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

CanesSkins26 wrote:

If this were true, then there wouldn't be any trades. Just arguing this is irrelevant. You need more then why did they trade him if they don't know he sucks unless you can show all trades are with players who suck.

When was the last time that you remember a team trading their starting qb to a division rival? Trades like this one happen extremely rarely.

I'll take a stab at this one, Sonny Jurgensen for Norm Snead in 1964.

Drew Bledsoe to the Bills in 02 is the last one I can think of. And boy did the Patriots get hosed on that one!

The reason it looks like McNabb fell off a cliff is because his supporting cast in Philly had been getting better year-over-year in a way that compensated for a more gradual decline. PFR's stats, for what they're worth, bear this out--his adjusted interception rate and completion percentages have gone down gradually since his last good year which was 2007. Without Maclin and Jackson to throw to, it's little wonder the bottom fell out.

McNabb spent most of his career as a QB who balanced his obvious faults with a risk-averse approach. It's easy to see why Shanahan thought he could work with a QB who could move well in the pocket and didn't throw interceptions. Problem is, McNabb's not that guy anymore, and he's at a point in his career when "not much worse" is probably the best case year-over-year production change a coach can count on.

McNabb shouldn't be the fall guy--it's not like he's the only part of the offense that needs to change. But he's probably the biggest, and almost no matter what else happens, the Skins will be better off when he's off the roster.

The fact that I haven't seen anyone disprove is why McNabb didn't get better as he got more comfortable as he put more time in the offense. He did not improve.

VetSkinsFan wrote:The fact that I haven't seen anyone disprove is why McNabb didn't get better as he got more comfortable as he put more time in the offense. He did not improve.

And you haven't addressed the dearth of passing targets, that the OL didn't improve until about the time he was benched or the running game with Torrain in and out of the lineup.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

If this were true, then there wouldn't be any trades. Just arguing this is irrelevant. You need more then why did they trade him if they don't know he sucks unless you can show all trades are with players who suck.

When was the last time that you remember a team trading their starting qb to a division rival? Trades like this one happen extremely rarely.

Teams seldom trade with division rivals and they seldom trade starting quarterbacks. But Andy Reid's not conventional anyway and never has been, so to just hang your hat on that is still weak.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

If this were true, then there wouldn't be any trades. Just arguing this is irrelevant. You need more then why did they trade him if they don't know he sucks unless you can show all trades are with players who suck.

When was the last time that you remember a team trading their starting qb to a division rival? Trades like this one happen extremely rarely.

Teams seldom trade with division rivals and they seldom trade starting quarterbacks. But Andy Reid's not conventional anyway and never has been, so to just hang your hat on that is still weak.

It's not just Andy Reid, though. Shanahan is ready to move on from McNabb also. You're talking about two very good head coaches, known for their coaching of offense, that have been willing to move on from McNabb, despite having unproven (Beck and Kolb) or mediocre (Rex) alternatives, in consecutive years.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote: When was the last time that you remember a team trading their starting qb to a division rival? Trades like this one happen extremely rarely.

Teams seldom trade with division rivals and they seldom trade starting quarterbacks. But Andy Reid's not conventional anyway and never has been, so to just hang your hat on that is still weak.

It's not just Andy Reid, though. Shanahan is ready to move on from McNabb also. You're talking about two very good head coaches, known for their coaching of offense, that have been willing to move on from McNabb, despite having unproven (Beck and Kolb) or mediocre (Rex) alternatives, in consecutive years.

It's ironic using Shannahan, who would have screwed up in his evaluation making the trade as the expert that McNabb's washed up. If we move on from McNabb I'm going to support who we turn to, but McNabb did a lot more then JC did with a completely anemic offense. I'd have liked him to have had a chance when the O line finally started blocking someone. I think Kyle wants someone to play exactly how he wants the QB position played. I also think Kyle has to grow as a coach and having a system, but also work with the strengths of the players he has. Ala Joe Gibbs. If he can't coach McNabb because McNabb's not exactly what he wants, it's his weakness not McNabbs.

I also think Kyle has to grow as a coach and having a system, but also work with the strengths of the players he has. Ala Joe Gibbs. If he can't coach McNabb because McNabb's not exactly what he wants, it's his weakness not McNabbs.

Well, he is a Shannahan so I wouldn't get my hopes up. Neither Shanahan, especially Mike, has seemed at all interested in adjusting our schemes to fit the personnel that we have. The 3-4 switch could not be a more fitting example of that.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

I also think Kyle has to grow as a coach and having a system, but also work with the strengths of the players he has. Ala Joe Gibbs. If he can't coach McNabb because McNabb's not exactly what he wants, it's his weakness not McNabbs.

Well, he is a Shannahan so I wouldn't get my hopes up. Neither Shanahan, especially Mike, has seemed at all interested in adjusting our schemes to fit the personnel that we have. The 3-4 switch could not be a more fitting example of that.

We agree on that and the switch to a 3-4 is a great example. We could have reduced the pain even if we were switching by taking steps and mixing it up, but they insisted on forcing a pure 3-4 on 4-3 players rather then making any adjustment for personnel at all. Just like they did with McNabb in ignoring any compromise at all to utilize his strengths.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

The Hogster wrote:I don't think anyone doubts that McNabb is an aging player who is declining physically. But, the problem here is that we don't have, Mike Vick, and Kevin Kolb on the bench. We have Grossman and Beck.

Maybe Beck can be the next Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers, but that remains to be seen. Kolb had come into games and started for McNabb. And, they had Vick. We have GROSSMAN AND BECK! LOL

When they traded McNabb, Vick had started exactly one game since being released from prison. His 2009 stats were 6-13 and 86 yards. If they had known what they had in Vick at the time they traded McNabb he would have been the starter initially, not Kolb.

As or Kolb, how exactly is he different than Beck? Both were drafted in the second round in the 2007 draft, Kolb with the 36th pick and Beck with the 40th, and neither has started more than 7 NFL games. I'm curious what you've seen in Kolb and his 7 NFL starts that makes you think he is so much better than Beck?

Beck had not started a game since his rookie season with the Miami Dolphins, a totally different system. Kolb started games two years ago and last year. Kolb was in the same system for his entire career and had multiple 300+ yard games in that system.

Beck has gone from the Dolphins to the Ravens to the Redskins and has not played in a live game in 4 years. Nobody can predict what Beck will become one day, but you can't really be comparing these guys.

Grant Paulsen, from 106.7, was reporting this morning that Kyle was asked before the McNabb trade if he thought he was a good fit for the system and apparently he expressed serious reservations about McNabb's ability to adapt to the offense. If they traded two picks for a qb than the OC wasn't comfortable with, then our front office is even worse than I thought it was.

CanesSkins26 wrote:Grant Paulsen, from 106.7, was reporting this morning that Kyle was asked before the McNabb trade if he thought he was a good fit for the system and apparently he expressed serious reservations about McNabb's ability to adapt to the offense. If they traded two picks for a qb than the OC wasn't comfortable with, then our front office is even worse than I thought it was.

What is the probability that the Danny said to Mike, I need to put a face on this team to enhance my ticket sells, if you grant me this one wish, I will get out of your hair for good? 1. Look how quick they marketed McNabb after the trade. 2. We know that Mike made it clear that it was Kyle's offense. Why would he force a QB on his son? 3. It appeared all season long that Mike was caught between Donovan and Kyle. 4. Fletcher Smith even said that it was mainly Kyle who has made it a difficult year for Donovan. 5. For Danny, he as proved that the priority is not winning but making a buck?

I said this last year and I will say it again. I dont like the Father and son coaching on the same staff.

I still feel Mike does not have the teams best interests in mind. I feel Mike only wants to help his son eventually become the next head coach. Just my gut feeling but there was plenty of evidence for this last year with the way Mcnabb was treated.

This is pretty ridiculous to think a Hall of fame QB has suddenly lost it when the year before he just made the playoffs?
We had close to the worst defense in the league last year. We gave up close to the most sacks last year. We had no true no 1 receiver. No real running game. What the heck did Mcnabb have to work with? Plus you add in a new offense to learn.

Just watch and see. When Mcnabb lands on the Vikings he is going to take them to the playoffs.

HEROHAMO wrote:I said this last year and I will say it again. I dont like the Father and son coaching on the same staff.

I still feel Mike does not have the teams best interests in mind. I feel Mike only wants to help his son eventually become the next head coach. Just my gut feeling but there was plenty of evidence for this last year with the way Mcnabb was treated.

This is pretty ridiculous to think a Hall of fame QB has suddenly lost it when the year before he just made the playoffs?
We had close to the worst defense in the league last year. We gave up close to the most sacks last year. We had no true no 1 receiver. No real running game. What the heck did Mcnabb have to work with? Plus you add in a new offense to learn.

Just watch and see. When Mcnabb lands on the Vikings he is going to take them to the playoffs.

I agree. I'm not a Kyle fan especially because he seems to be insecure. It seems as if he went out of his way to demonstrate his authority with the McNabb debacle. If we acquired McNabb on the cheap, then fine, but after giving away a 2nd and 3rd, you don't throw him under the bus. Then all of the leaks were just atrocious.

Definite failure, but at this point, I think it's clear McNabb won't be here. He'd be leading those workouts if so.

HEROHAMO wrote:I said this last year and I will say it again. I dont like the Father and son coaching on the same staff.

I still feel Mike does not have the teams best interests in mind. I feel Mike only wants to help his son eventually become the next head coach. Just my gut feeling but there was plenty of evidence for this last year with the way Mcnabb was treated.

This is pretty ridiculous to think a Hall of fame QB has suddenly lost it when the year before he just made the playoffs?
We had close to the worst defense in the league last year. We gave up close to the most sacks last year. We had no true no 1 receiver. No real running game. What the heck did Mcnabb have to work with? Plus you add in a new offense to learn.

Just watch and see. When Mcnabb lands on the Vikings he is going to take them to the playoffs.

They are two cookies cut from the same mold. That they agree doesn't mean Mike is putting coddling Kyle above the team. I've been the biggest one on the board arguing for McNabb, but I think sticking to facts rather then wild accusations is a lot more productive way to make that argument. What I highlighted was a good argument, stick to that, it's fact based.

This is pretty ridiculous to think a Hall of fame QB has suddenly lost it when the year before he just made the playoffs?

Not if he didn't put in the time and effort to learn the new offense, which seems to be the team's issue with McNabb.

IF Mike & Kyle do not think that McNabb can get it done here, I hope that these guys have a QB in mind because I still think that McNabb is better than Beck or Grossman & is the better leader at the QB position going forward - especially given the short time to get ready
I'd still like to see McNabb behind an offensive line that looked better at the end of last season

I'm thinking that a lot of the stuff between the Shanahans and McNabb has been mis-represented - as usual
PLUS - I just cannot get into thinking that Beck or Grossman are going to be able to handle the job well at all

i would like to remind everybody that this debate has really already been resolved, and pretty easily so.

i'm not going to look them up and post them again but it is a fact that Jason Campbell had a significantly better statistical season in '09 than McNabb did in 2010. if you don't believe me, look up the stats. and as bad as things around McNabb on the offense were last year, they were even worse in '09.

in 2010 the o-line was bad, but in 2009 the o-line was non-existant. and there was no Anthony Armstrong to at least provide even the slightest of secondary WR threats beyond Santana.



beyond that, i would like to add that not everyone who believes McNabb was no good last year is pronouncing him the cause of all the teams failings. we simply believe he proved himself to not be the answer at the QB position for this team.

HEROHAMO wrote:I said this last year and I will say it again. I dont like the Father and son coaching on the same staff.

I still feel Mike does not have the teams best interests in mind. I feel Mike only wants to help his son eventually become the next head coach. Just my gut feeling but there was plenty of evidence for this last year with the way Mcnabb was treated.

This is pretty ridiculous to think a Hall of fame QB has suddenly lost it when the year before he just made the playoffs?
We had close to the worst defense in the league last year. We gave up close to the most sacks last year. We had no true no 1 receiver. No real running game. What the heck did Mcnabb have to work with? Plus you add in a new offense to learn.

Just watch and see. When Mcnabb lands on the Vikings he is going to take them to the playoffs.

I seriously doubt that, if Mike's agenda is to ensure his son's career, he would permit anything that he didn't think would, in fact, address that goal. The bottom line is, anything that is good for Kyle Shanahan's reputation is also good for the Redskins. Harming one harms the other. To suggest that Mike would "get stupid" and do things that are counterproductive in order to help his son is ludicrous on it's face.

If the Vikings go to the playoffs with McNabb, so what? They are already one of the most talented teams in the league. McNabb is a decent quarterback... except that his forte is the ad lib (because, apparently, he can't or won't learn the system to Shanahan's satisfaction). In a circumstance where your offense may lend it'self to ad libbing quarterbacks (as does MN's) it wouldn't be a problem to have McNabb... though he is clearly not in the same league as Favre was at his prime, he is easily superior to Favre last season.

In other words, if McNabb leads MN to the playoffs, so what? That is not relevant to what he would or could do here.

die cowboys die wrote:i would like to remind everybody that this debate has really already been resolved, and pretty easily so.

i'm not going to look them up and post them again but it is a fact that Jason Campbell had a significantly better statistical season in '09 than McNabb did in 2010. if you don't believe me, look up the stats. and as bad as things around McNabb on the offense were last year, they were even worse in '09.

in 2010 the o-line was bad, but in 2009 the o-line was non-existant. and there was no Anthony Armstrong to at least provide even the slightest of secondary WR threats beyond Santana.



beyond that, i would like to add that not everyone who believes McNabb was no good last year is pronouncing him the cause of all the teams failings. we simply believe he proved himself to not be the answer at the QB position for this team.

It's clearly true, JC was the monster of garbage time and he had a lot of it to pad his stats

Countertrey wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:I said this last year and I will say it again. I dont like the Father and son coaching on the same staff.

I still feel Mike does not have the teams best interests in mind. I feel Mike only wants to help his son eventually become the next head coach. Just my gut feeling but there was plenty of evidence for this last year with the way Mcnabb was treated.

This is pretty ridiculous to think a Hall of fame QB has suddenly lost it when the year before he just made the playoffs?
We had close to the worst defense in the league last year. We gave up close to the most sacks last year. We had no true no 1 receiver. No real running game. What the heck did Mcnabb have to work with? Plus you add in a new offense to learn.

Just watch and see. When Mcnabb lands on the Vikings he is going to take them to the playoffs.

I seriously doubt that, if Mike's agenda is to ensure his son's career, he would permit anything that he didn't think would, in fact, address that goal. The bottom line is, anything that is good for Kyle Shanahan's reputation is also good for the Redskins. Harming one harms the other. To suggest that Mike would "get stupid" and do things that are counterproductive in order to help his son is ludicrous on it's face.

If the Vikings go to the playoffs with McNabb, so what? They are already one of the most talented teams in the league. McNabb is a decent quarterback... except that his forte is the ad lib (because, apparently, he can't or won't learn the system to Shanahan's satisfaction). In a circumstance where your offense may lend it'self to ad libbing quarterbacks (as does MN's) it wouldn't be a problem to have McNabb... though he is clearly not in the same league as Favre was at his prime, he is easily superior to Favre last season.

In other words, if McNabb leads MN to the playoffs, so what? That is not relevant to what he would or could do here.

Couldn't agree with this more.

I don't think McNabb is here this year but if Mike & Kyle decide to keep him because they think he's their best option then I'm all for it too

i'd love McNabb to show that he's still able to make things happen

I'm also VERY glad that we had McNabb at QB rather than Campbell - there is no way that Campbell could have handled the offense under Kyle and Mike

SkinsJock wrote:I don't think McNabb is here this year but if Mike & Kyle decide to keep him because they think he's their best option then I'm all for it too

i'd love McNabb to show that he's still able to make things happen

I'm also VERY glad that we had McNabb at QB rather than Campbell - there is no way that Campbell could have handled the offense under Kyle and Mike

I don't think McNabb will be here next year either. But I don't think what will happen will be certain until the next CBA is in place and the rules are clear. But for now I think McNabb is our best option. Once he's not a Redskin I'll move one and support those who are.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:if Mike's agenda is to ensure his son's career, he would permit anything that he didn't think would, in fact, address that goal. The bottom line is, anything that is good for Kyle Shanahan's reputation is also good for the Redskins. Harming one harms the other. To suggest that Mike would "get stupid" and do things that are counterproductive in order to help his son is ludicrous on it's face

Couldn't agree with this more.

Exactly the point. Mike would have to be an idiot to think his son could succeed and his team fail. And he's a lot of things but he's not an idiot. I don't know if he's the next Gibbs, but at this point the next Pardee would be pretty good. Gibbs got a solid team. Shannahan got a rag tag fugitive fleet. The next step isn't Super Bowls, it's a solid team. I think Shannahan will accomplish that. But accusations that he's for his son over his team are just silly.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:if Mike's agenda is to ensure his son's career, he would permit anything that he didn't think would, in fact, address that goal. The bottom line is, anything that is good for Kyle Shanahan's reputation is also good for the Redskins. Harming one harms the other. To suggest that Mike would "get stupid" and do things that are counterproductive in order to help his son is ludicrous on it's face

Couldn't agree with this more.

Exactly the point. Mike would have to be an idiot to think his son could succeed and his team fail. And he's a lot of things but he's not an idiot. I don't know if he's the next Gibbs, but at this point the next Pardee would be pretty good. Gibbs got a solid team. Shannahan got a rag tag fugitive fleet. The next step isn't Super Bowls, it's a solid team. I think Shannahan will accomplish that. But accusations that he's for his son over his team are just silly.

@ rag tag fugitive fleet...that about sums it up for me