Page 3 of 4

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:45 pm
by dlc
I don't get the criticism of McNabb. If you watched the game AND look at the numbers, Rodgers and McNabb weren't very different. Both missed some passes they should've had. Rodgers had some drops and McNabb had some instances where GB held or PI'd the receiver on the play. One big difference is McNabb got the win.

What do we expect from this guy? These boards were filled with JC apologists for years because there were no weapons, and now that McNabb comes in its his fault we can't run, we can't pass protect.

Our saving grace is he can throw the long ball which has made up for our inability to march the ball down the field consistently. Until we see able to sit in the pocket at least a few times, have a run game to get some balance, AND he loses us the game despite that is when I think he's where the criticism goes.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:49 pm
by tribeofjudah
EVEN sweeter that the pukes lost to Tenn.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:50 pm
by dlc
dlc wrote:I don't get the criticism of McNabb. If you watched the game AND look at the numbers, Rodgers and McNabb weren't very different. Both missed some passes they should've had. Rodgers had some drops and McNabb had some instances where GB held or PI'd the receiver on the play. One big difference is McNabb got the win.

What do we expect from this guy? These boards were filled with JC apologists for years because there were no weapons, and now that McNabb comes in its his fault we can't run, we can't pass protect.

Our saving grace is he can throw the long ball which has made up for our inability to march the ball down the field consistently. Until we see able to sit in the pocket at least a few times, have a run game to get some balance, AND he loses us the game despite that is when I think he's where the criticism goes.


I forgot, Rodgers threw the pic that lost them the game. After watching Brees falter this week, besides Peyton, who would you consider a good QB. Throw a name out, and I'm sure this season I can make a case for why he sucks using similar McNabb criticism.

Props to the D. Haslett has surprised me. He sees that we can get some pressure without gambling too much, and it has paid dividends the past two weeks. Continue to play smart. Timely gambles instead of balls to the wall is how to be a good team.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:09 pm
by Bob 0119
Norv Turner just lost to Jason Campbell and Rock Cartwright.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:18 pm
by jeremyroyce
tribeofjudah wrote:People can/will say all they want:
Clay was out
Finley was out
Lee was out

Who Cares.....we Smashed them UP. Every game we've played, the OTHER team sustains MASS INJURIES.

I don't wish anyone to be injured...but this is the NFL


I completely agree with you. We are a physical football team and I'm tired of hearin all the whining and the excuses as to why the other team lost to the Redskins.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:18 pm
by Countertrey
Bob 0119 wrote:Norv Turner just lost to Jason Campbell and Rock Cartwright.


well... something had to give, I suppose.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:41 pm
by SKINFAN
So this is what it's like to have a real QB under center. He hides deficiencies in the line and a subpar running game (compared to what we are used to). Also, I have not seen so many 30+ yd completions in one game in a looooong long while, it is very very nice.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:51 pm
by Bob 0119
jeremyroyce wrote:
tribeofjudah wrote:People can/will say all they want:
Clay was out
Finley was out
Lee was out

Who Cares.....we Smashed them UP. Every game we've played, the OTHER team sustains MASS INJURIES.

I don't wish anyone to be injured...but this is the NFL


I completely agree with you. We are a physical football team and I'm tired of hearin all the whining and the excuses as to why the other team lost to the Redskins.


Of course you could just as easily say

Portis was out
Haynesworth was out
Dockery was out
Brown was out
Williams was out (that's 3/5 our starting o-line)

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:53 pm
by grampi
Hoss wrote:
grampi wrote:
Hoss wrote:
Skinsfan55 wrote:McNabb's final line doesn't look too bad, but he missed a lot of easy throws and kept up his rep as a guy who skips passes on the turf while under pressure. He was pressured for sure, but that's no excuse for the inaccuracy he showed today. Throwing over, behind and under receivers all game long. He made some pretty throws to keep us in the game, and eventually we won, but I'm not feeling great about Donnie Mac as our starting QB. He looks like a guy on his last legs. Is he hurt, just learning the system or is he just not that great?


maybe it had to do with the fact that he had a green jersey in his grille 1.5 secs after the snap???? :hmm:


That was true for the vast majority of the game, but to be fair, McNabb did miss more than a couple of what should've been gimme completeions.


yup..you're right.

also orakpo missed some sacks....cooley dropped a few...moss also. i saw landry miss a few tackles and the oline was HORRENDOUS.

we sucked.....but you know what?

we won and not only did we win...but we showed some GUTS.

i will take that against the alternative. :wink:


You're getting a little carried away now. All I meant was that McNabb was good, just not perfect.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:00 pm
by RayNAustin
dlc wrote:I don't get the criticism of McNabb. If you watched the game AND look at the numbers, Rodgers and McNabb weren't very different. Both missed some passes they should've had. Rodgers had some drops and McNabb had some instances where GB held or PI'd the receiver on the play. One big difference is McNabb got the win.

What do we expect from this guy? These boards were filled with JC apologists for years because there were no weapons, and now that McNabb comes in its his fault we can't run, we can't pass protect.

Our saving grace is he can throw the long ball which has made up for our inability to march the ball down the field consistently. Until we see able to sit in the pocket at least a few times, have a run game to get some balance, AND he loses us the game despite that is when I think he's where the criticism goes.


Good points. And even though offensively, the Redskins have been inconsistent and out of sync .. it's a combination of bad throws, bad protections, and no consistent run game. I think these are natural growing pains of a new offense ... even if they bring back bad memories.

The real key here is that McNabb provides leadership to a team that hasn't had that at the QB position for a long while, and his demonstrated ability to hit the big play inspires confidence on both sides of the ball.

Today, I think the Skins D really played a whale of a game against a very talented offense .... YES they gave up a lot of yards, but it's all about POINTS .... and they held GB to 13 total ... and only 3 in the second half. You really cannot ask for much more than that from your defense.

Overall, this team is a work in progress ... but so far, they've managed to win some games against good opponents even with those growing pains.

That should have everyone inspired and optimistic about the future.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:03 pm
by Wahoo McDaniels
The Hogster wrote:
Skinsfan55 wrote:McNabb's final line doesn't look too bad, but he missed a lot of easy throws and kept up his rep as a guy who skips passes on the turf while under pressure. He was pressured for sure, but that's no excuse for the inaccuracy he showed today. Throwing over, behind and under receivers all game long. He made some pretty throws to keep us in the game, and eventually we won, but I'm not feeling great about Donnie Mac as our starting QB. He looks like a guy on his last legs. Is he hurt, just learning the system or is he just not that great?


None of the above. You're just wrong.


Somebody's delusional. It did happen, the entire stadium felt it. :roll:

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:16 pm
by grampi
RayNAustin wrote:
dlc wrote:I don't get the criticism of McNabb. If you watched the game AND look at the numbers, Rodgers and McNabb weren't very different. Both missed some passes they should've had. Rodgers had some drops and McNabb had some instances where GB held or PI'd the receiver on the play. One big difference is McNabb got the win.

What do we expect from this guy? These boards were filled with JC apologists for years because there were no weapons, and now that McNabb comes in its his fault we can't run, we can't pass protect.

Our saving grace is he can throw the long ball which has made up for our inability to march the ball down the field consistently. Until we see able to sit in the pocket at least a few times, have a run game to get some balance, AND he loses us the game despite that is when I think he's where the criticism goes.


Good points. And even though offensively, the Redskins have been inconsistent and out of sync .. it's a combination of bad throws, bad protections, and no consistent run game. I think these are natural growing pains of a new offense ... even if they bring back bad memories.

The real key here is that McNabb provides leadership to a team that hasn't had that at the QB position for a long while, and his demonstrated ability to hit the big play inspires confidence on both sides of the ball.

Today, I think the Skins D really played a whale of a game against a very talented offense .... YES they gave up a lot of yards, but it's all about POINTS .... and they held GB to 13 total ... and only 3 in the second half. You really cannot ask for much more than that from your defense.

Overall, this team is a work in progress ... but so far, they've managed to win some games against good opponents even with those growing pains.

That should have everyone inspired and optimistic about the future.


Something else I've noticed about these guys is they're now pulling together as a TEAM, rather than a group of individuals playing on the same field (which is what I'm used to seeing). This is what makes teams tough to beat!

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:17 pm
by aswas71788
dlc wrote:I don't get the criticism of McNabb. If you watched the game AND look at the numbers, Rodgers and McNabb weren't very different. Both missed some passes they should've had. Rodgers had some drops and McNabb had some instances where GB held or PI'd the receiver on the play. One big difference is McNabb got the win.

What do we expect from this guy? These boards were filled with JC apologists for years because there were no weapons, and now that McNabb comes in its his fault we can't run, we can't pass protect.

Our saving grace is he can throw the long ball which has made up for our inability to march the ball down the field consistently. Until we see able to sit in the pocket at least a few times, have a run game to get some balance, AND he loses us the game despite that is when I think he's where the criticism goes.


McNabb is not perfect. He has always been known to miss passes but his play is so far above Campbell it is not even measurable. Campbell could not even hold onto the starting quarterback job in Oakland, who had no other viable quarterback on their roster.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:19 pm
by grampi
aswas71788 wrote:
dlc wrote:I don't get the criticism of McNabb. If you watched the game AND look at the numbers, Rodgers and McNabb weren't very different. Both missed some passes they should've had. Rodgers had some drops and McNabb had some instances where GB held or PI'd the receiver on the play. One big difference is McNabb got the win.

What do we expect from this guy? These boards were filled with JC apologists for years because there were no weapons, and now that McNabb comes in its his fault we can't run, we can't pass protect.

Our saving grace is he can throw the long ball which has made up for our inability to march the ball down the field consistently. Until we see able to sit in the pocket at least a few times, have a run game to get some balance, AND he loses us the game despite that is when I think he's where the criticism goes.


McNabb is not perfect. He has always been known to miss passes but his play is so far above Campbell it is not even measurable. Campbell could not even hold onto the starting quarterback job in Oakland, who had no other viable quarterback on their roster.


Yep, even on one of his off days, McNabb is several steps above JC.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:23 pm
by aswas71788
Skinsfan55 wrote:
ATX_Skins wrote:
Skinsfan55 wrote:McNabb's final line doesn't look too bad, but he missed a lot of easy throws and kept up his rep as a guy who skips passes on the turf while under pressure. He was pressured for sure, but that's no excuse for the inaccuracy he showed today. Throwing over, behind and under receivers all game long. He made some pretty throws to keep us in the game, and eventually we won, but I'm not feeling great about Donnie Mac as our starting QB. He looks like a guy on his last legs. Is he hurt, just learning the system or is he just not that great?


Dude, really.... The guy managed one hell of a game. He didn't turn it over and made some good plays. The o-line was terrible. Ehh, whatever, hate on him all you want, we just won.


Hate on him? Christ, even when he was with the Eagles I was a fan of his (when they weren't playing the Redskins of course.)

I thought he looked absolutely terrible last week against Philly (we won in spite of him) and this week he made a lot of bad throws, it's unbelievable to me that people are giving him all these props when it's pretty clear he's been mediocre for the Skins so far.

I hope he somewhat returns to his old form as he gets more familiar with the scheme and the running game picks up... but at this point I am not even positive he's going to get that extension he's after.


Keep in mind that McNabb's mediocre play is better that Campbells best.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:27 pm
by Wahoo McDaniels
grampi wrote:
aswas71788 wrote:
dlc wrote:I don't get the criticism of McNabb. If you watched the game AND look at the numbers, Rodgers and McNabb weren't very different. Both missed some passes they should've had. Rodgers had some drops and McNabb had some instances where GB held or PI'd the receiver on the play. One big difference is McNabb got the win.

What do we expect from this guy? These boards were filled with JC apologists for years because there were no weapons, and now that McNabb comes in its his fault we can't run, we can't pass protect.

Our saving grace is he can throw the long ball which has made up for our inability to march the ball down the field consistently. Until we see able to sit in the pocket at least a few times, have a run game to get some balance, AND he loses us the game despite that is when I think he's where the criticism goes.


McNabb is not perfect. He has always been known to miss passes but his play is so far above Campbell it is not even measurable. Campbell could not even hold onto the starting quarterback job in Oakland, who had no other viable quarterback on their roster.


Yep, even on one of his off days, McNabb is several steps above JC.


News flash. JC was the QB today when Oakland beat San Diego. Do you want to try a different example?

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:36 pm
by SKINFAN
Dmac is playing with a depleted line, several starters are hurt, a running game that is not where it should be, Yet, he manages to get 322 yds passing. Sure he missed some throws, some open receivers, He may not be the perfect QB, but he gets it done, he is our offense right now until the running games gets going again and we get a decent O line in front of him. He's making lemonade out of lemons :)

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:39 pm
by grampi
Wahoo McDaniels wrote:
grampi wrote:
aswas71788 wrote:
dlc wrote:I don't get the criticism of McNabb. If you watched the game AND look at the numbers, Rodgers and McNabb weren't very different. Both missed some passes they should've had. Rodgers had some drops and McNabb had some instances where GB held or PI'd the receiver on the play. One big difference is McNabb got the win.

What do we expect from this guy? These boards were filled with JC apologists for years because there were no weapons, and now that McNabb comes in its his fault we can't run, we can't pass protect.

Our saving grace is he can throw the long ball which has made up for our inability to march the ball down the field consistently. Until we see able to sit in the pocket at least a few times, have a run game to get some balance, AND he loses us the game despite that is when I think he's where the criticism goes.


McNabb is not perfect. He has always been known to miss passes but his play is so far above Campbell it is not even measurable. Campbell could not even hold onto the starting quarterback job in Oakland, who had no other viable quarterback on their roster.


Yep, even on one of his off days, McNabb is several steps above JC.


News flash. JC was the QB today when Oakland beat San Diego. Do you want to try a different example?


Nope, and I don't care what JC did for the Faiders today. The Skins definitely have a better chance of winning with DM behind the center....

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:42 pm
by Countertrey
Wahoo McDaniels wrote:
grampi wrote:
aswas71788 wrote:
dlc wrote:I don't get the criticism of McNabb. If you watched the game AND look at the numbers, Rodgers and McNabb weren't very different. Both missed some passes they should've had. Rodgers had some drops and McNabb had some instances where GB held or PI'd the receiver on the play. One big difference is McNabb got the win.

What do we expect from this guy? These boards were filled with JC apologists for years because there were no weapons, and now that McNabb comes in its his fault we can't run, we can't pass protect.

Our saving grace is he can throw the long ball which has made up for our inability to march the ball down the field consistently. Until we see able to sit in the pocket at least a few times, have a run game to get some balance, AND he loses us the game despite that is when I think he's where the criticism goes.


McNabb is not perfect. He has always been known to miss passes but his play is so far above Campbell it is not even measurable. Campbell could not even hold onto the starting quarterback job in Oakland, who had no other viable quarterback on their roster.


Yep, even on one of his off days, McNabb is several steps above JC.


News flash. JC was the QB today when Oakland beat San Diego. Do you want to try a different example?


One come from behind victory in 5 years? Nah, the example still works.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:43 pm
by cvillehog
There's a lot of season left, but let's consider for a moment the accepted storyline about the Redskins this season: old, under talented, one of the hardest schedules, and the worst team in the division.

Yet, this team has pulled out 3 wins against teams they were supposed to lose to (and one loss to a team they were supposed to beat), including two road division wins. They are getting it done any way they can, and while the almost-worst ranked defense has given up plenty of yards, they aren't giving up very many points. Meanwhile, when the offense has clicked, they have looked crazy dangerous (granted, they haven't clicked very often, but how great were the first few series against Philly?). It's been practically forever since we've strung together two wins, and I'm really enjoying it, no matter where this season ends up.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:00 pm
by dlc
Countertrey wrote:
Wahoo McDaniels wrote:
grampi wrote:
aswas71788 wrote:
dlc wrote:I don't get the criticism of McNabb. If you watched the game AND look at the numbers, Rodgers and McNabb weren't very different. Both missed some passes they should've had. Rodgers had some drops and McNabb had some instances where GB held or PI'd the receiver on the play. One big difference is McNabb got the win.

What do we expect from this guy? These boards were filled with JC apologists for years because there were no weapons, and now that McNabb comes in its his fault we can't run, we can't pass protect.

Our saving grace is he can throw the long ball which has made up for our inability to march the ball down the field consistently. Until we see able to sit in the pocket at least a few times, have a run game to get some balance, AND he loses us the game despite that is when I think he's where the criticism goes.


McNabb is not perfect. He has always been known to miss passes but his play is so far above Campbell it is not even measurable. Campbell could not even hold onto the starting quarterback job in Oakland, who had no other viable quarterback on their roster.


Yep, even on one of his off days, McNabb is several steps above JC.


News flash. JC was the QB today when Oakland beat San Diego. Do you want to try a different example?


One come from behind victory in 5 years? Nah, the example still works.


For those who saw what happened, the defense won them that game (perhaps with the lack of SD ball security as well). If they had game planned JC, they would shutdown his safety valve since all he seemed to do was hit his tight ends or RBs.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:03 pm
by Countertrey
I listened for a bit on Sirius, and it was check down, check down, check down...

Same old, same old.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:04 pm
by spenser
Scottskins wrote:i personally sign dmac to a 2 year extension and go after a franchise guy next draft who can sit behind dmac for 1-2 years...


This HAS to be what we do. We have our LT, now we need a qb that can sit and learn from a winner like McNabb, and learn the system.

And for the record, i agree with Cleg. Mcnabb has not had much to work with other than Moss and Cooley. I am one of the people that was/is so frustrated with #5 when he throws dirt balls and misses open receivers. Then I thin about all the times J. Cambell would have inevitably fumbled on any number of those sacks mcnabb took. If Campbell didnt go all Origami and fold up before the 4th quarter, he surely would have fumbled on that last sack Mcnabb took.

Also, I dont know that stats, but it seems like we have already in 5 games had more deep throws completed that ALL of last few years. It aint always pretty but it could be so much worse. Still learing the offense, still Iffy O-lilne, NO #2 WR (although A.Armstrong could prove me worng on that hopefully), No consistent running game.... and yet we have beaten eagles, cowboys, packers. I'll take it.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:12 pm
by Countertrey
spenser wrote:
Scottskins wrote:i personally sign dmac to a 2 year extension and go after a franchise guy next draft who can sit behind dmac for 1-2 years...


This HAS to be what we do. We have our LT, now we need a qb that can sit and learn from a winner like McNabb, and learn the system.

And for the record, i agree with Cleg. Mcnabb has not had much to work with other than Moss and Cooley. I am one of the people that was/is so frustrated with #5 when he throws dirt balls and misses open receivers. Then I thin about all the times J. Cambell would have inevitably fumbled on any number of those sacks mcnabb took. If Campbell didnt go all Origami and fold up before the 4th quarter, he surely would have fumbled on that last sack Mcnabb took.

Also, I dont know that stats, but it seems like we have already in 5 games had more deep throws completed that ALL of last few years. It aint always pretty but it could be so much worse. Still learing the offense, still Iffy O-lilne, NO #2 WR (although A.Armstrong could prove me worng on that hopefully), No consistent running game.... and yet we have beaten eagles, cowboys, packers. I'll take it.


I suspect that's the plan... but they need to find interior O line, a big WR, at least one cover corner, and an ILB/OLB.

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:12 pm
by DarthMonk
Deadskins wrote:I'm so glad we won this game, because now I can say what a horrible officiating game it was, without it sounding like sour grapes. Truly one of the worst called games I've ever seen. The Packers were holding all day on offense, and interfering on D with impunity. Something needs to be done.


ECHOECHOECHO

NOW I GET TO SAY THEY TRIED TO TAKE IT FROM US BUT WE WON ANYWAY. I WAS GOING TO HAVE TO WALK AROUND MUM BECAUSE I REFUSE TO BLAME THE 3 BLIND MICE. "WITH IMPUNITY" IS RIGHT ON.

DarthMonk