Rex Grossman on NFL Radio Sunday

[MTK]

Well said NLC

[fanarchist]

If Mike and Kyle pride themselves on having the innate ability to recognize and systemically implement QB talent why were these widely preexisting deficiencies in McNabb's game not addressed during the inception of the brianstorming sessions that ultimately led to them trading for him?

If recollection serves, although time does tend to distort perception, at the end of the Texans game McNabb threw a perfectly timed ball, in stride, over his left shoulder to Joey Galloway for a TD and the early microcosm for the entire season crept in and was abruptly stamped. DROP! As far as I'm concerned McNabb threw a game winning pass. What happened on the opposite end of the wire can not be anchored to McNabb, but instead belongs in the unwelcoming, arthritic palms of Galloway and possibly the mastermind who decided Galloway still had a couple gallons left in the tank.

Drops from Cooley. Drops from Moss. I can't remember the opponent but I distinctly recall Fred Davis dropping a TD pass. Armstrong was, at best, 60/40 in catchable targets with McNabb at the helm. All of those drops have to manifest themselves in some way. For us it was 3rd down conversion percentage.

I'll chalk up the mistimed long balls to McNabb's lack of comfortability with the timing of a new offense. The dude ran the same scheme his entire career before coming to the Redskins. The least you could give the guy is a single season grace period to become more entrenched and acclimated to timing with new receivers, an overall understanding of the system and whats expected of him in terms of progression so he is playing without thinking. Reading deep to short as opposed to short to deep. Bad habits die hard and I believe that was a major contributor to McNabb's inconsitency.

I understand it's a "win now" league, but regardless of that nomenclature we haven't been able to manipulate, from the FO down, that famous football colloquialism. So I suggest patience as a possible solution and I get chastised because of a simple indepentant belief that McNabb dosen't give us the best chance to win. Grossman was somewhat effective in the limited action he accumulated. His completion percentage was average and he threw 4 ints in 3 games. He also lost 3 out of 4 games in which he could have been a determining factor in the outcome. And yes I'm including the benching and fumble return for a TD in Detroit. The single game that he won was decided in overtime. I agree that McNabb isn't the QB that gives us the best chance to win league wide, but on our roster to date, in my opinion, he is, unquestionably, the best QB currently employed by the Washington Redskins and between Beck, Grossman, and McNabb I believe McNabb does gives us the best chance to win.

[diehard]

Originally Posted by fanarchist

If Mike and Kyle pride themselves on having the innate ability to recognize and systemically implement QB talent why were these widely preexisting deficiencies in McNabb's game not addressed during the inception of the brianstorming sessions that ultimately led to them trading for him?

If recollection serves, although time does tend to distort perception, at the end of the Texans game McNabb threw a perfectly timed ball, in stride, over his left shoulder to Joey Galloway for a TD and the early microcosm for the entire season crept in and was abruptly stamped. DROP! As far as I'm concerned McNabb threw a game winning pass. What happened on the opposite end of the wire can not be anchored to McNabb, but instead belongs in the unwelcoming, arthritic palms of Galloway and possibly the mastermind who decided Galloway still had a couple gallons left in the tank.

Drops from Cooley. Drops from Moss. I can't remember the opponent but I distinctly recall Fred Davis dropping a TD pass. Armstrong was, at best, 60/40 in catchable targets with McNabb at the helm. All of those drops have to manifest themselves in some way. For us it was 3rd down conversion percentage.

I'll chalk up the mistimed long balls to McNabb's lack of comfortability with the timing of a new offense. The dude ran the same scheme his entire career before coming to the Redskins. The least you could give the guy is a single season grace period to become more entrenched and acclimated to timing with new receivers, an overall understanding of the system and whats expected of him in terms of progression so he is playing without thinking. Reading deep to short as opposed to short to deep. Bad habits die hard and I believe that was a major contributor to McNabb's inconsitency.

I understand it's a "win now" league, but regardless of that nomenclature we haven't been able to manipulate, from the FO down, that famous football colloquialism. So I suggest patience as a possible solution and I get chastised because of a simple indepentant belief that McNabb dosen't give us the best chance to win. Grossman was somewhat effective in the limited action he accumulated. His completion percentage was average and he threw 4 ints in 3 games. He also lost 3 out of 4 games in which he could have been a determining factor in the outcome. And yes I'm including the benching and fumble return for a TD in Detroit. The single game that he won was decided in overtime. I agree that McNabb isn't the QB that gives us the best chance to win league wide, but on our roster to date, in my opinion, he is, unquestionably, the best QB currently employed by the Washington Redskins and between Beck, Grossman, and McNabb I believe McNabb does gives us the best chance to win.

McNabb's situation seems similiar to Haynesworth's. Guys say and do all the right things during the interviewing process and the first few weeks of being on board, then their hair is let down...

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by diehard

McNabb's situation seems similiar to Haynesworth's. Guys say and do all the right things during the interviewing process and the first few weeks of being on board, then their hair is let down...

Yes but in both situations there were warning signs that should have alerted the front office about what they were about to get. Haynesworth, while a dominant DT, had a history of character issues and other problems that showed up later on as expected. With McNabb, the fact that the Eagles were willing to trade him to a division rival should have been a warning sign. Not to mention the fact that the McNabb trade was the same bad habit that the previous FO had (giving up picks on veterans). I hope the FO has learned its lesson...I hope.

[NLC1054]

Originally Posted by fanarchist

If Mike and Kyle pride themselves on having the innate ability to recognize and systemically implement QB talent why were these widely preexisting deficiencies in McNabb's game not addressed during the inception of the brianstorming sessions that ultimately led to them trading for him?

If recollection serves, although time does tend to distort perception, at the end of the Texans game McNabb threw a perfectly timed ball, in stride, over his left shoulder to Joey Galloway for a TD and the early microcosm for the entire season crept in and was abruptly stamped. DROP! As far as I'm concerned McNabb threw a game winning pass. What happened on the opposite end of the wire can not be anchored to McNabb, but instead belongs in the unwelcoming, arthritic palms of Galloway and possibly the mastermind who decided Galloway still had a couple gallons left in the tank.

Drops from Cooley. Drops from Moss. I can't remember the opponent but I distinctly recall Fred Davis dropping a TD pass. Armstrong was, at best, 60/40 in catchable targets with McNabb at the helm. All of those drops have to manifest themselves in some way. For us it was 3rd down conversion percentage.

I'll chalk up the mistimed long balls to McNabb's lack of comfortability with the timing of a new offense. The dude ran the same scheme his entire career before coming to the Redskins. The least you could give the guy is a single season grace period to become more entrenched and acclimated to timing with new receivers, an overall understanding of the system and whats expected of him in terms of progression so he is playing without thinking. Reading deep to short as opposed to short to deep. Bad habits die hard and I believe that was a major contributor to McNabb's inconsitency.

I understand it's a "win now" league, but regardless of that nomenclature we haven't been able to manipulate, from the FO down, that famous football colloquialism. So I suggest patience as a possible solution and I get chastised because of a simple indepentant belief that McNabb dosen't give us the best chance to win. Grossman was somewhat effective in the limited action he accumulated. His completion percentage was average and he threw 4 ints in 3 games. He also lost 3 out of 4 games in which he could have been a determining factor in the outcome. And yes I'm including the benching and fumble return for a TD in Detroit. The single game that he won was decided in overtime. I agree that McNabb isn't the QB that gives us the best chance to win league wide, but on our roster to date, in my opinion, he is, unquestionably, the best QB currently employed by the Washington Redskins and between Beck, Grossman, and McNabb I believe McNabb does gives us the best chance to win.

But all indications were that it wasn't just the on the field stuff. I'm not chastising you, I'm just saying, it's not just the team around him. It's not just the drops.

It was the way he played, but probably more so, it was the way he acted. If you know Mike Shanahan, you know how big a deal practice is to him, that he's a no hit guy who takes care of his players, but he wants the tempo of practice to be good as well.

He spoke of having those days in practice where the ball never hit the ground. All indications are that they never had that. Then there's issues with him coming out either last or late for practice. Than there's the wristband stuff that's pretty much been widely confirmed by anyone who has a source in the building.

So it seems to me that Mike Shanahan (and Mike alone; as someone pointed out, Kyle didn't think he'd be a good fit in the offense and was against the trade to begin with) thought he was getting one player, and ended up with another. He thought he was getting a consummate pro, the hardest worker on the team, and a playmaker that had all things he wanted.

What he seemed to get was a slightly image conscious, kinda lazy (or at least not up to Shanahan's standards) quarterback who benefited greatly from being in a system in which Andy Reid allowed him to improvise more than he was required to be precise, and despite having a lot of time to get better, he either couldn't process it or didn't put the work in to do it.

I also don't really buy that Kyle didn't do enough to try and maximize what Donovan was good at. All these screen passes and the checkdowns to the running backs seem like it was "give him a high read, a low read, and then a checkdown". That's pretty much what they ran with him in Philly.

It was a mutual thing, this whole nasty break up. But Donovan had his fair share of problems, and it wasn't all drops by wide receivers. I think anyone will tell you that it's hard to catch a football that's thrown at your knees.

If anything, keeping Donovan despite all the problems would be more of a "win now" move than seeing what they have in John Beck and Rex. Best case scenario, they have a quarterback that can right the ship while they replenish positions of need on the team. Worst case, they just draft a quarterback next year.

[fanarchist]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

But all indications were that it wasn't just the on the field stuff. I'm not chastising you, I'm just saying, it's not just the team around him. It's not just the drops.

It was the way he played, but probably more so, it was the way he acted. If you know Mike Shanahan, you know how big a deal practice is to him, that he's a no hit guy who takes care of his players, but he wants the tempo of practice to be good as well.

He spoke of having those days in practice where the ball never hit the ground. All indications are that they never had that. Then there's issues with him coming out either last or late for practice. Than there's the wristband stuff that's pretty much been widely confirmed by anyone who has a source in the building.

So it seems to me that Mike Shanahan (and Mike alone; as someone pointed out, Kyle didn't think he'd be a good fit in the offense and was against the trade to begin with) thought he was getting one player, and ended up with another. He thought he was getting a consummate pro, the hardest worker on the team, and a playmaker that had all things he wanted.

What he seemed to get was a slightly image conscious, kinda lazy (or at least not up to Shanahan's standards) quarterback who benefited greatly from being in a system in which Andy Reid allowed him to improvise more than he was required to be precise, and despite having a lot of time to get better, he either couldn't process it or didn't put the work in to do it.

I also don't really buy that Kyle didn't do enough to try and maximize what Donovan was good at. All these screen passes and the checkdowns to the running backs seem like it was "give him a high read, a low read, and then a checkdown". That's pretty much what they ran with him in Philly.

It was a mutual thing, this whole nasty break up. But Donovan had his fair share of problems, and it wasn't all drops by wide receivers. I think anyone will tell you that it's hard to catch a football that's thrown at your knees.

If anything, keeping Donovan despite all the problems would be more of a "win now" move than seeing what they have in John Beck and Rex. Best case scenario, they have a quarterback that can right the ship while they replenish positions of need on the team. Worst case, they just draft a quarterback next year.

Some players are gamers, others are diligent workers that have to supplement their lack of natural talent with a solid practice regiment and endless hours of film study in order to assert a mental edge over their opponent. Occationally you find that perfect symbiosis of guys who have both, but it is a rarity. Granted McNabb did not meet Fam Shanahan's expectation as a hard worker on the practice field and in the film room. Perhaps his lack of commitment in those areas, when the lights are off, is the reason why he's not the proud owner of a superbowl ring, but it's undeniable that he has created a lasting legacy in this league playing his way.

I think that there is a vast difference between designed screens, which is what Philly did with McNabb under center and reading high to low and making a checkdown. The designed screen really didn't emerge as a staple in Kyle's play calling until well into the season. Which would suggest that he wasn't doing everything in his power to allow McNabb and the entire offense for that matter to succeed with the weapons they had a their disposal. You would hope as a fan that the adaptation to a screen game to supplement the lack of rushing attack would have occured much earlier in the season. It was always my understanding that the progession for McNabb in Philly was low-intermediate-high and not the other way around.

The point I was attempting to make with the "win now" statement is that after a decade of poor football from this Redskins organization you would think that they would be a slightly more patient than 13 games with their big name acquisitions. I was not suggesting that we give less athletically gifted players the opportunity to start as opposed to trying to win football games with the best players on our roster. That would be absurd. It was more of a "allow your newest acquistions to florish in a new system without prematurely pulling the plug" philosophy.

If Mike's initial intension was to trade for McNabb, play him a single season, then use him as trade bait for a future draft pick, I would have said it's not the greatest way to accumulate draft picks, but atleast it's forward thinking. Instead what they've done is defame the character and devalue the trade potential of a player who, had you allowed him to play the entire season, might have yeilded a future 3rd round pick. This whole approah is fundamentally flawed.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by fanarchist

The point I was attempting to make with the "win now" statement is that after a decade of poor football from this Redskins organization you would think that they would be a slightly more patient than 13 games with their big name acquisitions. I was not suggesting that we give less athletically gifted players the opportunity to start as opposed to trying to win football games with the best players on our roster. That would be absurd. It was more of a "allow your newest acquistions to florish in a new system without prematurely pulling the plug" philosophy.

If Mike's initial intension was to trade for McNabb, play him a single season, then use him as trade bait for a future draft pick, I would have said it's not the greatest way to accumulate draft picks, but atleast it's forward thinking. Instead what they've done is defame the character and devalue the trade potential of a player who, had you allowed him to play the entire season, might have yeilded a future 3rd round pick. This whole approah is fundamentally flawed.

MS should have never traded for McNabb period. I know that it probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but he should've stuck to rebuilding (as they seem to be doing now). I still don't understand why MS would do something (trading picks away for a veteran past his prime), that symbolized the dysfunctional front office that this team had for the past decade, in his first year. I think that the team would be in better rebuilding phase right now if they had kept those draft picks given up for McNabb.

[NLC1054]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

MS should have never traded for McNabb period. I know that it probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but he should've stuck to rebuilding (as they seem to be doing now). I still don't understand why MS would do something (trading picks away for a veteran past his prime), that symbolized the dysfunctional front office that this team had for the past decade, in his first year. I think that the team would be in better rebuilding phase right now if they had kept those draft picks given up for McNabb.

It was a sort of dumb move. I think this was the one case of Mike buying into the guy before he bought into the player. He figured he could fix the player the way he "fixed" other veteran guys like Bubby Brister and Gus Ferrotte and Jake Plummer and the like.

Well, he couldn't. I mean, it makes sense; he thought Donovan could bring some stability to the position and to the football team and be the leader that everyone says he is. It's easy to say it was a bad decision in hindsight, but at th etime, for the player we all thought he was going to be, the move made since.

You can rebuild the team around Donovan for the rest of his career, then hand a ready made contender to a new quarterback when he hangs it up.

There's logic in it. Just it didn't work as we as anyone hoped.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

It was a sort of dumb move. I think this was the one case of Mike buying into the guy before he bought into the player. He figured he could fix the player the way he "fixed" other veteran guys like Bubby Brister and Gus Ferrotte and Jake Plummer and the like.

Well, he couldn't. I mean, it makes sense; he thought Donovan could bring some stability to the position and to the football team and be the leader that everyone says he is. It's easy to say it was a bad decision in hindsight, but at th etime, for the player we all thought he was going to be, the move made since.

You can rebuild the team around Donovan for the rest of his career, then hand a ready made contender to a new quarterback when he hangs it up.

There's logic in it. Just it didn't work as we as anyone hoped.

There's also the possibility that the mcnabb talks preceded shanny; he might've been posed w/it at the time of hiring. The Danny may have 'asked' him to try & win now w/Mcnabb.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

There's also the possibility that the mcnabb talks preceded shanny; he might've been posed w/it at the time of hiring. The Danny may have 'asked' him to try & win now w/Mcnabb.

No. First person to bring it up as a possibility was actually Bruce Allen. After Shanahan came on board

[fanarchist]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

MS should have never traded for McNabb period. I know that it probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but he should've stuck to rebuilding (as they seem to be doing now). I still don't understand why MS would do something (trading picks away for a veteran past his prime), that symbolized the dysfunctional front office that this team had for the past decade, in his first year. I think that the team would be in better rebuilding phase right now if they had kept those draft picks given up for McNabb.

There were serveral highly suspect decisions made by MS this year and they began early in his tenure here. The Haynesworth fiasco, Larry Johnson making the 53 man roster only to be cut after week 2, keeping Galloway in the starting lineup until mid season, benching McNabb for an ice cold Rex Grossman in the 2 min drill against Detroit only to sign him to an extension 2 weeks later, and now destroying McNabb's trade potential. Don't get me wrong. I like Mike as a coach and I believe if ownership isn't as impulsive as they've been in the past, he can again restore a consistant winning mentality in Washington, but so far his decisions have been erratic and peculiar. I just hope this doesn't become a trend.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by fanarchist

There were serveral highly suspect decisions made by MS this year and they began early in his tenure here. The Haynesworth fiasco, Larry Johnson making the 53 man roster only to be cut after week 2, keeping Galloway in the starting lineup until mid season, benching McNabb for an ice cold Rex Grossman in the 2 min drill against Detroit only to sign him to an extension 2 weeks later, and now destroying McNabb's trade potential. Don't get me wrong. I like Mike as a coach and I believe if ownership isn't as impulsive as they've been in the past, he can again restore a consistant winning mentality in Washington, but so far his decisions have been erratic and peculiar. I just hope this doesn't become a trend.

No question there were some questionable moves made but at the same time, it's pretty clear that Shanny isn't afraid to admit and rectify mistakes along the way. Case in point, he cut LJ, cut Willie Parker, cut Galloway, suspended Haynesworth, ultimately benched McNabb and started playing younger players. Then in the draft rather than go for the flashy pick in Gabbert he traded back and back and back to pick 12 players. Rather than focusing on the problems, look at the progress.

As for McNabb/Kyle, it was oil and water from the beginning. There was a dramatic difference in offensive efficiency starting in the 2nd half of the Cowboys game, thru the Jacksonville game and the Giants game. Human Turnover Machine Rex was pretty loose with the ball but from the standpoint of the offense 'working', I have no questions that Kyle is the right guy. McNabb was simply the wrong guy for the job in the offense. It cost us a 2nd round pick in '10 (I don't count the '11 pick since we recouped it) and we move on.

[SBXVII]

Didn't know where else to put this but it's pretty interesting. Talking about how awful our OL was at stopping the pass rush and how poor ole McNabb was being assaulted.

What they fail to point out is of all the teams who did poor in this catagory how many times was the offensive play designed to exploit the pass rush? In other words how many plays were designed to allow the OL to chip or block a defenseman then release for say a screan pass or for the QB to dump the ball to a RB or TE behind the pass rush?

Funny how 3 of the 4 playoff teams (Steelers, Eagles, Bears) had a worse record against the pass rush then the Skins and only 1 (Packers) had a better record but not by much. Yet ... lets make fun of the Skins. Why? because they are an easy target? or because they didn't make the playoffs?

Skins' QBs operated under siege in 2010

[NLC1054]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Didn't know where else to put this but it's pretty interesting. Talking about how awful our OL was at stopping the pass rush and how poor ole McNabb was being assaulted.

What they fail to point out is of all the teams who did poor in this catagory how many times was the offensive play designed to exploit the pass rush? In other words how many plays were designed to allow the OL to chip or block a defenseman then release for say a screan pass or for the QB to dump the ball to a RB or TE behind the pass rush?

Funny how 3 of the 4 playoff teams (Steelers, Eagles, Bears) had a worse record against the pass rush then the Skins and only 1 (Packers) had a better record but not by much. Yet ... lets make fun of the Skins. Why? because they are an easy target? or because they didn't make the playoffs?

Skins' QBs operated under siege in 2010

It's both. Right now, people are treating us like the Detriot Lions of the league. We're the easiest target because we have the most to prove and our head coach is getting rid of a "Hall of Fame" quarterback like Donovan McNabb, and clearly it must be something he did wrong, and Donovan is an innocent flower in this, somehow.

McNabb has been one of those quarterbacks who has been savvy enough to avoid a lot of the criticism that would normally be put on other quarterbacks.

[MTK]

The McNabb deal kinda came out of the blue and went down very quickly, it definitely wasn't something that was brewing before Shanahan got here.