How far can Beck take us?

I just want to ask, hypothetically, that if our future qb is not determined to be on our roster by seasons end, and we get the 17th pick in the draft, how much are you willing to trade up to get a Franchise qb, and what level of qb do you expect that trade up to be (landry jones/ andrew luck). I'd personally never trade up to get luck, the cost is too high, but If we are able to give up the 17th, our second, and fifth to trade up to the 9th spot or so to get jones (assuming he is about as good as Freeman-who he reminds me of), I would do that.

I've said this too many times on this site, but I would prefer us to do terrible this year than mediocre (unless we miraculously find a franchise qb on our roster or through other means than the draft...but I'm not banking on that). Of course I would love the Redskins to surprise me and win it all, or at least a lot, with Beck, who I hope is our guy (but I'm not holding my breath on that).I don't think that price would be too exorbitant to get Landry Jones, assuming that Matt Barkley stays at USC.

I mean, I kind of think that good young quarterbacks aren't that hard to get if you are willing to take a chance on a guy who isn't accomplished. I mean, Kevin Kolb cost a second round pick and a crap ton of money, but any team could have had Mike Kafka for a fourth rounder. 85+ players were picked before the most accurate passer in the 2010 draft (Colt McCoy). System QBs with good tools sometimes aren't selected at all.

No doubt that the Redskins could have added any number of potential QBs of the future to the team this year if Shanny had been willing to give up the roster spot of Beck or Grossman. Heck, the team could have just drafted Blaine Gabbert at the cost of not having Ryan Kerrigan and Jarvis Jenkins.

Point is, if we want to improve our quarterback situation without giving up high picks, we can. I also think they should explore trading up in the draft if the opportunity presents itself.

I disagree to an extent. I think Shanahan is a great coach. He just can't evaluate talent very well. He hits alot, but he swings and strikes out seemingly just as much. I don't trust his talent evaluation, and I don't trust him to trust anyone else to evaluate talent. The same sentiment I give to his son, who seems to be a great coordinator when it comes to x's and o's, but doesn't seem to know talent when he sees it, and doesn't seem to be very personable (mcdaniels esque).

If we were to get a GM or head scout that could pick the right guys, I think the shannahans could take us very far. Bruce Allen is supposedly a glorified contract negotiator/cap guy.

Keep in mind I don't think this will happen due to the stubborness of the Shanahans in that they think they know all. Basically I'm trying to say that the shannahans are good coaches, just not good at assembling teams. The talent that they have they use well, but their problem is getting the necessary pieces in place.

I just think we need a younger coach for this job. Like a Mike Tomlin or a Raheem Morris type of guy. We're getting younger, it's basically a rebuild and a 60 some year old coach is not the guy for that. Is Shanahan going to be here for the long haul? Nope.

He's not ancient at 59 either. He could coach another 5-7 years no problem. He doesn't seem like the type that wants to hang things up early and go play golf all day.

He's not ancient at 59 either. He could coach another 5-7 years no problem. He doesn't seem like the type that wants to hang things up early and go play golf all day.Ugh. Didn't we just go through this last year with McNabb?

Matty, I just don't think we can reconcile consistently failing with consistently wanting to prove that failure must of been a fluke. I think I COULD see Mike Shanahan coaching 5+ years here, but doing so while losing every season would be completely unprecedented. I'll repeat that: completely unprecedented. It hasn't happened. It won't ever happen. He needs to be winning.

Expecting Shanahan back in 2012 or 2013 is logical only if you believe that this team is on the right track, and really should win as much as it loses. The idea that he'd be completely okay with sustained losing so that he can rebuild the team before handing the reigns over to Kyle (or whoever) doesn't have any basis in reality.

Ugh. Didn't we just go through this last year with McNabb?

Matty, I just don't think we can reconcile consistently failing with consistently wanting to prove that failure must of been a fluke. I think I COULD see Mike Shanahan coaching 5+ years here, but doing so while losing every season would be completely unprecedented. I'll repeat that: completely unprecedented. It hasn't happened. It won't ever happen. He needs to be winning.

Expecting Shanahan back in 2012 or 2013 is logical only if you believe that this team is on the right track, and really should win as much as it loses. The idea that he'd be completely okay with sustained losing so that he can rebuild the team before handing the reigns over to Kyle (or whoever) doesn't have any basis in reality.

Let's see how this year goes. He's had one year for crying out loud.

Let's see how this year goes. He's had one year for crying out loud.

My words exactly.

It's funny how this fanbase is only capable of looking at two things---looking at the past, and looking at the future.

The Redskins haven't even put on the pads for their first preseason game, and we're already talking about Mike quitting, or resigning, or getting fired, or what kind of coach we need in the future? Can we at least let the kicker kick off before we start talking about who's quitting?

I see two things more than anything---"well in the past..." and "we need to do this in the future." Barely anything is about NOW.

And I think any shift in coaching now would completely negate what this team desperately needs; continuity.

Please explain how "a faster tempo gives the offense more time to adjust". Seems to me that a faster tempo give neither side as much time to adjust.

Also, can someone demonstrate to me that the teams who made the Super Bowl in the last 3 or 4 years all played "uptempo on offense"? Frankly, I don't care nearly as much about offensive tempo as I do about offensive success. Are there really stats out there that demonstrate that "faster offense" is equal to "more succssful offense"?

A faster tempo means you're getting to the line of scrimmage with 15-20 seconds on the play clock and the defense is still moving around trying to get set. When you break the huddle and you have 5 seconds on the clock, you gotta snap the ball, no time to scan the defense, no time to figure who who's blitzing, no time for anything. The later you get out of the huddle, the harder it is. Getting into better plays, audibles, adjustments, hot routes. Those are all easier when you have time on the clock.

I'd say the Packers and the Saints both have that high energy, fast tempo offense. The Colts, naturally, the Giants can play that style of offense too. And even though the Steelers can be old school, you won't see Big Ben taking his time to get under center too often. Package that with the fact that McNabb struggled with the terminology at times and it makes things a LOT harder.

Let's see how this year goes. He's had one year for crying out loud.
...........get a rope...

A faster tempo means you're getting to the line of scrimmage with 15-20 seconds on the play clock and the defense is still moving around trying to get set. When you break the huddle and you have 5 seconds on the clock, you gotta snap the ball, no time to scan the defense, no time to figure who who's blitzing, no time for anything. The later you get out of the huddle, the harder it is. Getting into better plays, audibles, adjustments, hot routes. Those are all easier when you have time on the clock.

I'd say the Packers and the Saints both have that high energy, fast tempo offense. The Colts, naturally, the Giants can play that style of offense too. And even though the Steelers can be old school, you won't see Big Ben taking his time to get under center too often. Package that with the fact that McNabb struggled with the terminology at times and it makes things a LOT harder.[/QUOTE]


Using your example, if the offense breaks the huddle with 15-20 seconds on the play clock AND ALSO snaps the ball quickly, they MIGHT have an advantage over a defense that is still adjusting. However, if the offense breaks the huddle with 15 seconds on the clock and comes to the line of scrimmage and fiddle-dicks around with a bunch of shifts and fake audibles and finger-pointing at one of the defensive safeties, any tempo advantage would be lost.

I'd like to see stats on the Saints and Packers in terms of the number of plays they run per minute of offensive possession to agree they play significantly faster than anyone else.

The Colts get to the line fast and then spend a LOT of time with Peyton Manning pointing and changing calls. That works for the Colts because it is Peyton Manning executing the plays once the ball is snapped. Until I see it with my own two eyes, I am nowhere near ready to put John Beck or Rex Grossman in the same paragraph with Peyton Manning if the paragraph is about "great QBs".

The Giants play "uptempo offense". Really? I must have watched different Giants' games than you watched for the last several years.

I can answer that question right now. Beck isn't taking this team anywhere but the first pick in the 2012 draft.