I say we "Dive for a Top 5"!!!!!

Well I, for one, was pissed we let JC go from the beginning. I do think the McNabb experiment wouldn't have happened with JC here. JC wanted to start.

With JC here the Skins would have 3 crummy QBs instead of 2. I think MS brought in DM thinking he was still enough of a big time QB to overcome the little amount of talent they had on O last year. Obviously it didnt work.

With JC here the Skins would have 3 crummy QBs instead of 2. I think MS brought in DM thinking he was still enough of a big time QB to overcome the little amount of talent they had on O last year. Obviously it didnt work.

Well if we had 3 crummy QBs last year (I'm assuming JC, Rex, and Beck) we would have still kept our second rounder and gotten a solid player from the draft given MS/BA's track record.

Lmao!! Top five we're guaranteed a top 3.

We will have to agree to disagree because I have always thought JC was decent/good. Much better than any option we had at the time (McNabb included) or we do now.

Dark pleas for Barkley(s)?

Check the stats, son! (http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/_/id/480322/matt-barkley)

Well if we had 3 crummy QBs last year (I'm assuming JC, Rex, and Beck) we would have still kept our second rounder and gotten a solid player from the draft given MS/BA's track record.

Good point. Hindsight is always 20/20. At the time I thought it was a good trade because I thought that if DM played they way he did with Philly he was a definite upgrade from from what the Skins had. Unfortunately DM's skills had seriously eroded.

We will have to agree to disagree because I have always thought JC was decent/good. Much better than any option we had at the time (McNabb included) or we do now.

On his best days JC was decent but those days were too few and far between. Knowing what we know now the DM trade should never have happened but if we could predict the future....

Good point. Hindsight is always 20/20. At the time I thought it was a good trade because I thought that if DM played they way he did with Philly he was a definite upgrade from from what the Skins had. Unfortunately DM's skills had seriously eroded.

I was iffy about the trade but trusted MS. It did bug me that the first thing that he did was something that the Redskins had been criticized for in the past. Now of course I wish he had gone a different direction. Shoot, I would have rather have another year of JC or a year of Rex, instead of giving up picks for a crappy year of McNabb.

To Hail with the Redskins.

Considering I was a Leafs fan who finished 4th last, I followed it closely. I remember their team was constantly being switched around. 3rd line center played 10 games as the 1st line center while the 4th line center played as the 2nd line center, and so on... They just did everything they could to lose more games than New Jersey who were also unexpectedly terrible. The fans and players didn't complain because they had Lemieux to look forward too.. What did he do the year after he was drafted? Scored 100 points, won rookie of the year, the next year he had 141, and within five years he had back to back stanley cup championships.

You can't exactly say it didn't work for them, or their players went into a "losing mentality".

Quarterbacks are game changers, Andrew Luck can turn a team around.

I love London Fletcher as much as the next guy, he will always be my favorite linebacker... But he's 36 years old and our team sucks, we need a quarterback. You can be our linebacker coach London, but this team won't make the playoffs while you're here.

Well, upon looking at the careers of the players on the 1983 and 1984 rosters at Pro Hockey Refernce, I see that almost all of the Penguins on the '83 roster that made it to the '84 roster never got to bask Lemieux's glory after his rookie season. And the coach didn't come back either. So it was hardly profitable for most involved, the exceptions being Denis Herron and the GM.