How far can Beck take us?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Isn't McNabb famous for those hell weeks in Arizona? I'm sorry, I mean I'm looking for reasons why McNabb failed in DC, but I'm not about to pin laziness on him just so we can look righteous.

If I had to guess I'd stay stubbornness was most most likely the biggest culprit. This is McNabb we're talking about here. Not Dan late night at the cabana club Marino.

Why do you find it so hard to believe? Just because McNabb has a "hell week" in Arizona once a year doesn't mean he isn't lazy. I think Romanowski was most likely referencing his laziness when it came to viewing/studying game film.

It's been hinted quite a bit that McNabbs work ethic was indeed in question and major issue with Shanny. (note his dealings with Plummer as well) Shanny wants a guy who's going to put that extra time in, McDummy apparently wasn't that sort of guy.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by That Guy

mike will stay past this year, i'd bet on it gtripp he's been around long enough and he's a lifer, and i mean... who else is danny going to get? fisher (sp?) is the only good candidate out there.

Agreed. I'd bet on it too.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

He also said on JIM ROME that "Mcnabb may not have been smart enough"

More specifically, he said it like this:

“The reason why Donovan McNabb is not in Washington right now is because he was lazy,” Romanowski said. “He didn’t spend the time. Mike Shanahan likes guys who will work really hard. I narrow it down to two things. He’s either lazy, or he’s not very bright to pick up the offense. One or the other. I think he’s bright enough, I just think he was lazy.”

[MTK]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

When we talk about McNabb being lazy, it's not necessarily that he didn't work out, or that he didn't spend time in the film room, or do the things the quarterback is "supposed" to do.

It's that he was the last guy on the field in practice, and he lacked urgency and tempo in practice. His chill attitude didn't gel well with Mike's no non-sense approach. His lack of urgency on the field and in the huddle led to a lot of unnecessary delay of game penalties, and it didn't allow time to make adjustments at the line. Part of what helped the o-line with Rex in there was the fact they got in and out of the huddle quicker, which allowed the line time to adjust.

A faster tempo gives the offense more time to adjust and the defense less time to do the things they need to do.

On top of being either unwilling or unable to adjust to the way Kyle does things, and struggling to learn the playbook, he didn't even have the best sense or urgency to operate the offense with the plays he did know.

I think that's the definition of "lazy" here, and while Mike likes Rex and Beck a little more. They've got a little more hustle on the field.

Agreed.

Lazy probably isn't the best word, I agree it had more to do with his lack of tempo and urgency, which could be perceived as laziness, but more than anything I think that's just DM's personality.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I feel like this season is infinitely more likely to end in a Shanahan resignation/retirement party than any other outcome. The five year contract is inflated like a free agent deal, except it's technically "guaranteed".

But I'm sure there's a mutual understanding of expectations. If Shanahan was actually here to rebuild the franchise (like Gibbs was here to rehabilitate it), they would have started in 2010. They weren't here for that. Shanahan took this job to try to capitalize on an advantageous situation left behind by Zorn: low expectations and a boatload of talent on the roster.

A year and a half later, the franchise is in a completely different place. The talent on the roster has been pretty much wiped clean. The team isn't nearly as old as it was before. There's not too many 25 and under players to be excited about yet, but the bad contracts are all gone. Coming out of the lockout, we had a blank slate. And we used predominately a "the future is now" strategy in free agency, though we did so without mortgaging the future position (finally).

Bruce Allen is here for the long haul. Mike Shanahan though appears to be more interested in proving that he is smarter than the rest of the league (that was right on a number of players coming out of college that others missed on). Hey, if Shanahan is the genius he believes he is, this team will go ten and six, and Kellen Clemens will have a 4,000 yard passing season. Of course he's staying on board if that happens.

I mean, if we win this year, all bets are off and Hooray! for rebuilding The Right Way. If we lose this year, well, I think Shanahan is in good position to make a clean split with the organization in roughly the same long-term shape than when he took over and all he did was waste two years of Dan Snyder's not-all-that-valuable time. Life will go on.

Bottom line is he's not the right guy for this job. IMO.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Bottom line is he's not the right guy for this job. IMO.

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.

[skinster]

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).

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by skinster

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).

For Andrew Luck, I'd be all in a la Ditka w/Ricky Williams. I know that's too extreme, but it would take a bunch of picks & would be worth the risk. Plus, I trust Allen to make such a deal; he'd do everything to reduce the team's exposure to risk.

[freddyg12]

Not to mention, the Danny would love the buzz it would create w/the fans. On sites, such as, say... the Warpath!

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

When we talk about McNabb being lazy, it's not necessarily that he didn't work out, or that he didn't spend time in the film room, or do the things the quarterback is "supposed" to do.

It's that he was the last guy on the field in practice, and he lacked urgency and tempo in practice. His chill attitude didn't gel well with Mike's no non-sense approach. His lack of urgency on the field and in the huddle led to a lot of unnecessary delay of game penalties, and it didn't allow time to make adjustments at the line. Part of what helped the o-line with Rex in there was the fact they got in and out of the huddle quicker, which allowed the line time to adjust.

A faster tempo gives the offense more time to adjust and the defense less time to do the things they need to do.

On top of being either unwilling or unable to adjust to the way Kyle does things, and struggling to learn the playbook, he didn't even have the best sense or urgency to operate the offense with the plays he did know.

I think that's the definition of "lazy" here, and while Mike likes Rex and Beck a little more. They've got a little more hustle on the field.

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"?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinster

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.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by skinster

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.

[MTK]

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.