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

CanesSkins26 wrote:

I think everyone understands that McNabb is going to do whatever Mike wants

Really? Like the time he refused to wear the plays wristband?

First of all the FO can decide what McNabb will do and besides that what proof can you offer that McNabb refused to wear a wristband with plays on it other than 'reports' which IMO are distorted - AND it seems to me that IF the reports are even partially true, we saw the result in the amount of play we got from McNabb at the end

McNabb's future QB play here WILL be determined by Mike Shanahan NOT McNabb

The ideal situation (which would piss off any "Suck and Luck" club members) is for Beck, Grossman and whomever is brought in, compete for the starting QB job AND have that QB do a serviceable job here

we are most likely still going to be a bit of a work in progress but I think from what we saw at the end of last season that we are going to be a little bit better than last year - I think they've added some players and we still have a chance to add some more PLUS they will in all likelihood have gotten rid of some 'distractions'

I think that both Kyle and Jim will do a better job also

First of all the FO can decide what McNabb will do and besides that what proof can you offer that McNabb refused to wear a wristband with plays on it other than 'reports' which IMO are distorted - AND it seems to me that IF the reports are even partially true, we saw the result in the amount of play we got from McNabb at the end

If the reports are wrong, why haven't the Skins come out and supported McNabb? Teams don't address all rumors obviously, but something that calls into question your qb's commitment to the team is usually something that results a coach, GM, teammate, etc. coming out in defense of the player.

McNabb's future QB play here WILL be determined by Mike Shanahan NOT McNabb

Not necessarily. If the Skins want to trade McNabb, he is going to have a lot of input on where he goes because of his contract. The Skins can't just trade McNabb wherever they want because he will need to redo his contract with his next team. McNabb certainly has some leverage here.

He said, she said - you're reaching a little here about what is 'reported' to have happened - we think it's likely but do not really know

McNabb is NOT a free agent - if McNabb wants to play here he can ONLY do that if Mike wants him to stay - If McNabb wants to go to another franchise he can ONLY do that if the Redskins want him to - he has some leverage but basically Mike makes the decision

CanesSkins26 wrote:

First of all the FO can decide what McNabb will do and besides that what proof can you offer that McNabb refused to wear a wristband with plays on it other than 'reports' which IMO are distorted - AND it seems to me that IF the reports are even partially true, we saw the result in the amount of play we got from McNabb at the end

If the reports are wrong, why haven't the Skins come out and supported McNabb? Teams don't address all rumors obviously, but something that calls into question your qb's commitment to the team is usually something that results a coach, GM, teammate, etc. defending out in defense.

C'mon - these guys are terrible at any and all communications

SkinsJock wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

First of all the FO can decide what McNabb will do and besides that what proof can you offer that McNabb refused to wear a wristband with plays on it other than 'reports' which IMO are distorted - AND it seems to me that IF the reports are even partially true, we saw the result in the amount of play we got from McNabb at the end

If the reports are wrong, why haven't the Skins come out and supported McNabb? Teams don't address all rumors obviously, but something that calls into question your qb's commitment to the team is usually something that results a coach, GM, teammate, etc. defending out in defense.

C'mon - these guys are terrible at any and all communications

Good point haha.

This QB situation is a big mess and unfortunately a big part of that is due to Mike:
He brought in McNabb
This was a good idea based on the fact that Campbell was not a very good QB PLUS he was never going to be the high quality leader you'd like your QB to be
HOWEVER - I don't think that McNabb made enough of an effort to be all that he could be - I also doubt that he got much support

It's still all on Mike because he's in charge here - he made a bad call bringing in McNabb

Moving on

this draft did not seem to have many QBs that even given a little time might be really good so Mike and Bruce elected to not reach for one

Now we have to wonder how long is it going to be before we get another really good QB because that is the key to offensive success and team leadership

we are a franchise that is going through a rebuilding process that is going to take another year or 2 so I guess Mike has time but ....


From Sonny to Joe a period of roughly 20+ years we had 3 QBs - now we cannot find 1

Here's another take on the QB. Maybe we didn't take a QB this year because there were SO many QB's available and by process of elimination, we could end up with Luck. Further, if there is no season this year, could we be one of the few teams left that would look for Luck's services in the top 10? We have a much better shot at getting him now that 7 QB's were drafted high last year.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

First of all the FO can decide what McNabb will do and besides that what proof can you offer that McNabb refused to wear a wristband with plays on it other than 'reports' which IMO are distorted - AND it seems to me that IF the reports are even partially true, we saw the result in the amount of play we got from McNabb at the end

If the reports are wrong, why haven't the Skins come out and supported McNabb? Teams don't address all rumors obviously, but something that calls into question your qb's commitment to the team is usually something that results a coach, GM, teammate, etc. coming out in defense of the player.

In addition to SJ's point, since the relationship between McNabb and the Skins is as cool as it is, irrespective of whether or not the wristband story is true, it would surprise me if they went out of their way to address it in public.

There's also the possibility that the story was a plant by the team (read: Snyder) to make McNabb look bad. If they did, it would explain why they haven't supported him in the meantime. Personally, I think that's about as likely as the story as reported being true.

Grossman had spoken to McNabb about wearing wristbands:

“I just had conversations with him about wearing a wristband and I know that he told me that he doesn’t like to do that. That’s all I know. I don’t know their discussions or what they asked him to do. Obviously, if they asked him and really wanted him to do it and he outright refused, then it’s an issue, but I don’t know any of that firsthand.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ear ... _blog.html

I conclude that the story has some partial truth, but nothing in that partial truth that is an issue.

Why was the story leaked now, three months after the dinner, when the Redskins are reportedly trying to trade McNabb? I don't get it. Which four, present at the dinner, had something to gain by leaking this story this late?

My guess is that the story started as an office joke and had been floating for three months and got bigger and bigger as it was passed along and eventually became gospel truth. Finally, some reporter got a hold of it and ran to the Junkies and told them inflated version of it. When the Junkies checked for multiple sources, there probably were plenty because the story had been floating around the office. My final conclusion, Michael Scott leaked it.

Kyle Shanahan comes out of this looking great.
Snyder gains leverage over Mike.
McNabb looks worse, but I don't think anybody who watched him play last year thinks he has much left anyway. The idea that he had trade value at any point after October is a joke.
and Mike looks terrible.

We have to assume this is true because it hasn't been denied. The core of the allegation is that McNabb put personal vanity over the good of the team, and I can't think of a worse thing you could say about a football player, much less a guy purported to be a franchise QB.

But when asked directly, he didn't deny it. Not specifically, and not generally. Fletcher Smith, the guy who is paid to clean up stuff like this, hasn't said a peep. And not a single player, either. Grossman says he wouldn't have been privy to that conversation, granted--but any of the other 51+ players on the Skins roster last year could have stepped up and said generally that there's no reason to question McNabb's work ethic or commentment to winning. The silence is deafening.

As for why it didn't come out earlier? It makes Shanahan look terrible. McNabb challenged his authority, and he blinked. All of the wishy-washiness about why McNabb was benched, and why Kyle was so frustrated makes total sense now. But Mike, who spent all offseason being Mr. Discipline re: Haynesworth got played for a fool by the guy he gave up two draft picks and $10+M to bring to DC. For all the talk about Haynesworth being a distraction... it's not even in the same league. If Shanahan hadn't found a way to deal with it, it's not out of the question that he would have been fired for cause.

Turns out dealing with it meant sweeping it under the rug until the end of the season. Bravo, Shanny.

Paralis said:

It makes Shanahan look terrible. McNabb challenged his authority, and he blinked.

McNabb got benched... twice. Not sure how that means that Shanahan blinked. We were largely baffled at the time... but this would help to color in what was going on. Perhaps the wishy washiness was an attempt to not box McNabb, or to help maintain his value. I don't know... but I don't see any of this as meaning that Shanahan "blinked"...

McNabb was immediately reinstalled as starter after the Lions game and given 5 more starts before being demoted. The only way that that doesn't involve Shanahan giving into McNabb's insubordination is if McNabb wasn't insubordinate--i.e. that either he was never asked to wear a wristband, or wasn't until 14 weeks into the season.

I mean, it seems clear to me that the wristband story is either a total fabrication (in which case I'm surprised by the absence of any denial) or McNabb was allowed to start for the Skins with what was obviously an incomplete knowledge of the playbook, while not wearing the wristband (which probably half the starting QBs in the league wear for reference) that the coaches specifically requested. Either way I think it looks terrible for everybody in the front office except Kyle Shanahan, who was visibly frustrated with McNabb for most of the season and clearly didn't have the juice to do anything about it.

Countertrey wrote:Paralis said:

It makes Shanahan look terrible. McNabb challenged his authority, and he blinked.

McNabb got benched... twice. Not sure how that means that Shanahan blinked. We were largely baffled at the time... but this would help to color in what was going on. Perhaps the wishy washiness was an attempt to not box McNabb, or to help maintain his value. I don't know... but I don't see any of this as meaning that Shanahan "blinked"...

Agreed, and to add to that in addition to our not actually even knowing exactly what happened, leadership isn't about crushing your staff/team and forcing them to back down. The only time you force them to back down is when they push an issue to the point that it challenges your authority, which we have no reason to believe is what happened here. As a leader, you always have to be the grown up. But it's completely possible Shannahan raised a wrist band, McNabb baulked and he didn't push it. I seriously doubt he demanded, McNabb refused and Shannahan caved.

and now this from Pete Prisco

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1518 ... k-baffling


and there's this:

"That isn't to say Kyle Shanahan can't coach. I think he has talent, just like his father. But can anybody in their right mind think either Grossman or Beck is a better option than McNabb right now?

Yes, McNabb isn't the same player he was a few years ago, but Redskins players insisted late last season there was no way he should have been benched. At one point, there was almost a mutiny of sorts when the Shanahans made the decision to bench him."

..just a reminder, Mcnugget will not be a Skin this season.

Thanks,
LPJ

SkinsJock wrote:and now this from Pete Prisco

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1518 ... k-baffling


and there's this:

"That isn't to say Kyle Shanahan can't coach. I think he has talent, just like his father. But can anybody in their right mind think either Grossman or Beck is a better option than McNabb right now?

Yes, McNabb isn't the same player he was a few years ago, but Redskins players insisted late last season there was no way he should have been benched. At one point, there was almost a mutiny of sorts when the Shanahans made the decision to bench him."

In my right mind, I can say that McNabb played bad enough to NOT have his job guaranteed week 1 regular season.

SkinsJock wrote:and now this from Pete Prisco

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1518 ... k-baffling

Pete is a tool....

The Dolphins released him in 2009 and the Ravens signed him, but then traded him to Washington for a corner named Doug Dutch, who is back with the Redskins.

That means Beck was essentially traded for a ham sandwich.

And he's the Redskins starter?

Beck is hoping to compete for a starting job, he is not the starter until he wins the job/if he wins the job. Dutch is not a ham sandwich, nor is he a Redskins corner.

At one point, there was almost a mutiny of sorts when the Shanahans made the decision to bench him.

What is almost a mutiny of sorts? Almost a mutiny, not just a mutiny but a mutiny of sorts... Pete is a tool.

most of you know how little I regard most reporters and especially the guys from the DC area that love to hype and build on anything and every little piece of information - I really doubt there was anything close to a 'mutiny'

I do think that McNabb gives the better QB option over Beck and Grossman but the fact remains that if they can trade McNabb and have a different alternative at QB then that is most likely what is happening here

I think McNabb is gone but if he stays I think he will earn the starting job here easily