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

chiefhog44 wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:

ChrisHanburger wrote:

1niksder wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

TincoSkin wrote:it also doesnt help that CP is 500 years old and is lacking some of that young guy quickness

I actually thought that he showed a pretty good burst and good quickness the few times that the line actually opened up some running lanes.

Yeah, and another way to tell that CP was doing well was to watch Larry Johnson try to run when he gave Portis a spell. Huge difference between the two.

If Kyle had given either of them a shot instead of going to Armstrong on back to back calls, that last play of the game might not have happened. Back to back runs and .....

I think I read somewhere that the second fade was an option audibled by Mcnabb. A run may have been the first call.....

That said, I think people are missing obvious negatives. Our OL really is weak and won't get better. Neither Doc nor Rabach are adequate, and each of the others (including Williams) is suspect, with only Williams having an upside. That, and lack of 1st class RB's, means weak running game. which will be a problem all year. Defense is just as flawed. Our two outside linebackers don't tackle in space or close on ball carriers quickly enough, plus two of our three DL are terribly weak. We should not be committed to the 3-4 and will suffer for it. Landry was great, but a SS should not be the guy making all the tackles. We cannot expect to win if we cannot stop the run (which it appears we cannot), especially if we are weak offensively, which we are.


Reality check: if Campbell were still playing QB for us and had the same game McNabb had, we would be calling for his head, talking about how he can't score in the red zone, bitching about how he misses long passes, faulting his leadership, etc. Plus, we would add a new charge: failure to complete fifty percent of his passes. Double standard, anyone?

Agree about Rabach and Doc. Doc won't be starting by the end of the year though, and Williams is not suspect and neither is Brown. every time Brown was in the game, we had good drives...not so with Heyer. It made a huge difference.

I hate to combat your statement on Campbell, because I don't want this to turn into a 17 page Campbell argument, but here goes... First off, no way Campbell has this game. He would have been sacked at least twice and probably fumbled once. That is for sure. I haven't seen a Skins QB avoid some of that kind of pressure since.....hum...still thinking...over 20 years ago. Secondly, IF he had the game McNabb had in stats, I WOULD have been all over him, because he has had that kind of game his ENTIRE career, and I am sick of it. McNabb has had ONE full game in this system and has a history of being a GREAT QB. Campbell didn't have receivers drop passes on him. He just flat missed them. There were six passes I can think of that were flat dropped. Moss (1), Sellers (2), Armstrong (3). There may have been more, but 21-32 aint that bad for missing two weeks and playing your first game in a new system and coming out with a win against the Cowboys on the first go.

Only three passes were thown to Armstrong and he caught one of them. Another was not catchable and the third, the dropped pass, was a difficult opportunity that anybody might have dropped. No. McNabb was not particularly hindered by dropped passes-- in spite of the comments of McNabb apologists on this board, there are almost always dropped passes and there will always be dropped passes. McNabb's major problem was inaccuracy, a problem that has plagued him throughout his career.

Please don't bother trying to tell people that receivers didn't drop Campbell passes, that he just flat out missed them. That kind of nonsensical statement simply can't be backed up. The Skins flubbed his passes for years-- to the point of madness. Fact is, he has a higher career completion percentage than McNabb for a reason-- he's more accurate than McNabb.

Facts are facts. On offense, this year, it cannot yet be shown that the Skins are better than they were last year. Seemingly, they still can't score, open holes , keep out pass rushers, look like an NFL team in the red zone, etc. Maybe we are a better O team than we were last year. I hope so. It's just that we haven't proven it yet. For my money, McNabb looked better than Campbell in one area only-- he's better in avoiding a rush. Maybe that will make a big difference.

Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Making plays w his legs ie scrambling rushing and a better decision maker.. No ints... Negative Nancy dang! I believe he has a better arm and has more throw possibilities then jc having to be completely open. That fade route was a perfect throw, what thread is the pic in? I liked JC but he is gone so I'm rooting for d mcnugget to tear it up and be better across the board. He has after all only played one real game and parts of preseason has a spranged ankle. I hope he surprises a lot of people this week and continues week to week that's all we as fans can do. Stay positive

Oh ya last page.. Clearly Armstrong should have caught that perfect pass

crazyhorse1 wrote:in spite of the comments of McNabb apologists on this board, there are almost always dropped passes and there will always be dropped passes. McNabb's major problem was inaccuracy, a problem that has plagued him throughout his career.

McNabb apologists? What are you talking about ?

Also, while you said "despite" McNabb apologists your point would actually bolster them and contradict McNabb critics...

VetSkinsFan wrote:

TincoSkin wrote:it also doesnt help that CP is 500 years old and is lacking some of that young guy quickness

He's not even 30....

Vet's just afraid you'll say he's 750 years old.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Fact is, he has a higher career completion percentage than McNabb for a reason-- he's more accurate than McNabb.

Facts are facts. On offense, this year, it cannot yet be shown that the Skins are better than they were last year.

OK, let's talk facts. McNabb has the lowest INT percentage in NFL history. That right there should tell you he is a more accurate passer, even if he doesn't complete as many passes behind the LOS as Campbell. Anyone can complete 60% of their passes, if the pass only goes 3 yards from QB to receiver.

And you are ready to pronounce this offense as bad as last year's after one game? Seriously? How many points did we score against these Cowpies last season? Never mind the fact that McNabb hadn't played in three weeks, we were able to move the ball on several occasions, just didn't come away with 7. I guarantee that will get better as the season progresses. Something Campbell never delivered.

x2 let's have some confidence in a much better squad all around

I will take Qaulity passes over completion % anyday...

If Mcnabb throws 5-20, but throws 3 70 yard TD passes... I'll be happy.

SKINFAN wrote:

Countertrey wrote:CH:

Double standard, anyone?

How so? McNabb has something that Campbell has not... a history as a winner. A history as a legitimate leader. A history as a decisive playmaker. A history as a conference champion. A history as quick thinker.

Apples and oranges.

Really, Double standard....McNabb extended plays, got rid of the ball when he had to, stepped up in the pocket to avoid a def. lineman, throws LOW to Tana so he doesn't get killed after the catch, just generally ALERT in the pocket. When was the last time we had a QB that was like that. Also, our O line didn't do that good but we still won the game.

No touchdowns, no red zone O, no running game, less than 50% completions, less than 180 yards in the air. Disaster on offense and you're breaking your arms patting the quarterback's back. Alert in the pocket? Stepped up in the pocket? Got rid of the ball when he had to? Maybe his hair was combed nice too. Double standard. Yeah. No question about it.

Bucket wrote:I will take Qaulity passes over completion % anyday...

If Mcnabb throws 5-20, but throws 3 70 yard TD passes... I'll be happy.

So will I. In fact, I think McNabb is a great quarterback. It's just that I can't stand the over-the-top nonsense being said about him, Shanny, and Allen on this board. McNabb may or may not make it here. Too early to tell, and it looks to me the Shanny boys have so far blown FA acquistion and the draft and have instituted a new defense that is wrong for our team, As for Allen, his slick move trading a rookie to avoid paying him his salary still rankles.

crazyhorse1 wrote:So will I. In fact, I think McNabb is a great quarterback. It's just that I can't stand the over-the-top nonsense being said about him, Shanny, and Allen on this board. McNabb may or may not make it here. Too early to tell, and it looks to me the Shanny boys have so far blown FA acquistion and the draft and have instituted a new defense that is wrong for our team, As for Allen, his slick move trading a rookie to avoid paying him his salary still rankles.

I think most of the opinions are that McNabb is a good quarterback who will get more comfortable and improve, but I don't see many who are "over the top." We're a D driven team, we just need a quarterback who doesn't make mistakes and can reliably put together a couple of drives and give the D a break with some first downs and score enough points to win. Most of the JC stats you were citing were driven by yards when the game was already out of reach. Any decent D completely shut him down until they loosened up when they were well ahead. And then, yes, he completed passes and got some yards.

I'd like to share a few insights about Donovan McNabb. I'm a Syracuse fan (we're on the way back, I hope) and I saw him a number of times in the Carrier Dome. Because of him, I switched my allegience to the Eagles for 11 seasons. Now I'm pulling for the Burgandy and Gold.

He isn't always pretty. He's capable of being on and lighting up the scoreboard. He also can overthrow or underthrow if he's off during the game. The neat thing is, he wins most of time when he brings his C or B game. He usually finds a way.

One thing you can count on is that he will always be a leader. It will rub off on the rest of the Skins. He knows how to win in a classy way. A number of Philly fans didn't appreciate Donovan. Their loss. We did at SU. I hope you fans enjoy the ride, because the bus is headed in the right direction.

orangenorth wrote:I'd like to share a few insights about Donovan McNabb. I'm a Syracuse fan (we're on the way back, I hope) and I saw him a number of times in the Carrier Dome. Because of him, I switched my allegience to the Eagles for 11 seasons. Now I'm pulling for the Burgandy and Gold.

He isn't always pretty. He's capable of being on and lighting up the scoreboard. He also can overthrow or underthrow if he's off during the game. The neat thing is, he wins most of time when he brings his C or B game. He usually finds a way.

One thing you can count on is that he will always be a leader. It will rub off on the rest of the Skins. He knows how to win in a classy way. A number of Philly fans didn't appreciate Donovan. Their loss. We did at SU. I hope you fans enjoy the ride, because the bus is headed in the right direction.

Most Redskins fans have appreciated McNabb far more than most Eagles fans did. We could never understand that. All you have to do is look at his NFC East record to realize that the man understands, and knows how to win.

Eagles fans are... not worthy of the NFC East.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Bucket wrote:I will take Qaulity passes over completion % anyday...

If Mcnabb throws 5-20, but throws 3 70 yard TD passes... I'll be happy.

So will I. In fact, I think McNabb is a great quarterback. It's just that I can't stand the over-the-top nonsense being said about him, Shanny, and Allen on this board. McNabb may or may not make it here. Too early to tell, and it looks to me the Shanny boys have so far blown FA acquistion and the draft and have instituted a new defense that is wrong for our team, As for Allen, his slick move trading a rookie to avoid paying him his salary still rankles.

How exactly did we blow the draft? We have a new franchise LT, and got McNabb for our #2. Jarmon was our #3 (I still think that was a good deal, even though it was made by the previous FO), Riley was our #4, and looks like he could be good for the future. And we got Carriker for our #5.
That's a solid B+ draft class.

And the rookie we traded to the Rams was not going to get paid either way. It's the other rookies that made teams in 2010 that would split the 85% of Morris' salary, that we screwed out of around 5K each.

Deadskins wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Bucket wrote:I will take Qaulity passes over completion % anyday...

If Mcnabb throws 5-20, but throws 3 70 yard TD passes... I'll be happy.

So will I. In fact, I think McNabb is a great quarterback. It's just that I can't stand the over-the-top nonsense being said about him, Shanny, and Allen on this board. McNabb may or may not make it here. Too early to tell, and it looks to me the Shanny boys have so far blown FA acquistion and the draft and have instituted a new defense that is wrong for our team, As for Allen, his slick move trading a rookie to avoid paying him his salary still rankles.

How exactly did we blow the draft? We have a new franchise LT, and got McNabb for our #2. Jarmon was our #3 (I still think that was a good deal, even though it was made by the previous FO), Riley was our #4, and looks like he could be good for the future. And we got Carriker for our #5.
That's a solid B+ draft class.

And the rookie we traded to the Rams was not going to get paid either way. It's the other rookies that made teams in 2010 that would split the 85% of Morris' salary, that we screwed out of around 5K each.

OL was our No. 1 priority and we landed one OL (a no brainer). The only other draft pick to make the team is a second string linebacker. We did fine on trades. I didn't criticize us for trading for known commodities. What I question is our intelligence in regard to picking good players from the college ranks. We showed no such ability. Trading picks is not the same as making them. We've always traded picks. Same old, same old. Probably not the way to build for the future, which is what most of us wanted Shanny to do, until he did the opposite. Then most of us sold out on our former beliefs. Shanny's not to be criticized, no more than Gibbs was. Frankly, our willingness to be led by Daddy figures gives me the creeps. Also, here's a bulletin: Carriker had no tackles or assists against the pukes and Jarmon didn't figure. Neither did Riley. And McNabb got us six points. As for our unrevamped offensive line, it was impotent. We also had Galloway at WR, which must have been a joke. Need I mention LJ? Did we or did we not need an RB and a WR on draft day, as well as more than just Williams for OL.

There's only so much you can do in one draft class. Because of those trades, we only had two picks in the first 5 rounds (though, technically Jarmon was a draft pick, not a trade). How about giving McNabb and the offense more than one game before pronouncing them failures? We are going to be fine. You'll see.

crazyhorse1 wrote:What I question is our intelligence in regard to picking good players from the college ranks. We showed no such ability

Our first seems to have been used well. Our second was used for our starting QB. Our third was used for a guy who also seems like a very good D lineman. That's 2 starters and a regular player. After the third you're pretty hit or miss and to your point we got another LB. I'm not sure why you ignore the 3 undrafted free agents. We actually added a lot to the team in the draft and picking up undrafted FA's, who "come from the college ranks."

VetSkinsFan wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:In that picture it looks like the defender's left hand is touching the receiver before the ball is caught

I seem to remember that I felt on 1 of those 2 plays they could have called pass interference - it was not a terrible call to not call it but it could have gone our way

THEN AGAIN - the pass could/should have been caught

we're a lot better on offense - and that's a good thing

As long as they don't interfere, it's not pass interference. They've got to be doing something to interfere with the receiver's attempt to catch the ball. This IS a contact sport after all...

I TOTALLY agree Vet ... BUT - no matter what you and I think, the call CAN be made that "contact" was made BEFORE the ball arrived

I agree with your assertion BUT it could go either way is all - jast saying