[GTripp0012]

Well, the other thing is that these three games are in no way representative of Grossman's career, which was good for the Redskins since he was much better for three games here than in Chicago. He probably wouldn't be able to hold a 5.3% TD rate through 16 games, especially in our offense. But I'm at least willing to work with the idea that the 3 game sample might be representative of a larger whole.

My contention is that even taking those three games and prorating, you still get a valueless backup, but now one who starts a lot more games. I am disagreeing with your assertion that Grossman's numbers represent productivity. McNabb, for his seemingly Grossman-esque passing numbers, fumbled 10 times in 13 games, which prorates to 12 1/2 times in 16. That's five less turnovers a year in fumbles, before you even consider the wild differences in INT rate.

I don't really believe McNabb is good enough to lead the offense into the future, but he sure is a lot closer to playing at the money level value of his contract ($12 million) than Grossman is to his ($3 million). There's still a very wide gap between the two, even if the bottom line ultimately is ineffective Redskins passer.