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

Deadskins wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

roybus14 wrote:Dockery.... Another one. What is the real reason why this dude is in street clothes? He couldn't have done any worst than Lichenstieger has done but yet he remains in street clothes.

This guy is a back up if not out of the league next year. At least he is giving a young dude that sucks a chance to play rather than an old dude that sucks. Who knows, if there is enough improvement, we may not need to address the position next year.

Please! Dockery is not old, and is a much better player than Lichenstieger. If we cut him he will find work day 1.

He was cut from the Bills, and now he plays backup on the Skins. Put two and two together...

Funny you should ask me to read between the lines, though.

I have no idea what you are talking about

Saying "put two and two together" is another way of saying "read between the lines."

I can't believe I have to actually explain that.

Uh actually they don't. That's actually pretty funny that you just wrote that down. Sorry for laughing at you. I know it's the bye week, so not much else to talk about, but here is the explaination for you, so you don't look like such a fool in the future.

"Put two and two together" is a traditional choice for illustrating something elementary that everyone ought to know

To read between the lines is to be able to discern a hidden or secret meaning; to draw conclusions which are not at first apparent.

One is an obvious observation, the other is not apparent at first glance.

Again sorry for laughing at you.

Just to clarify the 4th Q decision errors ... We go for 2 instead of kicking, leaving the score 19-14, instead of 20-14, with 11 minutes left. That gave the Lions the ability to win the game with two FGs.

Then, with 8 minutes left, we did it again, making the score 25-20, again allowing the Lions an opportunity to kick 2 FGs to win. The score should have been 27 ... not 25, so with 4:40 on the clock, the Redskins would have the ball, the score 27-20 (not 25-20). Even with the error to throw on 2nd down, and the subsequent Int., the Lions TD would have made it 27-26 ... they would have NEVER gone for a 2 pointer ... they would have kicked the extra point to tie the game at 27.

Then, with 2:20 on the clock, we would NEVER have gone for it on 4th and 10 from the 28, in a tie ball game.

So those two attempts at 2 pointers really changed the dynamic of the game. And they both came with 11 min and 8 min. respectively on the clock ... too much time left to go for 2, and wind up with 5 point leads instead of 6. Take the 6 point lead, and force them to score 7 to go ahead, or two FGs to tie. NEVER, with that much time left, give the opposition the chance to kick two FG's to win .... NEVER.

The 2 point conversion, in my mind should only be attempted under specific circumstances ... 3 circumstances in particular ... 1) to tie the game in the latter portion of the 4th Q, because if you fail, you still need a FG to win, 2) to extend a lead to 3 points when there is only time left for one more possession by your opponent, and you want to make it so that a they can only tie the game with 3, instead of winning, 3) To extend a lead to 7 so that the final possession of your opponent can only tie with a TD.

Any other time, you take the 1 point ... and had Shanahan observed that philosophy, the other questionable decisions that followed would have been less likely to have been made.

Now, someone could say this is all hindsight ... but that's just not true. There is a fundamental strategy for 2 pointers that is dictated by the time left on the clock ... most especially when you have the lead, or you are attempting to tie the game.

When you look at the impact those 2 pointer decisions had on the game in the last 4 minutes ... the strategy becomes more obvious as to why they are attempted so infrequently, and only under certain circumstances.

Here's how it pans out

1) First 2 point attempt ...... cost = 1 point

2) Second attempt ..... cost 1 point.

3) Throwing on 2nd down instead of running with a 5 point lead and 4:40 on the clock .. led to the INT, and the Lions 8 points = 6 + 2

4) Going for it on 4th and 10 deep in our own territory .... cost 3 points

5) Grossman for McNabb .... cost 7 points.

That's 20 freaking points on 5 bad coaching decisions. We lost by 12.

Ray, not to argue with you on this because on your side from here on out, but just wanted to float a question because I guess I'm confused.

Do you think that we could have run all the way down the field with Williams in the backfield? With the front 7 of the Lions, you don't think that it would have been 3 and out if we attempted that? I guess I just wish McNabb pulled the ball down and ran or took the sack in that situation. I'm not sure that we would have been able to run all the way down the field with over 5 minutes left to start the drive.

As far as the 2 point conversion, I was questioning that as well, but the Lions went for 2 as well and missed so make sure you take one point away from their total

I think on the 4th down call, with their return man as dangerous as he is, they were thinking that they were going to conceed a field goal either way, so why not go for it. It's 3 points and doesn't seel the game. Plus, it would have put the Lions too close to the 2 minute warning, so when all said and done, we would have received the ball back with a little over 1 minute rather than when we did at 1:54. I didn't mind that call very much.

chiefhog44 wrote:"Put two and two together" is a traditional choice for illustrating something elementary that everyone ought to know

To read between the lines is to be able to discern a hidden or secret meaning; to draw conclusions which are not at first apparent.

One is an obvious observation, the other is not apparent at first glance.

Again sorry for laughing at you.

Based on my careful observations, it looks to me that you aren't in much of a position to be explaining either one.

The actual context of the "Read between the lines" was first used by me in this thread to explain why Shanahan's statement that McNabb was pulled because of his lack of understanding the "terminology" was in essence insinuating that wasn't smart enough to run the 2 minute drill ..... followed by the statement later that said his cardio was an issue, which insinuates he was not in good shape.

Not very smart ... not in good shape ... can be read between the lines here, even if that's not what Shanahan was trying to say.

Of course you disagreed, suggesting that I made all of that up in my own head .... yet that's how it was perceived by the majority ... and the evidence to support that came from Kyle himself as he attempted to explain what his father was trying to say ... and admitted that he was clarifying the issue because it came across as unfair to McNabb.

Apparently, if it is true, as you insinuated, that such a misunderstanding was totally a product of my overactive imagination, then one could surmise by reading between the lines that Kyle Shanahan is reading my posts, and feels compelled to correct my misunderstanding

As for the 2+2 thing ... 2 coaching errors cost two points, which led to 3 more coaching errors that led to 1 loss.

So, in this rare case ... 2 + 2 = minus 2 + 3 = 1 loss .... not overly obvious on the surface, but mathematically correct as it turned out

RayNAustin wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:"Put two and two together" is a traditional choice for illustrating something elementary that everyone ought to know

To read between the lines is to be able to discern a hidden or secret meaning; to draw conclusions which are not at first apparent.

One is an obvious observation, the other is not apparent at first glance.

Again sorry for laughing at you.

Based on my careful observations, it looks to me that you aren't in much of a position to be explaining either one.

The actual context of the "Read between the lines" was first used by me in this thread to explain why Shanahan's statement that McNabb was pulled because of his lack of understanding the "terminology" was in essence insinuating that wasn't smart enough to run the 2 minute drill ..... followed by the statement later that said his cardio was an issue, which insinuates he was not in good shape.

Not very smart ... not in good shape ... can be read between the lines here, even if that's not what Shanahan was trying to say.

Of course you disagreed, suggesting that I made all of that up in my own head .... yet that's how it was perceived by the majority ... and the evidence to support that came from Kyle himself as he attempted to explain what his father was trying to say ... and admitted that he was clarifying the issue because it came across as unfair to McNabb.

Apparently, if it is true, as you insinuated, that such a misunderstanding was totally a product of my overactive imagination, then one could surmise by reading between the lines that Kyle Shanahan is reading my posts, and feels compelled to correct my misunderstanding
:

Ray, I don't think I EVER said that it was NOT a mistake to pull him. I have said that I don't care if the guy uses 10 excuses as to why. I KNOW he made 3 or 4 separate lies about the reasons, and I am NOT in the minority. I know it wasn't the truth. I AM though on record saying that I could care less that he made all those excuses and you say that I'm in the minority in thinking that, and I don't care, because it's my opinion, whether you and the whole word agree with that or not. Get it straight because I haven't faltered in that at all. You are putting words in my mouth.

Ray, READ THIS AGAIN PLEASE. I'll take it slow so you don't mix my words up as well. I SIMPLY WANTED TO KNOW WHY YOU WERE SAYING KYLE CALLED MCNABB STUPID, LAZY AND OUT OF SHAPE, BECAUSE I NEVER HEARD HIM SAY THAT ONCE. YOU CONCLUDED THAT HE SAID THAT, BECAUSE AS YOU STATE, YOU ARE ABLE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES FROM MIKE, AND "OTHER SOURCES." MAYBE YOU ARE MIXING MY WORDS UP WITH SOMEONE ELSE. GO BACK AND READ IT IF YOU WANT. CAPEESH? I think you have twisted Kyle's words and exagerated because I have still not heard Kyle say any of that, but whatever...if you say so. I'm done arguing.

THUS I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT DEADSKINS IS TALKING ABOUT. HE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR DISCUSSION. Go ahead and have the last word. I'll read it, and move on if you stop putting words in my mouth as you have with the coaches IN MY OPINION. Hopefully I have stated it clearly, because there are NO lines to read between. Thanks bud.

chiefhog44 wrote:Ray, not to argue with you on this because on your side from here on out, but just wanted to float a question because I guess I'm confused.

Do you think that we could have run all the way down the field with Williams in the backfield? With the front 7 of the Lions, you don't think that it would have been 3 and out if we attempted that? I guess I just wish McNabb pulled the ball down and ran or took the sack in that situation. I'm not sure that we would have been able to run all the way down the field with over 5 minutes left to start the drive.

We didn't have to ... we had a 5 point lead (that should have been 7). We run the ball three times .. and either burn 1 1/2 to 2 minutes off the clock, or force them to use their time outs. If we get a 1st down, all the better, if not, you punt. But you don't throw on 2nd down ... if you do, it's a little backfield swing pass that is high percentage, with no chance of an INT ... a turnover there is the WORST thing that could have happened and it did, which is why the conventional wisdom is to not throw in that situation.

chiefhog44 wrote:As far as the 2 point conversion, I was questioning that as well, but the Lions went for 2 as well and missed so make sure you take one point away from their total

I think on the 4th down call, with their return man as dangerous as he is, they were thinking that they were going to conceed a field goal either way, so why not go for it. It's 3 points and doesn't seel the game. Plus, it would have put the Lions too close to the 2 minute warning, so when all said and done, we would have received the ball back with a little over 1 minute rather than when we did at 1:54. I didn't mind that call very much.

With that pass rush ... and 4th and 10 ... no way. McNabb was sacked (Surprise) and they were already in FG range at the change of possession. That call you could argue either way with 2:20 left, but again, the preceding decisions led to that situation. I'd rather kick, and have them be on the 50, rather than the Redskin 20 ... that was a concede the game call #1.... in that series they gained 6 yards, and kicked to make it a 6 point game .... this set up that must score a TD scenario, driving the length of the field that had Shanahan go to Grossman, which led to 7 and the game over, which was concede the game call #2.

These bad decisions fed each other ... 1 after the next. And if you could prove Shanahan had money on the game, you'd conclude that he took a dive ... rather than just exercising poor judgement. It's not that iffy ... these were successive poor decisions.

Sorry if I get a bit sarcastic or blunt in some of my responses ... but really, I'm following some pretty well established, traditional football wisdom here, whereas Shanahan is the one that was sticking his neck out, and he got it chopped off.

The last decision ... to pull McNabb was like a gambler in Vegas that already lost all his money ... then his car ... and said what the hell, might as well bet the house too.

It was idiotic, and combined with all of the other decisions, left me with a very sour taste in my mouth about Mike and Kyle Shanahan's coaching prowess. I think they behaved very amateurish leading up to the McNabb hook ... with the hook being proof that they were lost. Desperation doesn't even begin to define that.

A teenager playing Madden wouldn't have made that switch, and I expected better from a guy with Shanahan's years of experience.

I could care less about Madden - it's not even closely related to the NFL - are you serious? - this is the NFL not Fantasy football or reality

this is our team and these are our coaches and our players - you don't have to like what they do but they are who they are and thankfully (IMO) they are not following your advice

these guys are here and what they do is all that matters - love it or hate it - this is the Redskins 2010

I am liking it and enjoying the progress

RayNAustin wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

The revelations that the Shanahans haven't been enamored with McNabb going way back to pre-season tells me that these two guys are freaking nuts.

It's pretty clear that Andy Reid and the Eagles weren't all that enamored anymore with McNabb either. Does that make them "freaking nuts" too?

If they decided to go with Rex Grossman instead .... YES ... YES they would be nuts.

Now KNOCK off the smart arse nonsense .... if you're going to say it ... then have tha stones to say it .... go ahead ... say "I think Rex Grossman gives the Redskins the best chance to win".

You were after all a big fan of Campbell until that ton of bricks fell on you. Don't think I forgot about that.

So say it already ... Rex is your man. Go ahead? What are you waiting for?

I don't think that Rex is better than McNabb. But at the same time I think that McNabb's days of being an upper tier qb are over. He isn't a top 10 qb anymore and he wont perform at that level for us or any other team. Right now he looks like an over the hill qb that is on his last legs.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Looking at McNabb's career stats, I see no evidence of a decline ... he was better in 2007 than he was in 2006, better in 2008 than he was in 2007, and better in 2009 than he was in 2008.

AND, in spite of the poor pass pro and lack of running game, McNabb is 6th in the NFL RIGHT NOW, and on pace to exceed his career high yardage totals. Another measure is the fact that Santana Moss is also on pace to exceed career highs in catches. .. Moss is having a career year, in spite of the many on this board who have claimed that Moss had lost a step and was no longer the receiver he was in 2005. Moss's problems revolved around having Jason Campbell as the QB for 2006-2009.

McNabb's problems this year, in my opinion, revolve around his having to learn a brand new system behind a poor performing o-line on an offense that is relying SOLELY on him to carry them on his shoulders. And I don't think he's getting the credit and confidence from his coaches that he's earning for performing to the level he has managed to under the circumstances. To the contrary, he's being criticized.

The fact that people are even debating this issue boggles my mind ... the "knowledgeable fans" here on this board that remained on bended knee for Campbell, blaming anything and everything for his failure to perform ... such claims as QBs needing at least 2 years in a system in order to perform ... claiming NOBODY ... even Peyton Manning could perform behind last year's o-line. Now, you expect McNabb to perform like Peyton Manning on day one with worse protection, worse running game, and ready to throw him under the bus half way through the first year?

Give me a freaking break .... you all make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. NONE.

All McNabb needs is a little help up front, and a little bit of support from the sideline too. That's what's missing here. One of the big problems on offense this year has been poor 3rd down performance. How much of that is McNabb, and how much of that is poor 1st and 2nd down running and play call management, leaving too many 3rd and long situations?

Fred Davis has been a non-entity this year ... you'd think that with two TE like ey and Davis ... the offense could utilize that talent in that short to intermediate area better. Davis has way too much talent and speed for a TE to not be a bigger part of this system.

I'd break this down to poor o-line, followed by Kyle Shanahan's scheme long before I'd place any significant blame on McNabb's performance.

1. Yardage is not a real indicator of qb performance.

2. McNabb had a terrible offensive line in Philly last year yet still performed at a high level. In 15 total games last year he was sacked 39 times. Averaged over 16 games that comes to approximately 42 sacks. This year he is on pace for 44 sacks. That's not a huge difference. Philip Rivers this year is playing behind an oline in San Diego that is almost as terrible as ours, yet his numbers are still very good. No doubt the oline is terrible, but even when he's had time McNabb has not played well.

This soap opera. and its endless commentary and controversy, might go on and on this week until we clear things up with a good game against Philthy.

I cannot believe that people are still debating the issue and the media keeps on adding fuel to the fire. Thankfully, the Cowpies and Vykes are helping to distract attention from it.

You're right RiC - I'm letting it go


I really do think that Wade might be done - what a disaster that scene is


hopefully our guys have all learned from the mistakes and are finding a way to stop Vick again - BIG game

SkinsJock wrote:You're right RiC - I'm letting it go


I really do think that Wade might be done - what a disaster that scene is


hopefully our guys have all learned from the mistakes and are finding a way to stop Vick again - BIG game

And I'll be there. Third game of the season. Haven't done that in, well, ever. Maybe in the 80's

CanesSkins26 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

The revelations that the Shanahans haven't been enamored with McNabb going way back to pre-season tells me that these two guys are freaking nuts.

It's pretty clear that Andy Reid and the Eagles weren't all that enamored anymore with McNabb either. Does that make them "freaking nuts" too?

If they decided to go with Rex Grossman instead .... YES ... YES they would be nuts.

Now KNOCK off the smart arse nonsense .... if you're going to say it ... then have tha stones to say it .... go ahead ... say "I think Rex Grossman gives the Redskins the best chance to win".

You were after all a big fan of Campbell until that ton of bricks fell on you. Don't think I forgot about that.

So say it already ... Rex is your man. Go ahead? What are you waiting for?

I don't think that Rex is better than McNabb. But at the same time I think that McNabb's days of being an upper tier qb are over. He isn't a top 10 qb anymore and he wont perform at that level for us or any other team. Right now he looks like an over the hill qb that is on his last legs.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Looking at McNabb's career stats, I see no evidence of a decline ... he was better in 2007 than he was in 2006, better in 2008 than he was in 2007, and better in 2009 than he was in 2008.

AND, in spite of the poor pass pro and lack of running game, McNabb is 6th in the NFL RIGHT NOW, and on pace to exceed his career high yardage totals. Another measure is the fact that Santana Moss is also on pace to exceed career highs in catches. .. Moss is having a career year, in spite of the many on this board who have claimed that Moss had lost a step and was no longer the receiver he was in 2005. Moss's problems revolved around having Jason Campbell as the QB for 2006-2009.

McNabb's problems this year, in my opinion, revolve around his having to learn a brand new system behind a poor performing o-line on an offense that is relying SOLELY on him to carry them on his shoulders. And I don't think he's getting the credit and confidence from his coaches that he's earning for performing to the level he has managed to under the circumstances. To the contrary, he's being criticized.

The fact that people are even debating this issue boggles my mind ... the "knowledgeable fans" here on this board that remained on bended knee for Campbell, blaming anything and everything for his failure to perform ... such claims as QBs needing at least 2 years in a system in order to perform ... claiming NOBODY ... even Peyton Manning could perform behind last year's o-line. Now, you expect McNabb to perform like Peyton Manning on day one with worse protection, worse running game, and ready to throw him under the bus half way through the first year?

Give me a freaking break .... you all make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. NONE.

All McNabb needs is a little help up front, and a little bit of support from the sideline too. That's what's missing here. One of the big problems on offense this year has been poor 3rd down performance. How much of that is McNabb, and how much of that is poor 1st and 2nd down running and play call management, leaving too many 3rd and long situations?

Fred Davis has been a non-entity this year ... you'd think that with two TE like ey and Davis ... the offense could utilize that talent in that short to intermediate area better. Davis has way too much talent and speed for a TE to not be a bigger part of this system.

I'd break this down to poor o-line, followed by Kyle Shanahan's scheme long before I'd place any significant blame on McNabb's performance.

1. Yardage is not a real indicator of qb performance.

2. McNabb had a terrible offensive line in Philly last year yet still performed at a high level. In 15 total games last year he was sacked 39 times. Averaged over 16 games that comes to approximately 42 sacks. This year he is on pace for 44 sacks. That's not a huge difference. Philip Rivers this year is playing behind an oline in San Diego that is almost as terrible as ours, yet his numbers are still very good. No doubt the oline is terrible, but even when he's had time McNabb has not played well.

Phillip Rivers has alot of offensive talent to work with. So did Mcnabb in Philly.

I just wanted to point out that Mcnabb is not working with any pro bowlers on offense. Other then ey I dont think you could call the receivers a talented group by any strech of Imagination. Moss is a decent receiver and a deep threat but he is really undersized and gets overwhelmed by physical corners.

chiefhog44 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

roybus14 wrote:Dockery.... Another one. What is the real reason why this dude is in street clothes? He couldn't have done any worst than Lichenstieger has done but yet he remains in street clothes.

This guy is a back up if not out of the league next year. At least he is giving a young dude that sucks a chance to play rather than an old dude that sucks. Who knows, if there is enough improvement, we may not need to address the position next year.

Please! Dockery is not old, and is a much better player than Lichenstieger. If we cut him he will find work day 1.

He was cut from the Bills, and now he plays backup on the Skins. Put two and two together...

Funny you should ask me to read between the lines, though.

I have no idea what you are talking about

Saying "put two and two together" is another way of saying "read between the lines."

I can't believe I have to actually explain that.

Uh actually they don't. That's actually pretty funny that you just wrote that down. Sorry for laughing at you. I know it's the bye week, so not much else to talk about, but here is the explaination for you, so you don't look like such a fool in the future.

"Put two and two together" is a traditional choice for illustrating something elementary that everyone ought to know

To read between the lines is to be able to discern a hidden or secret meaning; to draw conclusions which are not at first apparent.

One is an obvious observation, the other is not apparent at first glance.

Again sorry for laughing at you.

Laugh all you want, but your your definition of the two phrases is not accurate, and neither is your sense of superiority. Putting two and two together denotes needing to do some personal calculating to arrive at a conclusion, as does reading between the lines. Again, I'm amazed that I have to explain something so elemental to you.

RayNAustin wrote:Just to clarify the 4th Q decision errors ... We go for 2 instead of kicking, leaving the score 19-14, instead of 20-14, with 11 minutes left. That gave the Lions the ability to win the game with two FGs.

Then, with 8 minutes left, we did it again, making the score 25-20, again allowing the Lions an opportunity to kick 2 FGs to win. The score should have been 27 ... not 25, so with 4:40 on the clock, the Redskins would have the ball, the score 27-20 (not 25-20).

I agree with not going for two so early in the game, but the Lions also missed a two point conversion which they tried only becase we did, so the score would have been 27-21, not 27-20.

chiefhog44 wrote:THUS I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT DEADSKINS IS TALKING ABOUT. HE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR DISCUSSION.

Oh, I see now. THN is your own private message board, and no one else is allowed to inject their own opinions in any discussion you are having with another member (especially when they are taking the side of the other member). Got it.

PS You don't need to SHOUT to get your point across.

SkinsJock wrote:I could care less about Madden - it's not even closely related to the NFL - are you serious? - this is the NFL not Fantasy football or reality

Are you serious?
His point was that MS's decisions were not those of a seasoned NFL head coach, much less a young Madden player. He was using Madden as an example of how far away from the NFL game those decisions were.

Redskin in Canada wrote:I cannot believe that people are still debating the issue

Why not? What else are we supposed to do with our bye week? Had we had a game this week, this would be behind us, but until we play again this is going to be a topic of discussion.

Deadskins wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:I cannot believe that people are still debating the issue

Why not? What else are we supposed to do with our bye week? Had we had a game this week, this would be behind us, but until we play again this is going to be a topic of discussion.

Unfortunately, this is correct. We have said it before: until we get over the next game with a WIN, people and the media are having a feeding frenzy over sensationalist stories. It is the media's business. G;adly the Vikes and Pukes are helping with their own dramas and soap operas.

As far as the fans here are concerned, quite frankly, it gets tired after a while. It is either a TRUE lasting issue and we put the season behind us -OR- we get behind our team and begin to analyse our chances against PHILTHY.

Looking for a big win here.

RayNAustin wrote:In the Detroit game, there were many questionable decisions. When McNabb was pulled, it was 31-25 .... we had already tried two 2 point conversions and failed ... and I thought it was a mistake each time. Had we Kicked extra points on both, Detroit would never have gone for their two pointer on what ended up being the go ahead TD and successful 2 point conversion, and the score would have been 27-27 (not 28-25) with over 3 minutes left. With a tie ball game, the Redskins would never have gone for it on 4th down and 10 from their own 28, virtually handing the Lions 3 points ... which was also a mistake in my opinion, and set up by previous poor decisions to go for 2 twice. Even then, down by 3 with 2:22 left ... you punt, force a 3 and out, and try and drive for the tie ... you don't give them 3 ... it was 4th and 10 ... not 4th and 2.

I totally agree with your points about not going for 2 so early and going for it on 4th down from our own 28 with what amounts to 3 TOs left, but your math is faulty. We missed out on two points on the unsuccessful PATs, but the Lions broke even, missing one two point attempt and then making the next. The score would not have been tied 27-27 had both teams simply kicked; they would have been ahead 28-27.

Deadskins wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:I could care less about Madden - it's not even closely related to the NFL - are you serious? - this is the NFL not Fantasy football or reality

Are you serious?
His point was that MS's decisions were not those of a seasoned NFL head coach, much less a young Madden player. He was using Madden as an example of how far away from the NFL game those decisions were.

Thank you ... that was exactly my point.

I think what troubles me most moving forward is two things ... 1) Shanahan's unwillingness to simply say ... "it was a bad decision, and an even worse explanation, and I take responsibility for both, and I will do better". 2) the revelations that Kyle has not been happy with McNabb, and the possibility of benching him earlier in the year was discussed.

As for #1 ... does Shanahan actually STILL believe it was a good decision? Or is he too headstrong to admit mistakes. It's very troubling to me that he might actually believe he made the right decision ... and that is what he continues to maintain.

#2 .. if Kyle Shanahan is the McNabb naysayer behind the scenes as rumors suggest ... then I have little confidence in him being able to fix the offensive issues, or develop the type of relationship Coach & QB need to maximize production. You just can't operate efficiently under such circumstances. And anyone that thinks Rex Grossman is a better option than McNabb shouldn't even be allowed in the building at Redskin Park, let alone be in charge of the offense.

RayNAustin wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:I could care less about Madden - it's not even closely related to the NFL - are you serious? - this is the NFL not Fantasy football or reality

Are you serious?
His point was that MS's decisions were not those of a seasoned NFL head coach, much less a young Madden player. He was using Madden as an example of how far away from the NFL game those decisions were.

Thank you ... that was exactly my point.

I think what troubles me most moving forward is two things ... 1) Shanahan's unwillingness to simply say ... "it was a bad decision, and an even worse explanation, and I take responsibility for both, and I will do better". 2) the revelations that Kyle has not been happy with McNabb, and the possibility of benching him earlier in the year was discussed.

As for #1 ... does Shanahan actually STILL believe it was a good decision? Or is he too headstrong to admit mistakes. It's very troubling to me that he might actually believe he made the right decision ... and that is what he continues to maintain.

#2 .. if Kyle Shanahan is the McNabb naysayer behind the scenes as rumors suggest ... then I have little confidence in him being able to fix the offensive issues, or develop the type of relationship Coach & QB need to maximize production. You just can't operate efficiently under such circumstances. And anyone that thinks Rex Grossman is a better option than McNabb shouldn't even be allowed in the building at Redskin Park, let alone be in charge of the offense.

#1 Completely agree.
#2 Thinking Rex Grossman is a better option for his offense isn't so much of an issue for me, because he probably believes that having had Rex under his wing for a full season, makes him better prepared. My problem with Kyle stems from his lack of ability to teach DM the system by now. Apparently he's had these concerns for some time now, and yet he's more willing to scrap Donovan's learning for the easy fix that hampers the team in the long term. I have no doubt that Kyle was the impetus behind DM's benching. But I still am finding it hard to believe that Big Daddy would go along with benching his QB with less that two minutes left in the game. Then again, I wouldn't have thought he would go for it on the previous 4th down either.

Thinking Rex Grossman is a better option for his offense isn't so much of an issue for me, because he probably believes that having had Rex under his wing for a full season, makes him better prepared. My problem with Kyle stems from his lack of ability to teach DM the system by now. Apparently he's had these concerns for some time now, and yet he's more willing to scrap Donovan's learning for the easy fix that hampers the team in the long term.

The problem is that we don't know what is really going on behind the scenes. Maybe having been in essentially one system for 11 years is making it difficult for McNabb to learn the new system. Maybe McNabb is unwilling to really learn a new system. Maybe Kyle is a bad teacher. We just don't know.

chiefhog44 wrote:Ray, READ THIS AGAIN PLEASE. I'll take it slow so you don't mix my words up as well. I SIMPLY WANTED TO KNOW WHY YOU WERE SAYING KYLE CALLED MCNABB STUPID, LAZY AND OUT OF SHAPE, BECAUSE I NEVER HEARD HIM SAY THAT ONCE. YOU CONCLUDED THAT HE SAID THAT, BECAUSE AS YOU STATE, YOU ARE ABLE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES FROM MIKE, AND "OTHER SOURCES." MAYBE YOU ARE MIXING MY WORDS UP WITH SOMEONE ELSE. GO BACK AND READ IT IF YOU WANT. CAPEESH? I think you have twisted Kyle's words and exagerated because I have still not heard Kyle say any of that, but whatever...if you say so. I'm done arguing.

I didn't say "Kyle", I said Mike Shanahan's explanation for the decision to pull McNabb (along with other insights revealed afterward) was in essence calling him "Stupid, Lazy and out of shape". You're trying to make my use of terms here a "literal" argument ... I am not saying that Shanahan said those exact words ... it's the underlying insinuation and implications of what he did say ... the "read between the lines" thing. Saying that he was not familiar enough with the terminology to run the two minute offense at the halfway point of the season is a DIRECT statement about his mental preparedness to execute the offense ... i.e. "Stupid", however indirectly. Then, he claimed that his cardio endurance was the issue ... indirectly stating "out of shape". The "lazy" part came in the revelations that the Shanahans have not been happy with McNabb's pace of play in practice all year ... which suggests "Lazy". Now, the "Stupid, Lazy and out of shape" was used in the extreme, for the purpose of illustrating the impact of those statements and how they could be perceived in the worst possible light .... you could temper that by using less inflammatory terms .... but saying that he didn't have the cardio endurance necessary to finish the game IS WHAT IT IS. It's a poke at McNabb's conditioning, and couldn't be taken to mean anything else. That statement is a far cry from simply saying "Donovan was slowed by injuries coupled with having taken too many hits during the game, so he was obviously a bit worn down at that stage of the game, which is understandable under those circumstances ..." but that isn't what he said ... he said his cardio endurance wasn't there, and that was reminiscent of his highly publicized battle with Haynesworth not being in proper football shape.

Statements must be considered in context, and not simply taken at face value, such that you want to do here in arguing this point. And it wasn't just the benching of McNabb .... it was replacing him with Grossman that contributed to the INDIRECT criticism of McNabb's play, conditioning, and intelligence.

As an analogy, let's say I sell my Mercedes, and replace it with a Hyundia. When asked why, I say, well, I think the Hyudia is more reliable, more comfortable, and better suited to get me where I wanted to go. What am I really saying about Mercedes Benz ? I'm saying I think Mercedes is an over priced piece of crap that is unreliable. Did I use those exact words? No. But that is what I am insinuating.

Deadskins wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:In the Detroit game, there were many questionable decisions. When McNabb was pulled, it was 31-25 .... we had already tried two 2 point conversions and failed ... and I thought it was a mistake each time. Had we Kicked extra points on both, Detroit would never have gone for their two pointer on what ended up being the go ahead TD and successful 2 point conversion, and the score would have been 27-27 (not 28-25) with over 3 minutes left. With a tie ball game, the Redskins would never have gone for it on 4th down and 10 from their own 28, virtually handing the Lions 3 points ... which was also a mistake in my opinion, and set up by previous poor decisions to go for 2 twice. Even then, down by 3 with 2:22 left ... you punt, force a 3 and out, and try and drive for the tie ... you don't give them 3 ... it was 4th and 10 ... not 4th and 2.

I totally agree with your points about not going for 2 so early and going for it on 4th down from our own 28 with what amounts to 3 TOs left, but your math is faulty. We missed out on two points on the unsuccessful PATs, but the Lions broke even, missing one two point attempt and then making the next. The score would not have been tied 27-27 had both teams simply kicked; they would have been ahead 28-27.

You don't need a calculator for this ... it's not your math that is faulty, it's your assumption that the Lions would have gone for 2 rather than kick 1 to tie the score ... at the 4:40 mark, we had a 25-20 lead, having missed on two 2 point conversions. 25 + 2 = 27, which would have made the score, 27-20. After the INT (when we shouldn't have been throwing anyway), the Lions scored a TD ... which would have made the score 27-26 (not 25-26). I suggest that the Lions would never have gone for a 2 point conversion in that situation (27-26) ... they would have taken the higher percentage 1 point kick to tie the score at 27. They went for 2 points in that situation BECAUSE that TD gave them a lead 26-25 ... so whether they make it or not, they still had the lead. Those missed two points changed the entire situation at that stage. Do you think the Lions would have risked going for 2, down by 1 ? I DON'T THINK SO. They would have kicked the 1 pointer to tie, unless of course, Shanahan was their coach. Unfortunately, in this game, he was making our decisions, and not theirs.

Then, with the ball back, do you think the Redskins would have gone for it on 4th down, deep in their own territory with the game tied 27-27 ? Conventional wisdom says Hell No, they would have punted. But instead of it being 27-27, we were down by 3, 28-25 ... with 2:20 left to go ... so the Redskins went for it on 4th and 10. This pretty much handed the Lions another 3 points, making it 31-25, with less than 2 minutes left, and the Redskins forced to score a TD.

As I said, it was one coaching error that led to the next coaching error that led to the next. Had the game been managed properly, the Redskins would have had the ball with 1:45 seconds ... with the score tied at 27-27 instead of 31-25.

Then, there REALLY would have been no reasonable justification for yanking McNabb with the score tied. All they would have needed to do is get in FG range and kick 3 for the win at the end.

The other scenario ... having a 27-20 lead with 4:40 to go ... you DON'T put the ball in the air and risk the worst possible outcome ... the turnover in your own territory ... you run, run run, and eat the clock ... punt if you have to, and make them score 7 in their final drive just to tie.

And as I've already said, this isn't just hypothetical what ifs ... these are a series of unconventional football decisions that led directly to the Lions winning.

For those that are not keen on reading between the lines ... several poor coaching decisions by Shanahan in the 4th Q led directly to this loss. He chose to blame McNabb with 2 minutes left, lied about it afterward, and still refuses to take responsibility. That also makes him a schmuck.

That he still refuses to admit that pulling McNabb was a mistake, I won't be holding my breath, or even consider the possibility that he will honestly analyze the other poor decisions that he made which contributed to the loss. And that makes it all the more likely that he'll make similar decisions again.

You guys know what really sux tailpipe?... When we've won, Mcnugget being "unfit" to run a 2minute drill and being to stupid to grasp a playbook from April was never a friggin issue to the Shananiganhans.. dat really boils my leftovers!!!

GOSH!

Still though... 12-4.. I have blind faith, you my friends should just do the same no matter what!!!