, but I'm still not sure what he meant. Pretty sure it wasn't a division championship.

Actually he did. It's on the last page. And it was pretty obvious he meant that.

chiefhog44 wrote:Weren't they division champs? Sorry, if they weren't, just got caught up in it

As for nit-picker, I should be nicer because you save me time checking my posts for typos since you're glad to do it for me...

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:When GB drafted Radgers, the fans were like "HUH?" and 4 years later he leads them to a championship.

Championship of what?

Weren't they division champs? Sorry, if they weren't, just got caught up in it

People don't usually use the term "Championship" for division titles. But to non-nit pickers it was clear what you meant.

Not to nit-pick, but I'm still not sure what he meant. Pretty sure it wasn't a division championship.

Actually he did. It's on the last page. And it was pretty obvious he meant that.

chiefhog44 wrote:Weren't they division champs? Sorry, if they weren't, just got caught up in it

Please! That was his weak answer when I called him on it. You said yourself, nobody calls a division title a championship.


And if I wanted to nit-pick your posts, then I would have to spend much more time than I already do, trying to decipher what some think passes for a coherent sentence.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I'm not arguing that JC's better. I never have. I don't like what we gave up for a QB that's going to be 34 in his first season with us and I don't like the fact we traded for said QB with a 2-3 year turnaround time until I think our team will be solid contenders, at which time, McNabb will no longer be starting for us I suspect.

And the people that think that McNabb is better for us now, technically are correct for the short term, but we're not contending in the short term. It's kinda like I joke with women: If it's on sale and you don't need it, it's not a good deal. That's how I saw McNabb. We don't need a QB with a short shelf life with a 3 year rebuild time.

So why won't you address my three arguments for that it does help us get prepared for the long term?

1) It allows us to groom a long term replacement with a mentor who's been to 5 championship games rather then throwing them in and letting career journeymen mentor them

2) It's not just QB's who need to develop, but it helps the rest of the offense progress while we find a younger QB

3) The price actually isn't high for a 2-3 year QB when you consider that a second rounder is unlikely to start immediately and is a tossup to ever start and the 3/4 is an even longer shot.

Games like yesterday show as well just how much better an attitude everyone has when there's hope over someone like JC who just couldn't move the ball until it didn't matter.

1) That's a possibility, but I don't think the investment's worth it. And we haven't drafted said QB yet, so it's a plausible theory, but that's all it is at this time.

2) Donovan's timing/rapport with the receiving corps does little to build a rapport with the incumbent QB (whoever and whenever that may be). I don't see the direct connection as you do. And we also do nothing but let Moss get older. The rest of the WR corps hasn't really solidified a position except AAA, and that's not even a definite.

3) So you think that a 2nd AND 3rd is a good deal for a 2-3 productive years in an offense in transition. We're not the Vikings or the Cards coming off successful years. We were 4 and 12. I can agree to disagree on this one, but again, the sucessful teams rarely pick up old vets and win the Super Bowl...

VetSkinsFan wrote:We were 4 and 12. I can agree to disagree on this one, but again, the sucessful teams rarely pick up old vets and win the Super Bowl...

Rarely are you able to get a QB with McNabb's pedigree, so true but hardly applicable. But as you said we were 4-12, now we're 5-5 and we haven't changed much so far to improve on O except for McNabb and our D has been a whole lot worse. Wow, everyone would be suicidal if we were 2-8 and it was JC going nowhere fast. What a difference.

I guess when you say if he's not going to be here the draft picks are wasted, it sounds to me like you think building a team is like building a bicycle. You get all the best components, put them together the right way, and bam it performs. I think that's wrong, teams are constructed and improved over time. Building an O with a philosophy and getting the right players is only the start, not the end. They need to keep progressing, that requires playing and building on successes. Finding a young QB and getting him into a performing team does work. Look at Big Ben. The problem with the data is most of the time the best QB's are drafted into bad teams.

I lived this. In GE management and consulting it was constantly my job to create a job in a new organization or a revamped one and run it for a year or two then step out when it's performing. That someone would replace me was the plan from day one. Building a system was a completely different task then running it once the processes and organization are codified.

The one thing I would agree with you on though would be if we're not committed to our O system and we're going to completely change direction in 2 years. As we know that would require different staff and everything we accomplished would be thrown out the window again. But to not to do it would be to plan to fail, and that would be pointless as it's a self fulfilling prophesy.

Deadskins wrote:And if I wanted to nit-pick your posts, then I would have to spend much more time than I already do, trying to decipher what some think passes for a coherent sentence.

Oh, I definitely don't take it personally. You're the typo police pretty broadly. I've only actually been pulled over a couple-a-times. When I read it I did a double take like you then I figured out he meant division title. I didn't need him to confirm that. So it wasn't just a scramble answer to you "calling" him on it, sorry.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:We were 4 and 12. I can agree to disagree on this one, but again, the sucessful teams rarely pick up old vets and win the Super Bowl...

Rarely are you able to get a QB with McNabb's pedigree, so true but hardly applicable. But as you said we were 4-12, now we're 5-5 and we haven't changed much so far to improve on O except for McNabb and our D has been a whole lot worse. Wow, everyone would be suicidal if we were 2-8 and it was JC going nowhere fast. What a difference.

I guess when you say if he's not going to be here the draft picks are wasted, it sounds to me like you think building a team is like building a bicycle. You get all the best components, put them together the right way, and bam it performs. I think that's wrong, teams are constructed and improved over time. Building an O with a philosophy and getting the right players is only the start, not the end. They need to keep progressing, that requires playing and building on successes. Finding a young QB and getting him into a performing team does work. Look at Big Ben. The problem with the data is most of the time the best QB's are drafted into bad teams.

I lived this. In GE management and consulting it was constantly my job to create a job in a new organization or a revamped one and run it for a year or two then step out when it's performing. That someone would replace me was the plan from day one. Building a system was a completely different task then running it once the processes and organization are codified.

The one thing I would agree with you on though would be if we're not committed to our O system and we're going to completely change direction in 2 years. As we know that would require different staff and everything we accomplished would be thrown out the window again. But to not to do it would be to plan to fail, and that would be pointless as it's a self fulfilling prophesy.

I don't think that McNabb will bridge that gap. That's where our differences begin. And this year, we're not really improving. We're completely inconsistant and we're not improving. I don't believe your example illustrates what's happening currently with the Redskins.

VetSkinsFan wrote:I don't think that McNabb will bridge that gap. That's where our differences begin. And this year, we're not really improving. We're completely inconsistant and we're not improving. I don't believe your example illustrates what's happening currently with the Redskins.

My theory is we went from 4-12 to 5-5 because of McNabb. I think we've done other things right, like getting Trent and dumping guys like ARE for youth. But that's not improved the team this year. We beat Dallas, Philly, Tennessee, the Packers and the Bears, none of them are slouches. That wouldn't have happened last year. No way.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I've only actually been pulled over a couple-a-times.


When I read it I did a double take like you then I figured out he meant division title. I didn't need him to confirm that. So it wasn't just a scramble answer to you "calling" him on it, sorry.

That's because if I spent as much time as is necessary deciphering the "English" in your posts, I'd have to hire an assistant, because there aren't enough hours in the day.

I still don't believe he meant division championship.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I've only actually been pulled over a couple-a-times.


When I read it I did a double take like you then I figured out he meant division title. I didn't need him to confirm that. So it wasn't just a scramble answer to you "calling" him on it, sorry.

That's because if I spent as much time as is necessary deciphering the "English" in your posts, I'd have to hire an assistant, because there aren't enough hours in the day.

I still don't believe he meant division championship.

Simmer down dude. I know they didn't win a super bowl with him. Sorry I don't call a championship a super bowl. I actually heard my statement verbatim on Sirius NFL about 20 minutes earlier. So all in all, chill out

chiefhog44 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I've only actually been pulled over a couple-a-times.


When I read it I did a double take like you then I figured out he meant division title. I didn't need him to confirm that. So it wasn't just a scramble answer to you "calling" him on it, sorry.

That's because if I spent as much time as is necessary deciphering the "English" in your posts, I'd have to hire an assistant, because there aren't enough hours in the day.

I still don't believe he meant division championship.

Simmer down dude. I know they didn't win a super bowl with him. Sorry I don't call a championship a super bowl. I actually heard my statement verbatim on Sirius NFL about 20 minutes earlier. So all in all, chill out

I would have accepted a Conference Championship too.

Deadskins wrote:That's because if I spent as much time as is necessary deciphering the "English" in your posts, I'd have to hire an assistant, because there aren't enough hours in the day.

I can't write, got it. You really know how to hit a guy's insecurity. I'm going to be crushed all weekend now.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:And if I wanted to nit-pick your posts, then I would have to spend much more time than I already do, trying to decipher what some think passes for a coherent sentence.

Oh, I definitely don't take it personally. You're the typo police pretty broadly. I've only actually been pulled over a couple-a-times. When I read it I did a double take like you then I figured out he meant division title. I didn't need him to confirm that. So it wasn't just a scramble answer to you "calling" him on it, sorry.

You are missing the biggest aspect... COACHING. We have a much better offensive staff now. We have a better blocking scheme and a play-action package that is getting people wide open. You cannot just say from 4-12 to 5-5 means McNabb is the difference. Along with the coaching improvements, we have a healthy ey, Armstrong who is a better down field threat than anyone not named Moss from last year. We have also forced a lot more TO and a lot of them are due to Deangelo Halls improved level of play.

McNabb played average against Dallas, good second half against the Packers, terrible against Philly, terrible against the Bears, and solid against the Titans. Even against the Titans he tripped (Again) on a critical 3rd down in Titans territory. Fortunately the defense held and we got the ball back.

while we already have 5 wins the biggest difference to me is that this season we have improved in 2 very important areas - coaching and QB

I don't know if the OC or DC will be here for long but Mike Shanahan will be here for a while as HC and he will make sure that his assistants get the most from their players - I'm also fine with what he's done so far with Bruce Allen

I'm also very glad that we finally have a leader at QB and while I can understand the concern about what we gave up to get him, I really think that having a leader like McNabb cannot really be evaluated

I do not think that we would be where we are if we did not have McNabb


we have a lot of issues but we do have a good HC and we do have a good QB - that is a lot more than we've had here recently

that to me means we are better off

Did anyone catch Tim Ryan (who I respect the HELL out of) on the game today talk about how so many of the Skins players had SO much respect for Kyle Shannahan? Sounds like he is much better than many of us fans are giving him credit for...