Report: Grossman Starting on Sunday

no as in the actual play selection. when have we run that many screens or end a rounds to moss? it was a very different style today. i'm taking nothing from rex, he did have a pretty good game, but this was one of the most well called games by kyle thus far.

KS was probably able to dig deeper into his bag of tricks with Rex's expanded knowledge of the offense.

The offense was scaled back for DM.

no as in the actual play selection. when have we run that many screens or end a rounds to moss? it was a very different style today. i'm taking nothing from rex, he did have a pretty good game, but this was one of the most well called games by kyle thus far.

it was probably a better called game because grossman understands the playbook better than mcnabb, thus kyle can call the plays he really wants to and does not feel "hindered" by his QB.

The word from the McNabb side is that the Shanahans didn't do enough to accommodate his improvisational talents, that Kyle Shanahan still has a lot to learn that he didn't do enough to make the freelance-happy McNabb more effective, and also protect him from sacks behind a vulnerable line. Perhaps a valid point, given that Grossman was sacked five times.

Yeah, I'm sorry but if he can't hang with a new offensive scheme, maybe it is time he packed it in. I realize he tends to fare better on-the-fly, but I seriously don't think he's good enough to be insisting that the offense be built around his improv skills. The dude's not Michael Vick.

From the WaPo's resident provider of sunshine and lollypops Sally Jenkins:

The word from inside Redskins Park was that the Shanahans have been frustrated for weeks by the fact that McNabb either couldn't or wouldn't absorb Kyle Shanahan's offense and make the correct reads, and that he only wanted to do the things that made him comfortable. His inflexibility limited the play-calling options, and his inconsistency too often put them in difficult long-yardage situations. Hence, he never improved in 13 games. Those judgments now seem correct.

The word from the McNabb side is that the Shanahans didn't do enough to accommodate his improvisational talents, that Kyle Shanahan still has a lot to learn that he didn't do enough to make the freelance-happy McNabb more effective, and also protect him from sacks behind a vulnerable line. Perhaps a valid point, given that Grossman was sacked five times.

Redskins vs. Cowboys: Shanahans lose a game, but win Donovan McNabb-Rex Grossman argument (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/19/AR2010121903982.html?hpid=artslot)

He could, but the more realistic plan to me is to get a rookie in there by the middle of the season. The days of sitting a rookie for even for just one season are long over with.

8 games? W/e qb we pick, I don't think he'll be as highly regarded as Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Matthew Stafford, Mark Sanchez, or Sam Bradford, but if he impresses in training camp and preseason I don't see why the coaching staff wouldn't make him the starter from day 1. Like you said the days of giving them a year on the bench or more are gone unless they were drafted later on and still had a lot to learn. But if we take a guy in the first round I wouldn't be suprised if he was the starter from day 1, recent evidence has shown that putting a guy in there early and letting him take his lumps hasn't proven to be a bad thing.

One thing that kinda irks me... Let's not act like it's all roses for JC out in Oakland, he's been yanked in and out of the lineup several times this year and hasn't exactly cemented his status as their long term answer.

I think JC has played pretty decent in Oakland. The going back and forth with Gradkowski was more coaches than performance. Jason played well enough to keep the job when Gradkowski was hurt. Jason was benched after playing pittsburg, and unless your name is Brady, Pittsburg has a way of making most NFL QB's look not so good. HE has played well enough that they are at least still in the running for a playoff spot.
Looking at his stats, he is on pace for around 2500 yards 13 to 15 TD's and around 10 INTs. That is not playing in 3 games, so no too bad stats.

I think JC has played pretty decent in Oakland. The going back and forth with Gradkowski was more coaches than performance. Jason played well enough to keep the job when Gradkowski was hurt. Jason was benched after playing pittsburg, and unless your name is Brady, Pittsburg has a way of making most NFL QB's look not so good. HE has played well enough that they are at least still in the running for a playoff spot.
Looking at his stats, he is on pace for around 2500 yards 13 to 15 TD's and around 10 INTs. That is not playing in 3 games, so no too bad stats.

So JC's a decent QB, not a game changer, needs a good RB, fairly inconistent from week to week, not very mobile, fumbles often, etc. Yep, that's right. 14 TD's w/ 10 picks is a good year for JC.

I think JC has played pretty decent in Oakland. The going back and forth with Gradkowski was more coaches than performance. Jason played well enough to keep the job when Gradkowski was hurt. Jason was benched after playing pittsburg, and unless your name is Brady, Pittsburg has a way of making most NFL QB's look not so good. HE has played well enough that they are at least still in the running for a playoff spot.
Looking at his stats, he is on pace for around 2500 yards 13 to 15 TD's and around 10 INTs. That is not playing in 3 games, so no too bad stats.

He's played ok, typical JC stuff, a few good ones, and a few stinkers.

8 games? W/e qb we pick, I don't think he'll be as highly regarded as Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Matthew Stafford, Mark Sanchez, or Sam Bradford, but if he impresses in training camp and preseason I don't see why the coaching staff wouldn't make him the starter from day 1. Like you said the days of giving them a year on the bench or more are gone unless they were drafted later on and still had a lot to learn. But if we take a guy in the first round I wouldn't be suprised if he was the starter from day 1, recent evidence has shown that putting a guy in there early and letting him take his lumps hasn't proven to be a bad thing.

I only say that because Cutler sat until week 13 during his rookie year, and probably would have sat the entire year if Plummer wasn't stinking it up so bad. And with Grossman showing he can be a decent short term starter, no need to toss a rook in there on day 1 unless he just absolutely blows the doors off the place.

I didnt watch the game yesterday,was too busy running around town going to wedding ete etc.Been fast forwarding the game this morning,thought Grossy played outstanding.The 2 turnovers he had werent boneheaded plays,the pass to Sellers he was under heavy pressure,dont know if Sellars ran the wrong route or he was just trying to throw it away,excellent play by the def back.The other turnover happens when you get nailed from behind.
The thing that upset me the most was Moss with another drop,crucial drop,on a beatifully thrown pass that Moss had a good chance to take to the house that would have put us in the lead in the 4th.