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

Posted: **Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:47 am**

I just don't think that McNabb fits in with Kyle and Mike ... however, he's here and I think he offers more upside than Grossman

like the man said - We need a QB

Posted: **Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:56 am**

yupchagee wrote: Not quite true. We drafted Trent Green, unfortunately, he wound up being a franchise QB for a different franchise.

Little known fact, but we did NOT draft Trent Green. He was drafted by the Chargers and bounced around a bit before catching his big break.

Posted: **Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:18 am**

UK Skins Fan wrote: Whilst I agree that some qb's can come in and contribute right away, I don't think your analogy is right. You're not talking about throwing somebody in to be an admin assistant or payroll clerk - qb is a position that equates far more to a middle management role, at the very least. You wouldn't expect to have much success by taking on somebody straight out of high school and making them regional sales manager for your multi million dollar business, would you?

There is experience to be gained by a rookie playing in game situations, for sure. But it isn't necessarily worthwhile experience if their head is cluttered with thoughts of the new throwing mechanics that the coaches have been working on with them, instead of trying to read the defence and make the right throw.

I don't disagree that some rookies can come in and play and gain useful experience straight away, but it isn't a fallacy that most would be better served by holding a clipboard and watching an experienced pro for a year.

I'm going to nail my colours to the mast, and say that I hope we pick up Locker in the second round (or late first if we can trade down and get him that way), and let Shanahan work on his accuracy and learning the playbook for a year.

Forgive me if I'm not grasping the differences between the American and British educational systems but hiring a recent high school graduate for a middle management position is in no way analogous to drafting a college quarterback and starting him right away.

It would be much more akin to hiring a successful regional sales manager from a smaller firm. Which, seems to me, to be the natural order of things (i.e. getting promoted laterally to a new company and not having to spend a year in a lesser position watching someone do your job while you "learn" from them.)

People don't often "learn" from holding a clipboard. They simply sit, with the same level of experience, wasting a year of their talents watching someone play poorly while they bide their time and ready themselves for the opportunity to start. That's what's so frustrating when people keep making this argument, when a QB comes off the bench after being the backup for a year they are still an unproven commodity. No one ever says "Here's Jason Campbell in his first professional start, he ought to be ready to go after taking a year and a half off from playing competitive football! That experience he gained from watching Mark Brunell throw 23 touchdowns last year sure has readied him for the NFL!"

Is there anyone who really believes that the aforementioned Mark Brunell, Matt Hasselbeck, Trent Green, Tom Brady, Matt Cassel, or anyone who sat for a year was better served by the experience?

Isn't it just common sense that you learn by doing and getting feedback on your work? That's how life works, why would someone be benefited by not playing, by leading the scout team and by not actually performing the tasks needed to be successful in the NFL?

The idea that the Redskins take a QB in the first two rounds and sit him behind Rex Freaking Grossman so he can learn is almost offensive. It would shake my belief in the team, because that's not how well run franchises operate. (See: Steelers, Colts, Falcons, Eagles, Jets, Ravens, Giants, etc. who all started their QB's in their first seasons and reaped the rewards.)

Posted: **Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:53 pm**

Skinsfan55 wrote:
UK Skins Fan wrote: Whilst I agree that some qb's can come in and contribute right away, I don't think your analogy is right. You're not talking about throwing somebody in to be an admin assistant or payroll clerk - qb is a position that equates far more to a middle management role, at the very least. You wouldn't expect to have much success by taking on somebody straight out of high school and making them regional sales manager for your multi million dollar business, would you?

There is experience to be gained by a rookie playing in game situations, for sure. But it isn't necessarily worthwhile experience if their head is cluttered with thoughts of the new throwing mechanics that the coaches have been working on with them, instead of trying to read the defence and make the right throw.

I don't disagree that some rookies can come in and play and gain useful experience straight away, but it isn't a fallacy that most would be better served by holding a clipboard and watching an experienced pro for a year.

I'm going to nail my colours to the mast, and say that I hope we pick up Locker in the second round (or late first if we can trade down and get him that way), and let Shanahan work on his accuracy and learning the playbook for a year.
Forgive me if I'm not grasping the differences between the American and British educational systems but hiring a recent high school graduate for a middle management position is in no way analogous to drafting a college quarterback and starting him right away.

It would be much more akin to hiring a successful regional sales manager from a smaller firm. Which, seems to me, to be the natural order of things (i.e. getting promoted laterally to a new company and not having to spend a year in a lesser position watching someone do your job while you "learn" from them.)

People don't often "learn" from holding a clipboard. They simply sit, with the same level of experience, wasting a year of their talents watching someone play poorly while they bide their time and ready themselves for the opportunity to start. That's what's so frustrating when people keep making this argument, when a QB comes off the bench after being the backup for a year they are still an unproven commodity. No one ever says "Here's Jason Campbell in his first professional start, he ought to be ready to go after taking a year and a half off from playing competitive football! That experience he gained from watching Mark Brunell throw 23 touchdowns last year sure has readied him for the NFL!"

Is there anyone who really believes that the aforementioned Mark Brunell, Matt Hasselbeck, Trent Green, Tom Brady, Matt Cassel, or anyone who sat for a year was better served by the experience?

Isn't it just common sense that you learn by doing and getting feedback on your work? That's how life works, why would someone be benefited by not playing, by leading the scout team and by not actually performing the tasks needed to be successful in the NFL?

The idea that the Redskins take a QB in the first two rounds and sit him behind Rex Freaking Grossman so he can learn is almost offensive. It would shake my belief in the team, because that's not how well run franchises operate. (See: Steelers, Colts, Falcons, Eagles, Jets, Ravens, Giants, etc. who all started their QB's in their first seasons and reaped the rewards.)

1) On reflection, my analogy is no better than yours
2) I still don't think your analogy works, because equating NFL quarterbacks with being an accountant isn't necessarily fair. Playing qb for years at high school and college does not necessarily prepare a qb in any way for starting from day one in the NFL.
I agree that I would want a new young qb to start as soon as possible, but there's a playbook to be learnt and how to read NFL defences. And few of this year's qb's come without question marks over their basic throwing actions and footwork. Any coach will want to get to work on those before throwing them to the wolves. You can perform the tasks needed to get ready to start in the NFL by practicing and then standing on the sideline to watch. I wouldn't want any qb to play for the Redskins until he has been prepared to start, rather than being like a fish out of water. Certainly, you still don't know until he steps over the white line whether he is truly ready, but you can improve the odds.

Posted: **Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:05 pm**

Are we talking about this year's QB group or all college QBs that enter the NFL?

First of all - there is a general consensus by people that know this stuff, that most of this year's QBs are NOT ready to be thrust into the fray - Carolina's offense was the worst in the NFL and it looks like they will take Newton and start him but they have little choice

Is your point that all QBs would benefit more by starting ASAP as they will gain more by doing that than being prepared to play in the NFL by a QB coach and being put in when both they and the offense are deemed "ready" by the HC and OC? - I doubt that many would agree with that thinking

ALSO - While you may think that Grossman is the starting QB here, I seriously doubt that is the case - he's not even signed yet

I also do not think that IF (a big if, IMO) Mike brings in a QB - that QB will be made to start here in the first year UNLESS he shows he is ready AND the OC thinks that he will be able to handle it - I doubt that happens

Posted: **Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:12 pm**

Skinsfan55 wrote:
UK Skins Fan wrote: Whilst I agree that some qb's can come in and contribute right away, I don't think your analogy is right. You're not talking about throwing somebody in to be an admin assistant or payroll clerk - qb is a position that equates far more to a middle management role, at the very least. You wouldn't expect to have much success by taking on somebody straight out of high school and making them regional sales manager for your multi million dollar business, would you?

There is experience to be gained by a rookie playing in game situations, for sure. But it isn't necessarily worthwhile experience if their head is cluttered with thoughts of the new throwing mechanics that the coaches have been working on with them, instead of trying to read the defence and make the right throw.

I don't disagree that some rookies can come in and play and gain useful experience straight away, but it isn't a fallacy that most would be better served by holding a clipboard and watching an experienced pro for a year.

I'm going to nail my colours to the mast, and say that I hope we pick up Locker in the second round (or late first if we can trade down and get him that way), and let Shanahan work on his accuracy and learning the playbook for a year.
Forgive me if I'm not grasping the differences between the American and British educational systems but hiring a recent high school graduate for a middle management position is in no way analogous to drafting a college quarterback and starting him right away.

It would be much more akin to hiring a successful regional sales manager from a smaller firm. Which, seems to me, to be the natural order of things (i.e. getting promoted laterally to a new company and not having to spend a year in a lesser position watching someone do your job while you "learn" from them.)

People don't often "learn" from holding a clipboard. They simply sit, with the same level of experience, wasting a year of their talents watching someone play poorly while they bide their time and ready themselves for the opportunity to start. That's what's so frustrating when people keep making this argument, when a QB comes off the bench after being the backup for a year they are still an unproven commodity. No one ever says "Here's Jason Campbell in his first professional start, he ought to be ready to go after taking a year and a half off from playing competitive football! That experience he gained from watching Mark Brunell throw 23 touchdowns last year sure has readied him for the NFL!"

Is there anyone who really believes that the aforementioned Mark Brunell, Matt Hasselbeck, Trent Green, Tom Brady, Matt Cassel, or anyone who sat for a year was better served by the experience?

Isn't it just common sense that you learn by doing and getting feedback on your work? That's how life works, why would someone be benefited by not playing, by leading the scout team and by not actually performing the tasks needed to be successful in the NFL?

The idea that the Redskins take a QB in the first two rounds and sit him behind Rex Freaking Grossman so he can learn is almost offensive. It would shake my belief in the team, because that's not how well run franchises operate. (See: Steelers, Colts, Falcons, Eagles, Jets, Ravens, Giants, etc. who all started their QB's in their first seasons and reaped the rewards.)

1) On reflection, my analogy is no better than yours
2) I still don't think your analogy works, because equating NFL quarterbacks with being an accountant isn't necessarily fair. Playing qb for years at high school and college does not necessarily prepare a qb in any way for starting from day one in the NFL.
I agree that I would want a new young qb to start as soon as possible, but there's a playbook to be learnt and how to read NFL defences. And few of this year's qb's come without question marks over their basic throwing actions and footwork. Any coach will want to get to work on those before throwing them to the wolves. You can perform the tasks needed to get ready to start in the NFL by practicing and then standing on the sideline to watch. I wouldn't want any qb to play for the Redskins until he has been prepared to start, rather than being like a fish out of water. Certainly, you still don't know until he steps over the white line whether he is truly ready, but you can improve the odds.

Posted: **Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:13 pm**

QBs like Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers and others, were much better QBs after time, MAINLY because they were in the same offensive system FOR EVER and were able to learn how to play in the NFL over a period of time

There are countless college QB "stars" that did not do well in the NFL MAINLY because they were ill prepared and asked to learn way too many different offensive systems - Jason Campbell should come to mind - remember how Gibbs thought that he would do well in the NFL - Gibbs may have been right but the fact was he had to ...

Posted: **Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:26 pm**

SkinsJock wrote: The current QB situation is interesting - I think that Kyle and Mike will keep McNabb if they cannot trade him - I think they must see that he's got more upside than Rex - I think that was evident in the last few games -

What last few games did you watch?

In Grossmans 3 games last year he had 7 TDs and 4 INTs and a rating of 81.2. IMO he had the offense running much better than it had in the previous 13 games with the exception of the Houston game. I'd rather see Grossman start the season than the McNabb I saw last year.

Posted: **Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:43 pm**

I'm not judging these 2 QBs based on just the last season

You can feel good about Grossman's abilities to QB this franchise, I don't - I think that Mike & Kyle know him very well and I think they know what they got in McNabb and MORE importantly, the 'potential' of both these QBs, a whole lot better than we do

my hunch is that McNabb is not here but I think he's got a lot more chance of being the starter here than Grossman

If you think that Mike & Kyle are fine with having Grossman as their starting QB that's fine - we'll wait and see how it plays out

Posted: **Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:42 pm**

I think the Redskins should keep Donovan McNabb and cut or trade Kyle Shanahan. But that's just me.

Posted: **Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:11 pm**

If that's possible maybe we could throw in an owner as well - I'm all for that

If Kyle is not going to cut it as an OC then we're truly screwed - Mike and Kyle are as much a package as Mike and Bruce are

the only good thing is that we have an owner that will fire everybody after this season if he doesn't think we're heading in the right direction OR if these guys continue to screw things up as badly as they've done since he handed them the reins

so the reality is - get this franchise on track or Dan will ... and soon

Posted: **Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:03 pm**

I feel that:

Any quarterback would be better served by immediately starting from college than by sitting

and

A quarterback who does not play well in his first year is not one you would want around anyway.

I don't feel like taking a break from playing competitive football is good for a QB who relies on reps, camaraderie with his teammates and fine tuning his game.

Running the scout team doesn't teach you jack.

Posted: **Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:05 am**

Skinsfan55 wrote:I feel that:

Any quarterback would be better served by immediately starting from college than by sitting

and

A quarterback who does not play well in his first year is not one you would want around anyway.

I don't feel like taking a break from playing competitive football is good for a QB who relies on reps, camaraderie with his teammates and fine tuning his game.

Running the scout team doesn't teach you jack.

Well, we disagree. But that's ok - you're still welcome to come over for tea and crumpets anytime

Posted: **Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:09 am**

^^^^ there is no franchise in the NFL that thinks or operates like that - not all QBs are ready to play and most franchises that need a QB should be very careful about getting him ready to play in the NFL - this is more true today than in the past

the learning curve from college to the NFL is huge and it is even more difficult for QBs

do you not know how bad a mistake it is for a franchise to draft a QB in the top 10 of ANY draft and then find out in the next year that he will not be a really good QB?

there is a reason that some teams always seem to be in the top 10 of the NFL draft - they have made bad draft decisions - this is especially true of making a bad decision on a QB

Posted: **Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:41 am**

SkinsJock wrote:^^^^ there is no franchise in the NFL that thinks or operates like that - not all QBs are ready to play and most franchises that need a QB should be very careful about getting him ready to play in the NFL - this is more true today than in the past

the learning curve from college to the NFL is huge and it is even more difficult for QBs

do you not know how bad a mistake it is for a franchise to draft a QB in the top 10 of ANY draft and then find out in the next year that he will not be a really good QB?

there is a reason that some teams always seem to be in the top 10 of the NFL draft - they have made bad draft decisions - this is especially true of making a bad decision on a QB

Right, I am saying if you draft a QB and he is not at least average or better in his first season then you made a mistake in drafting him. It's better for the player to start right away and better for the franchise because you immediately see what you have in him. You're not saying anything in that last point that doesn't jive with my argument.

Posted: **Fri Apr 15, 2011 9:39 am**

I do not think that it is good for a rookie QB to start a game until the HC or OC think he's ready to start - I don't agree that starting a rookie QB is better for him if the QB or the offense is not ready for him to start - NO WAY, NEVER

that is especially not happening here - Stafford started because they thought he was ready and that it would work for him
I do not agree with your premise that it would be better for "any" QB to play before the HC or the OC thinks he's ready to, let alone in his rookie year

BOT - we do NOT look like getting a QB in this year's draft that will be ready to start this year

Posted: **Fri Apr 15, 2011 9:40 am**

SkinsJock wrote:I'm not judging these 2 QBs based on just the last season

You can feel good about Grossman's abilities to QB this franchise, I don't - I think that Mike & Kyle know him very well and I think they know what they got in McNabb and MORE importantly, the 'potential' of both these QBs, a whole lot better than we do

my hunch is that McNabb is not here but I think he's got a lot more chance of being the starter here than Grossman

If you think that Mike & Kyle are fine with having Grossman as their starting QB that's fine - we'll wait and see how it plays out

First off, how can you say that Kyle didn't want Rex when Kyle brought Rex with him?

And how can you NOT use the last season as comparison? Last year was the only statistically relavent year TO make the comparison. Rex has been a journeyman and McDirtball has been in 1 offense his entire career until he was traded to us

. The only relavent comparison can be both QBs in the same system. I would have even given McDirtball a pass if he improved over the course of the season, but he didn't even do that, so I disqualify his newness to the system as a root cause for his lack of production,

You can spew generalities about front office support and not use any facts to regurgitate the same long winded nonsense if you want, but the facts are that McNabb sucked in this system and Rex did better than McNabb did.

Posted: **Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:40 pm**

let's try and clear it up a little

VetSkinsFan wrote:First off, how can you say that Kyle didn't want Rex when Kyle brought Rex with him?

I think Kyle brought in Rex because he thought that Rex would be a good back-up to have and he could help everyone as he was familiar with Kyle's offense

VetSkinsFan wrote:And how can you NOT use the last season as comparison? Last year was the only statistically relavent year TO make the comparison. Rex has been a journeyman and McDirtball has been in 1 offense his entire career until he was traded to us . The only relavent comparison can be both QBs in the same system. I would have even given McDirtball a pass if he improved over the course of the season, but he didn't even do that, so I disqualify his newness to the system as a root cause for his lack of production,

You can spew generalities about front office support and not use any facts to regurgitate the same long winded nonsense if you want, but the facts are that McNabb sucked in this system and Rex did better than McNabb did.

man! that's a lot of spewing

it sounds like you're a little upset - sorry about that

I think that McNabb did not work out as well as Mike & Kyle thought - DUH

fact is - McNabb did not work out as well as a lot of people & fans here thought - some of whom know a lot more about this stuff than you or I

I might be wrong

all I'm pointing out is that I doubt that Mike or Kyle thought that Grossman was better than McNabb before the season and AFTER seeing McNabb not play as well as they wanted or expected, they put in Grossman

I still do NOT think that Mike thinks that Grossman can be the starting QB here - despite what happened last season and based on both QB's past history - NOT just last season, I think that Mike still thinks that McNabb offers the franchise a better interim starting QB here than Grossman

I do NOT think that McNabb will be the starting QB here this season BUT he's got a better chance than Grossman - I just think that as bad as he looked he's still a better QB for what Mike wants - maybe not Kyle

I like it when fans get all twisted and upset about stuff - especially some here

Posted: **Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:43 pm**

just for the record - I think McNabb is a better QB than Grossman and we need to get a new QB

Posted: **Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:46 pm**

Well, for the record, McNabb IS a better quarterback than Grossman!

BUT, the question is, are there any potential rookie quarterbacks out there who are likely to be better than either Grossman, McNabb, or even Beck - this season? Because I wouldn't want to start any of them unless they are.

Posted: **Fri Apr 15, 2011 1:41 pm**

UK Skins Fan wrote:Well, for the record, McNabb IS a better quarterback than Grossman!

BUT, the question is, are there any potential rookie quarterbacks out there who are likely to be better than either Grossman, McNabb, or even Beck - this season? Because I wouldn't want to start any of them unless they are.

this is THE problem Trevor - we need a QB and it looks like Locker might be here - - Soooo - IF Locker is going to be the future great, how long will it take - Locker looked good in 2009 but not so good in 2010

so we need a QB for the future and what do we do till he's ready to go

I don't mind Grossman, I just don't see Mike thinking that Grossman is either a starter OR a mentor

the bigger issue is - I think that Mike still thinks this franchise is not as far away from being competitive as it really is - we should be looking to get as many picks as we can and I'm not sure he will give up on getting Locker

I know it's not easy but I hope we can have picks in the first 4 rounds, even though that might mean not getting Locker

Posted: **Mon Apr 18, 2011 9:07 am**

SkinsJock wrote:let's try and clear it up a little
VetSkinsFan wrote:First off, how can you say that Kyle didn't want Rex when Kyle brought Rex with him?
I think Kyle brought in Rex because he thought that Rex would be a good back-up to have and he could help everyone as he was familiar with Kyle's offense

VetSkinsFan wrote:And how can you NOT use the last season as comparison? Last year was the only statistically relavent year TO make the comparison. Rex has been a journeyman and McDirtball has been in 1 offense his entire career until he was traded to us . The only relavent comparison can be both QBs in the same system. I would have even given McDirtball a pass if he improved over the course of the season, but he didn't even do that, so I disqualify his newness to the system as a root cause for his lack of production,

You can spew generalities about front office support and not use any facts to regurgitate the same long winded nonsense if you want, but the facts are that McNabb sucked in this system and Rex did better than McNabb did.
man! that's a lot of spewing

it sounds like you're a little upset - sorry about that

I think that McNabb did not work out as well as Mike & Kyle thought - DUH

fact is - McNabb did not work out as well as a lot of people & fans here thought - some of whom know a lot more about this stuff than you or I
I might be wrong
Before he was brought in, I never wanted McDirtball here, but I gave him the benefit since he was in B&G. I never wanted him. ANd please, don't put you and I in the same category.

all I'm pointing out is that I doubt that Mike or Kyle thought that Grossman was better than McNabb before the season and AFTER seeing McNabb not play as well as they wanted or expected, they put in Grossman
Such insight...or is that hindsight?

I still do NOT think that Mike thinks that Grossman can be the starting QB here - despite what happened last season and based on both QB's past history - NOT just last season, I think that Mike still thinks that McNabb offers the franchise a better interim starting QB here than Grossman
McDirtball didn't perform as well in the offense as sexy Rexy did, but he still gives the team a better chance? That isn't really possible is it?

I do NOT think that McNabb will be the starting QB here this season BUT he's got a better chance than Grossman - I just think that as bad as he looked he's still a better QB for what Mike wants - maybe not Kyle
And here lies the problem. Nepotism was what happened in Detriot. It all was crap after that. One of the biggest problems is right here.

I like it when fans get all twisted and upset about stuff - especially some here
It's just frustrating to read all of your long winded posts and don't know if I'm wasting my time. About 1/2 the time, you say the exact same thing.

Posted: **Mon Apr 18, 2011 9:08 am**

Won't let me delete the double post...

Posted: **Mon Apr 18, 2011 9:16 am**

Mcnugget is gone, ya'll can't honestly expect the man to stay here. All I'm asking is people stop putting his name in their possible future situations here.

I'm going with Rex as the starter and I'm thinking we're drafting a QB. Dude who's here now will be Rex's backup. Do I like any of that, no not really but Vet is right, they brought Rex in because he knows that offense. We've seen that he knows it, the only question is how are we gonna build our team around that youngbuck who's sitting on the bench eager to get in. (whoever that will be).

Remember you guys are the ones who always tell me about patience and I'm the one who always say damn that, SB RIGHT NOW!.. but even SB right now needs some patience. Lets go with Rex now because we have him cheap and we can build on other stuff we need. That's all I'm saying.

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

We need a quarterback!

Re: We need a quarterback!