Who do you want to start at QB?

There's not much of a premium on opinions therefore they need not be valued. I understand.

Given the circumstances that have changed since then, no, I don't think you can put much value on those opinions from back then.

Beck for 3 simple reasons:
1. We've seen all that Rex can do-good and bad. We aren't in a position where the QB is going to be the difference between being a SB contender or being 3-13. We are probably firmly in the 7 to 9 win range so it's best to see what we have in Beck.
2. Beck seems to have the pulse and support of the team. Not trying to overstate things from one half of one preseason game but Beck has really stepped up to become a leader, Rex seems happy to just be part of the team. I want my QB to lead by example and set a tone.
3. I really want to shut up the Mike Greenburgs and Rich Eisens of the national media who keep singing the 'JOHN BECK!?!?' chorus like he's a guy we pulled out of the accounting department of IBM and plugged him in. I hope Mike and Kyle drop a big old 'told ya so' on those guys.

Amen brother ... the first thing I would add to this list is that Beck seems like he understands his role. He seems to understand that he hasn't done anything and how big of a responsibility it is to be the starting qb of a team (no one really knows what he's thinking but he's saying the right things). Lastly, MS and KS are really high on this guy and whether it's just a diversion, a ploy or they really believe it, these guys know good quarterbacks so I am more likely to trust their judgment -- I know, I know what about DMac? Hey, they let him go after a season, a good FO/talent evaluation team knows when they have made a mistake and corrects it ASAP and that's what happened in that situation.

For me it was not about Shanahan and or his support for either QB. It was about opinions solicited from our posters and their support or lack thereof for those listed in the poll. I voted in the poll based on my feelings when comparing the QB's listed for comparison not having any idea how Shanahan felt about any of them...Beck/Grossman respectively since they were already on the team at the time the poll was conducted.

Look closely and you'll witness some suggesting Beck should not even be on the team, to now suggesting he should be the starter. Your word is your bond.

When DMac was benched, Beck did not play, Grossman did. Therefore there was no reason at the time of the earlier poll for me to think that Beck might start this year, which is what the earlier poll asked. That's why I voted for Rex in the earlier poll. Things changed on this point even before the preseason.

Grossman, Beck will be a very unexciting check down machine which I am not prepared for.

Grossman, Beck will be a very unexciting check down machine which I am not prepared for.

I would happily take some boring, unexciting wins over some super exciting, adrenaline pumping losses

As opposed to Mr. Long Ball McNabb from last year who go us sooo far.

As opposed to Mr. Long Ball McNabb from last year who go us sooo far.

^^t

Ok, back with a beginner wondering: why does it seem unthinkable to have two quaterbacks? I mean, for example, Beck would be the stater, he'd play a lot more than Grossman, BUT, no one would be upset if at the end of some matches Grossman comed on the field for the last 10 minutes. Or if Beck has a little injury which doesn't necessarily prevent him from playing, Shannahan would make the decision to let Grossman start a game or two and let Beck come back when he's feeling better. Or, "hey this week at practice Grossman was better than Beck, he'll start next game, maybe next week Beck will be more in it at practice..."
I know this question will seem very very strange to football fans, but we see a lot of this in Rugby, at the higher level, and I think it's a good thing because it takes drama out of players' shoulders, they no longer pray for the other one to hurt himself, and it makes the competition for the job both permanent, more dynamic and it means less tension, and the possibility for both players to work together.

First and foremost, that's awesome -- a French Redskins fan. Are you legit french or an american expat/american parents but born in France?

Second, yeah we could have two qbs but its better IMO to have one unquestioned leader of the offense whom you want to have the ball with 90 seconds left to drive down the field and win the game.

Ok, back with a beginner wondering: why does it seem unthinkable to have two quaterbacks? I mean, for example, Beck would be the stater, he'd play a lot more than Grossman, BUT, no one would be upset if at the end of some matches Grossman comed on the field for the last 10 minutes. Or if Beck has a little injury which doesn't necessarily prevent him from playing, Shannahan would make the decision to let Grossman start a game or two and let Beck come back when he's feeling better. Or, "hey this week at practice Grossman was better than Beck, he'll start next game, maybe next week Beck will be more in it at practice..."
I know this question will seem very very strange to football fans, but we see a lot of this in Rugby, at the higher level, and I think it's a good thing because it takes drama out of players' shoulders, they no longer pray for the other one to hurt himself, and it makes the competition for the job both permanent, more dynamic and it means less tension, and the possibility for both players to work together.

Welcome. As far as I know its never work very well in the NFL but someone could correct me. Steve S. tried that with us back in the old ball coach days.