Redskins' confidence in RGIII paved way for Cousins pick

I've gone back and forth on the Redskins' selection of quarterback Kirk Cousins in the fourth round (No. 102 overall) of the NFL Draft, and I'm still not sure which side I'm on. I can see both sides:

• Mike Shanahan wanted Cousins because he thinks he's one of the best quarterbacks in the draft and believes he was too talented to let him pass in the fourth round. It was all about value.
• The Redskins had (and still have) holes they needed to fill in the draft, and instead of picking Cousins, they should have taken another position of need.

Maybe the Redskins should have chosen a different position. They certainly could use more talent on the offensive line and in the secondary. But they made the bold move of gambling on Cousins instead. 

Does it make sense? It seems ridiculous to have to say this, but Robert Griffin III will be given every opportunity to shine and start from day one. Unlike what some analysts like Ron Jaworski have speculated, there will be no quarterback controversy unless Griffin is absolutely atrocious and Cousins is phenomenal -- which is not realistic. And if that ends up being the case, the real concern will be why Griffin is playing so poorly -- not who the backup quarterback is. Because if Griffin fails, the Shanahan coaching experiment fails.

Redskins fans have been thrilled about the prospect of taking Griffin ever since the team made the deal for the No. 2 overall selection with the Rams, and having Cousins on board will not eliminate that excitement. Even after the Redskins drafted Cousins, no one is hurriedly crafting or looking to order a Kirk Cousins Redskins jersey. Griffin has already won fans over. 

One thing that makes little sense to me, though, is how this all is somehow a slap in the face to Griffin. Honestly, this move suggests the exact opposite. The Redskins and Mike Shanahan must be so impressed with the talent level and maturity of Griffin that they'd even think about making this type of draft choice. If you've heard Griffin speak or read some of his quotes from various interviews, do you really think he's the type of person who's going to get rattled by a little competition (and I use that word loosely)? Griffin has handled everything beautifully and is clever enough to know to stay focused on the job at hand. In essence, he's been the starting quarterback of the Redskins for several weeks now: He's done everything in interviews but been introduced as the starter of this team only because that's not really how the process works. But just like the starting quarterback in Indianapolis is already Andrew Luck, Washington's quarterbacking job is Griffin's to lose. Still, on-field play is whatever matters, which Griffin is aware of.

And by the way, players get hurt, and there's no way to always adequately prepare for it. But having Cousins on the team will help. The Redskins already parted ways with John Beck, and Rex Grossman will really only be the backup because he's the only quarterback on the roster with NFL experience heading into this season. If the Shanahans learned anything from last season, it's that Grossman/Beck is not the answer. That's why they made the move to get Griffin. And getting Cousins may not have been on their to-do list, but the opportunity was too good to pass up. Maybe the Redskins hold on to Cousins and he backs up Griffin for several years. Maybe Griffin fails to live up to the hype and flames out in a couple seasons, with Cousins there to take the job. Or maybe the Redskins trade Cousins after a season or two, allowing them to restock some of the picks lost in the trade for Griffin. Or maybe something else happens entirely.

Here's the point: The Redskins believe taking Cousins was the right move. They think he's talented, and talent equals value. Regardless, I doubt the Redskins would have made a similar move with a quarterback who they weren't absolutely sure was the guy they wanted to play quarterback for the next decade. If anyone is going to be able to withstand the pressure of impatient fans calling for his job after a rough patch or know exactly the right things to say when asked difficult questions, it's Griffin. And the Redskins know that.

Robert Griffin III on the Redskins' offense and McNabb

Don Banks of Sports Illustrated recently spoke with Robert Griffin III, and like most people who do so, came away very impressed with the 22-year-old quarterback. You should certainly read the whole piece, but there were a couple of quotes from Griffin that I found particularly interesting.

First, on what he's learned about Kyle Shanahan's offense:

"It's pretty tough to gauge how much of it I know already," he said. "By no means did I know what they wanted to do with me specifically within that offense after our session. But I know the offense has a lot of formations, a lot of motion, and they're going to try to disguise things. You can get a base feeling on an offense, but you can't say within three hours I'm familiar with their offense.

"It's an offense that asks the quarterback to specifically stay within the system. I think a lot of good systems do that. If you're going to one-hitch throw here, you do a one-hitch throw here. But once everything breaks down, and you go through all three or four of your reads, that's where you can be creative. I think whenever you can work within the system out, rather than outside the system in, it's better for you. That's what I tried to do at Baylor."

With Griffin's strong arm, accuracy, and athleticism, it's hard not to get excited every time he discusses the Redskins' offense. Griffin also commented on Donovan McNabb's recent critical comments of Mike Shanahan and the Redskins:

"All respect to Donovan McNabb, he had a great career," said Griffin, when I asked him if he understood McNabb's point. "He was one of my dad's [favorite] quarterbacks when he was a Philly fan. He's not a Philly fan any more, because I'm about to get drafted. But what [McNabb] said probably did come from a place of just bad taste. He had a bad taste in his mouth from his experience with Coach Shanahan, and I understand that. He never said anything bad about me, he was just trying to warn me, trying to say, 'Don't let egos get in the way.'

"But that's part of the job at quarterback, to be able to manage different types of egos and different types of people. So I'm looking forward to going up there and managing whatever it is that needs to be managed. All respect to Donovan, but it just didn't work out for him in Washington, and that's why he thought it didn't work out."

It's hard to think of a more perfect response to McNabb than that. Well done, RGIII. (Or is it RG3? This really needs to be settled.)

Also: You should read the outstanding article of Griffin's legacy by ESPN's Tom Friend. Fantastic insight.

Redskins acquire No. 2 pick, likely to be Robert Griffin III

When the Redskins traded with the Rams in order to get their hands on the No. 2 overall pick in the upcoming NFL Draft, they announced to the league and their fans that they're tired of looking for stopgap options at quarterback.

That's basically what this blockbuster trade boils down to. And, of course, this current regime believes they'll hit a home run by selecting Griffin, because if they don't, the Shanahans and Bruce Allen won't be around to deal with the aftermath.

The price for acquiring the second overall pick is enormous: it includes swapping first-round picks this season (No. 6 for No. 2), a 2012 second-rounder, and first-round picks in 2013 and 2014. Not only is that a ton, but it may be unprecedented. According to Sports Illustrated's Peter King: "It's believed that no team has ever traded three first-round picks for a draft choice in NFL history." Until now, that is. (Another offseason champions benchmark, fellas.)

Acquisitions and signings like Donovan McNabb, Rex Grossman, John Beck didn't work out and were rather embarrassing for both the team and for fans. So the Redskins decided to go in a different direction and pay that steep price in order to bring aboard the 22-year-old Griffin, who the team hopes to build a dynamic offense around. (Worth mentioning: There's a minute chance that the Colts could select Griffin instead of Andrew Luck. Regardless, the Redskins will be thrilled to have either one.)

This move feels a bit foreign because it involves the Redskins trading draft picks away for a young player instead of aging, past-their-prime veterans. Then again, the Redskins have again traded away valuable draft picks, which is something they can't stop themselves from doing for more than a season or two at a time. Right or wrong -- OK, mostly wrong -- the Redskins don't mind shipping away draft picks.

Luckily, no one knows if this is a smart or terrible choice. The overwhelming consensus seems to be: awesome trade if Griffin pans out; horrible trade if he stinks. I'm not quite sure it's that simple, but if it is, a 50/50 chance doesn't seem so bad after some of the indefensible, free-wheeling moves this team has made in the past. And at least this time they're gambling on a promising, young quarterback, who some scouts even seem to prefer over Luck.

I could probably write thousands of words on Griffin and the new direction of this franchise, but I'd rather just watch this NFL.com video of Griffin being interviewed by Steve Mariucci (which is hard not to be impressed by) and hope he's the star the Redskins have needed for decades.

Have the Redskins really changed?

Do you know a single Redskins fan who had a problem with the team's offseason strategy? OK, so maybe relying on Rex Grossman and John Beck wasn't the best of ideas, but not selecting a quarterback is also what enabled the Redskins to end up with several quality picks while selecting 12 players in last year's draft. The other moves?

- Dealt Albert Haynesworth to the Patriots for a fifth-round pick in 2013.
- Traded Donovan McNabb to the Vikings for a sixth-round pick in 2012 and a conditional pick in 2013.
- Signed Oshiomogho Atogwe to a five-year, $26 million deal ($9 million guaranteed).
- Signed Stephen Bowen for five years, $27.5 million ($12.5 million guaranteed).
- Re-signed Jammal Brown for five years, $27.5 million ($8.25 million guaranteed).
- Acquired Tim Hightower from the Cardinals in exchange for Vonnie Holliday and a late-round draft pick.
- Agreed to terms with Chris Chester on a five-year, $20 million contract ($6.5 million guaranteed).
- Signed Barry Cofield for six years, $36 million ($12.5 million guaranteed).
- Traded Jeremy Jarmon to the Broncos for Jabar Gaffney.
- Brought back Santana Moss with a three-year, $15 million deal ($6 million guaranteed).
- Signed Josh Wilson to a three-year, $13.5 million deal ($6 million guaranteed).
- Signed Sav Rocca.

I believe that's most of the Redskins' non-draft moves last year. Nothing too horrible, right? Getting anything of value for Haynesworth and McNabb was surprising given their awful tenures in Washington. The Atogwe signing doesn't look that great, and he may end up as a cap casualty (in part because of the presence of DeJon Gomes). It also doesn't help that he hasn't been able to stay healthy. Moss took a step back last season and finished with the lowest receiving yards in a season (584) since 2002-2003 when he had just 433. He also missed four games with a broken hand. Brown wasn't that special either and could be replaced if the Redskins draft a tackle or sign one via free agency.

But the Bowen, Cofield, Wilson, and Rocca signings were all upgrades, and Chester played competently at times in the Redskins' stretch-running attack. They also picked up Hightower and Gaffney for basically nothing since Holliday and Jarmon weren't going to make the final roster anyway.

So are you buying the argument that the Redskins aren't the "same old" team? ESPN's Dan Graziano argues that point and also that signing Peyton Manning wouldn't require a shift in this new, different philosophy:

In the meantime, there is free agency, and although the Redskins didn't make a big splash last summer, they did very well in free agency. Shanahan targeted specific players in the 27- to 29-year-old age group -- guys he believed were already established but still young and hungry enough to grow and develop with the team. He plans to use the same formula this year to address wide receiver, offensive line and the secondary. He's not after the biggest name out there. He's after the specific types of players he believes his team needs in order to build a consistent, year-to-year winner.

Which brings us back to Manning, one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. Shanahan's not going to give Manning a big, five-year, huge-money deal. I don't think anyone is, given the health concerns, but if the market gets that crazy, I don't expect the Redskins to play in it. It just wouldn't be smart. Bringing Manning in on a one-year or two-year deal with incentives to allow him to prove he's healthy is smart, because if Manning is healthy, he's worth as much as any quarterback in the league.

I'm on record as being against a potential Manning deal, but I also agree with Graziano that bringing in Manning could work, depending on the contract, its length, and whatever other moves the Redskins make in free agency and in the draft. If the Redskins do sign Manning, they also must draft a young quarterback at some point, along with not going overboard by simply building the team around Manning. After all, his career could be over in the near future, if it's not already over (which hopefully is not the case).

At the moment, I'm on board with the direction of this team. The Redskins weren't much fun to watch last season, but they also are building a young, talented nucleus -- something they haven't done for a long time. I loved just about everything from the 2011 offseason, but I won't be completely convinced in the direction of this team until seeing what they do in the next few months. There are several important choices to make, primarily what exactly to do at quarterback, but that's also why Shanahan is making big money.

Should the Redskins sign Peyton Manning? No.

The last few days/weeks, I've been reading countless comments on whether the Redskins should consider signing Peyton Manning when he's inevitably released by the Colts. As you are more than likely aware of, quarterback hasn't been a Redskins' strength for a very long time now, and things didn't go well with Donovan McNabb, Rex Grossman, and John Beck the last couple seasons. Many are convinced that not only is a major upgrade needed, but that it's immediately necessary. Enter Peyton Manning.

For the most part, these are the categories that opinions on this topic can be divided into:

1) Yes, the Redskins should do whatever it takes to sign Manning. They'd be crazy not to.

2) As long as he's healthy, Manning would provide a significant upgrade at quarterback. It's a risk, but it's worth the gamble.

3) No, it's not worth the risk, and it may harm the team's rebuilding movement.

I'm on board with group No. 3, which I'll get into below. I'm going to ramble a bit; hopefully you can follow what I'm getting at.

First, let's all agree on one thing: Quarterback is the most important position on the field. I think we're at a point where all football fans would agree with this. It's ideal to find a quarterback that's good enough to win with, and then to build a team around that guy. It doesn't always work that way and teams can still win games without elite quarterbacks -- just look at the 49ers and Alex Smith, who no other team was rushing to acquire -- but the rest of that team must be very talented, both on defense and special teams. Excellent coaching doesn't hurt either. It's always important to keep upgrading other phases of the team.

Still, people who are against signing Manning don't necessarily disagree that having a top-shelf quarterback is a must. He may still be that guy, but he also turns 36 in a month and a half and is continuing to recover from a neck injury that's required multiple surgeries. It's also not a positive sign when someone's condition needs weekly, or even daily, updates. Manning will probably continue to heal and get stronger, but is that an issue the Redskins really want to be concerning themselves with? The roster still needs to be improved in other ways, and it won't help if their quarterback is one neck-targeted hit away from never playing football again.

The Manning question looms large because of the limited quarterback choices this offseason. In reality, the Redskins were unlucky. Matt Barkley returning to USC for his senior season really threw a wrench into the Redskins' dreams of being able to acquire one of Andrew Luck/Robert Griffin III/Barkley. There's no guarantee one of those three would have been available at No. 6, but the odds were better. At this moment, the choices seem to be signing Manning or Kyle Orton, or trading up to draft Griffin. Drew Brees and Alex Smith are likely staying in New Orleans and San Francisco, respectively, and other teams seem to be better fits for Matt Flynn. Another name may be tossed in, but Manning/Orton/Griffin seem to be the realistic options.

Signing Orton would present a slight upgrade over Grossman, but he'd still be a stopgap option. If the Redskins sign Orton, they'd also likely select a quarterback in the first few rounds of the draft. If they're able to identify a young quarterback they believe is a fit, Orton could play for a while until the rookie is eventually ready to take over.

The thought of trading up for Griffin rivals the popularity of signing Manning. A trade for Griffin would demand at least two first-round picks and probably another high-round pick or two. But by paying that steep price, the Redskins would obtain their franchise quarterback to build around. Griffin turns 22 in a couple days, and to some he's not all that far behind Luck in terms of a pro quarterback prospect. Like Manning, there's no guarantee that Griffin would work out. But there's a huge difference between worrying about how Griffin will develop and learn to play the position in the NFL than believing Manning's career could be over every time he absorbs a hit from an opposing defender. And while the Redskins' offensive line was a bit better this season, they're far from a dominant unit.

Other than his injury -- which is the chief concern -- what are my reservations about signing Manning?

1) He would alter the team's upcoming draft strategy. I've heard some people disagree with this, and I'm not quite sure why. If the Redskins sign Manning, they'll have to do everything in their power to make sure the offensive line protects him. They will also need more offensive firepower. Those are two of the team's important needs regardless, but with Manning, they may focus on trying to upgrade those two areas early in the draft. It's also possible they reach for a few players in those spots to plug holes instead of valuing talent over position. With Manning on board, the Redskins could also wait much further to take a quarterback than they would if they signed someone like Orton. It's not a guarantee that would happen, but it's at least a mild concern.

2) The Redskins may shift to win-now mode, which means bad free agent signings. For the most part, last offseason was the ideal offseason for how most (levelheaded) fans want the Redskins to rebuild. The Redskins selected lots of players in the draft and didn't throw a ton of money at old players coming off career years. Oshiomogho Atogwe was probably the worst signing, but guys like Barry Cofield, Stephen Bowen, Josh Wilson, etc. (all well under 30) played well and should be able to contribute a lot going forward. But if the Redskins sign Manning and start worrying about winning now at all costs, that could mean switching that free agent mentality back to that old Dan Snyder-type thinking, which means taking chances on older players whose best days are behind them. That could mean reuniting Manning with Reggie Wayne or Jeff Saturday -- that type of signing. They may not be terrible moves, but they are ones that (hopefully) this franchise has learned from.

3) A clash between Manning and the Shanahans. This point is the main reason why I don't think it makes much sense for Manning to come to DC. With Manning around, Kyle Shanahan would essentially be superfluous. Manning is one of the NFL's all-time gifted offensive minds, and while Kyle Shanahan obviously brings a lot to the table, there's little reason for them both to be around at the same time. Would Mike Shanahan be willing to get rid of his son to bring in Manning? Would Manning and Kyle somehow be willing to coexist? And what type of offense would that team run? It's all very confusing, and it would be a huge mess to sort out.

Those are all legitimate concerns for me, though I don't have a perfect solution to the team's quarterback conundrum. I'm against them signing Manning, but I'm also not sure giving up valuable picks to bring Griffin aboard is infinitely wiser. In that situation, the team would likely still be pretty bad, so would Shanahan be able to keep his job heading into year four? And if the Redskins decide to bring in Orton and also draft a quarterback semi-early, that team would likely be no better than 8-8. And again, would Shanahan survive that?

Really, there's no obvious answer. But heading down the Manning road seems like something the Redskins have tried before. It didn't work with McNabb -- yes, Manning is better, but he's not really a much better fit than McNabb was -- and the Redskins wouldn't even commit to him longer than one season, which was pretty funny considering they gave up two draft picks for him. They've taken the sign-the-aging-veteran route all too many times in the past.

Just because the Redskins wouldn't have to surrender any draft choices for Manning doesn't mean such a move won't have any lasting effects on this team. If they're going to choose that option, they should understand the very real consequences that it'll blow up in their faces.

Revisiting the Redskins' draft choices the last few years

Every time fans or talking heads suggest the Redskins should trade draft picks away, it makes me laugh. Not only because the Redskins are deficient in overall team talent, but because they've been trading away draft selections for years, and it hasn't been an effective strategy. Dan Snyder and the team's front office has (until recently, hopefully) completely refused to hold onto their allotment of draft picks.

Is it really surprising that the team's most successful draft in years may end up being last year's draft, when the team traded down a few times and selected 12 players? Time will tell how good those 12 players are, but most of them contributed at least something this season, which is a lot more than can be said about most of the team's drafts in the last decade-plus.

Mike Shanahan may have the final word on personnel decisions, but the Redskins' scouting and personnel departments haven't changed that much. Besides the departure of Vinny Cerrato, the guy previously calling the shots, things aren't much different. And that should be reason enough to hold onto as many picks as possible: More picks mean more chances.

Let's take a look at the last three drafts (2009, 2010, and 2011). In those drafts, starting with 2009, the Redskins had six, seven (third-rounder used in 2009 supplemental draft), and 12 draft choices, respectively. Take a guess which one's better.

2009:

1st: Brian Orakpo
3rd: Kevin Barnes
5th: Cody Glenn
6th: Robert Henson
7th: Eddie Williams
7th: Marko Mitchell

2010:

1st: Trent Williams
3rd: Jeremy Jarmon (2009 supplemental pick)
4th: Perry Riley
6th: Dennis Morris
7th: Terrence Austin
7th: Erik Cook
7th: Selvish Capers

2011:

1st: Ryan Kerrigan
2nd: Jarvis Jenkins
3rd: Leonard Hankerson
4th: Roy Helu
5th: Dejon Gomes
5th: Niles Paul
6th: Evan Royster
6th: Aldrick Robinson
7th: Brandyn Thompson
7th: Maurice Hurt
7th: Markus White
7th: Chris Neild

Again, who knows how all of those 2011 picks will pan out. But it's probably a good idea to stick with the 2011 strategy over the other two years. Yes, I know that this analysis is only looking back at the last three drafts, and the Redskins have obviously picked some talented players in previous drafts. But they've done so without stockpiling picks, which has also prevented them from creating depth at key positions.

The only players from 2009 and 2010 who have really contributed are Orakpo, Williams, and Riley. Barnes has received playing time, but he hasn't been very good. He also may not be on the roster next season because of his overall ineffectiveness. Austin and Cook haven't done much either. Of those 13 picks, only those six are still with the team -- which is hilariously bad. The worst pick of the bunch is probably Jarmon, selected in the 2009 supplemental draft. The Redskins forfeited a third-round pick for Jarmon's services, and right now he's out of the league. Jarmon was originally selected as a defensive end when the Redskins utilized a 4-3 defense, so the selection was at least defensible at the time. But after being traded to and subsequently released by the Broncos earlier this season, Jarmon may not get another NFL opportunity. Either way, I guess, that pick was wasted.

-----

If you're on board with the Redskins trading away future draft picks in order to get Andrew Luck (unlikely) or Robert Griffin III (more possible), that's just fine. I'd be extremely happy if the Redskins finally acquired/drafted a franchise quarterback. That's the team's biggest need. But trading away multiple draft choices, particularly first- and second-round picks, is not something that I agree with, especially when examining the team's draft resume the last few years. Obviously it's a requirement to analyze each trade individually, but trading up in the first few rounds is rarely cheap.

Yes, the NFL is a quarterbacks' league; most great teams have outstanding quarterbacks. But I shudder at the thought of the Redskins giving up the farm for a quarterback who ends up with the skills of someone like Mark Sanchez. Give me 2011's strategy instead, even if that means missing out on Luck and Griffin.

Redskins face their first must-win against Rams

Heading into the season, most people figured the Redskins (2-1) would be an average to below-average team. I can recall only one analyst (NFL Network's Michael Lombardi) picking them to make the playoffs, and, predictably, he faced lots of criticism for doing so. Then the season started and the Redskins won their first two games.

Were they overly impressive wins? That's hard to tell, considering it's so difficult to accurately judge teams so early in the season. They beat an injury-depleted Giants team 28-14 in Week 1 and looked decent, though they needed an interception return by rookie linebacker Ryan Kerrigan to seize the lead in the third quarter and take control of the game for good. In Week 2 against the Cardinals, the Redskins again looked decent, racking up 455 yards of total offense and rushing for 172 yards. But they were also down 21-13 late in the fourth quarter and needed an 18-yard touchdown pass to Santana Moss on a fourth down play and a crucial 34-yard Graham Gano field goal to pull out the 22-21 victory.

Last week's 18-16 loss to the Cowboys on Monday, which the Redskins could have won if they had taken advantage of several opportunities throughout the game, was more of a typical Redskins game. But fans are well accustomed to those kinds of ugly, underwhelming performances, particularly on Sunday or Monday night games.

The Cowboys and Giants are both 2-1, and the Cardinals are 1-2. But no one has a handle on exactly how good those teams are just yet -- just like the Redskins.

So how bad are the 0-3 Rams? They've lost by double digits in all three of their games, but they've also faced some strong competition in the Eagles, Giants, and Ravens. But if the Redskins are truly a decent team, they'll go to St. Louis and beat a winless team, which would put them at 3-1 going into their bye week.

To prove the critics wrong and actually have a chance at a 9-7 or a 10-6 season, the Redskins must throw everything they have at the Rams and win this game. Essentially, it's a "kitchen sink" game for them. Not only would it be awful to lose going into a bye week, but if they do lose, there will be two weeks of negative talk about the team, focusing on all the things this team hasn't done and trying to come up with answers even if there aren't any. If Rex Grossman has a bad game against the Rams, I also expect a ton of talk about benching him in favor of John Beck. Whether or not that actually happens is another thing, but no one would be surprised to see Beck get a chance if the Redskins struggle in yet another important game. No one thought that Mike Shanahan would bench a healthy Donovan McNabb in favor of Grossman last season, so going from Grossman to Beck wouldn't that surprising of a move.

With a loss, all of the positives surrounding the 2-0 start will disappear. That means, basically, it would be another long, Redskins-like season. The Redskins have shown flashes, particularly on defense, of being an improved team. And after a disappointing loss to the Cowboys, they need to score early and often against a bad, wounded team. Anything less would be, well, expected.

A great sign: Redskins lose the offseason

If you look at the Redskins' depth chart, there aren't a ton of exciting, well-known names -- especially at quarterback. The roster is filled with youth and inexperience. But for once, the Skins are actually building an actual roster, you know, with things like talent and depth. Intriguing strategy, fellas.

The best sign of all seems to be that Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen are the guys running the show, not Daniel Snyder. There haven't been any particularly flashy moves made, and the Skins also got rid of their two biggest headaches, Albert Haynesworth and Donovan McNabb. The McNabb acquisition seemed like a Snyder move; going into the season with John Beck as the starter does not.

But this season really isn't about Beck. It is, in a sense, I guess. Shanahan keeps going on and on about Beck's potential, which may be necessary to keep fans involved and coming to games. Fans don't seem to be as interested in going to training camp this year, which can partly be tied to having Beck and Rex Grossman as the top two quarterbacks on the roster. But that's more of a combination of things like the lockout, unbearable weather, a lack of marquee names, Snyder backlash, and the fact that the Redskins have been poorly run for a long time. It's a little early to overreact about that, but it's difficult to expect fans to keep showing up when the team has been so inept. Oddly enough, even though Beck appears to be the likely starter, this would be the perfect time to support the Redskins. They drafted well and didn't do anything ridiculous in free agency. Isn't that what fans want?

I'm not buying all of the Beck stuff. Sure, there's a chance that he plays competently enough, but there's an even smaller chance that he actually plays well. Shanahan has to know that; then again, maybe I don't understand just how big Shanahan's ego is. But even if Beck does OK, the Redskins are still going to be a bad team. The ceiling is probably the record they had last season, 6-10, though they're probably a win or two worse than that. Regardless, they're still going to pick a quarterback in the first round next year, and if Beck (or even Grossman, somehow) proves that he can fill in without doing a terrible job, he'll give that young quarterback a little more time to mature. That's not the most ideal strategy, but Shanahan and Allen certainly discussed something along those lines heading into last year's draft. Did they want to take a quarterback then? It's possible. But they also could have looked at the options, saw that several quarterbacks were being taken way too early, and decided to go in a different direction. That's the type of thinking that could eventually turn the Redskins around. That is, if the other players they drafted are actually good.

I'm not saying that Shanahan, or anyone in the organization, wants to intentionally lose games or tank. But there's nothing the Redskins could have done to not be a bad team this season -- even if they had signed Nnamdi Asomugha, Cullen Jenkins, Matt Hasselbeck, Santonio Holmes, Braylon Edwards, or any other combination of the top free agents available. That would have been more of the same, and the Redskins still would have finished no better than 8-8.

Whether or not the Skins are actually rebuilding remains to be seen. The defense seems improved and should be better at putting pressure on opposing quarterbacks, but the offense has plenty of question marks -- not just at quarterback, but also on the offensive line. Again, it's still a bit early. But if they do go through this season and find that they've put together a decent roster filled with young, improving talent, well, then it will only look better if/when they're able to add a young, skilled quarterback to the mix.

But first things first: Let's find out which of these young guys can actually play.

Portis's days in D.C. appear to be numbered

On Friday, Mike Shanahan hinted that the Redskins would not be bringing Clinton Portis back at his current salary, adding that the team would only bring him back at a much lower price, if he doesn't find a better deal with another team.

Here's the story, via Mike Jones of Redskins Insider:

Redskins Coach Mike Shanahan said Friday evening at the NFL Combine that the team will allow Portis to shop himself to other teams and that they only would bring the 10-year veteran back at a significantly reduced figure.

"With a guy with a high salary cap, I've always dealt with it a little differently," Shanahan explained. "If we're not going to sign Clinton to that high salary, I'll let him test the market out. Not to say we don't want him, but for a lower price, and obviously we'll try to find the best deal. It could happen. I don't want to say right now. If I said that, usually I'm being pretty honest with you. Could be two days from now, could be three days from now."

Seems reasonable, right? It wouldn't make much sense to pay Portis the $8.3 million he's owed for the upcoming season. Depending on what the Redskins do in the draft and what type of deal Portis can find in free agency, he could still end up back in Washington. But Portis, who's 29 and has carried (at least part of) the load for the Redskins for seven seasons, can't seem to stay healthy now because of the toll all those carries and huge blocks have taken on his body.

If Portis has played his last down with the Redskins, he played honorably in D.C. and will be considered one of the best Redskins running backs in the franchise's history. Currently, he's the second all-time leading rusher for the Redskins with 6,824 yards, trailing John Riggins's franchise-best 7,472 rushing yards.

There's a plethora of other memories/moments of Portis to rehash, and there will be time for that on another day (when he's officially not on the Skins anymore).

A plea to Shanahan and Allen

Now that the Redskins season has been over for a few weeks, much talk has centered around what the Skins will decide to do with their first-round pick (No. 10 overall). Obviously there are plenty of mock drafts to dissect, and some of them have the Redskins selecting Auburn quarterback Cam Newton at No. 10.

The first round of the NFL Draft is not until April 28, so scouting reports and mock drafts are going to drastically change in a few months. But the current Redskins team is old and has plenty of holes, and this draft is hugely important going forward in terms of shaping Mike Shanahan's and Bruce Allen's legacy in D.C.

Picking a franchise quarterback would be fantastic. The Redskins have not had a young, talented quarterback for a very long time, and there's no question that Shanahan will desperately be looking for a quarterback to mold and develop to his liking. But having a talented quarterback does not guarantee success. Not many people would argue that quarterback is the most important position on the field, or that having a solid quarterback is immensely important. But if the Redskins neglect the rest of the team's holes to draft a quarterback, they may not only risk taking a step back in the standings next season, but also hindering that quarterback's development (again, assuming that they don't surround him with the right pieces -- the Skins don't exactly have a ton of draft picks right now (6)).

Still, having a top quarterback does (usually) make things easier. Of all the quarterbacks who finished in the top 10 in terms of quarterback rating this season, seven made the playoffs. However, the No. 2 name on that list, Philip Rivers, threw for more yards than anyone else (4,710) and had the fifth-most touchdown passes (30), and his team still fell short of the playoffs despite having one of the best points differentials in the league.

Sure, that's just one example -- and a recent one at that. I'm also not going to go back over every draft and focus on which quarterbacks taken early were and were not busts. But unless the Redskins get lucky and select a truly elite quarterback like a Tom Brady or Peyton Manning -- not likely at all -- then it's important to keep building up the rest of the team and to not keep neglecting key areas like the offensive and defensive lines. If a team is well rounded and can compete with a mediocre quarterback, then there isn't much of a reason to draft a quarterback so early unless Shanahan and Allen -- whoever gets the final decision (Shanahan, probably) -- are completely convinced that guy is going to be a star.

Just take a look at the Jets and Bears. Are both of those teams a little lucky? Sure. The Jets sort of limped into the postseason before catching fire and taking down the Colts (a game they easily could have lost) and the Patriots (who the Jets outplayed). And the second-seeded Bears ended up facing a flawed Seahawks team in Chicago while the top-seeded Falcons were blown out at home by a determined Packers team. Would the Bears have faired as well hosting the Packers instead? We're about to find out this week. But that's beside the point. Aaron Rodgers and Ben Roethlisberger are elite quarterbacks, so it's not surprising to see their teams still alive at this point. But Jay Cutler and Mark Sanchez? They may be good quarterbacks, but neither would be considered great. This season, Cutler ranked 16th in quarterback rating (86.3) but did have 23 touchdowns to 16 interceptions. He was good -- but not great. Sanchez was even worse this season, finishing with the fifth-worst quarterback rating (75.3) while throwing 17 touchdowns and 13 interceptions. But both of those teams have been able to overcome their lack of a truly elite quarterback because they're able to do things like force turnovers, get pressure on opposing quarterbacks, and run the ball a little themselves on offense.

Of course, it's all about being able to build a franchise. The Redskins are not ready to compete for a championship; they need to add more pieces before that can happen. So all I'm trying to say is that the Redskins shouldn't reach for a quarterback so early in the draft if they're not sure he's the guy. Again, there's no guarantee the quarterback they select is going to be great, but there seems to be a little less pressure and difficulty in picking another position of need -- and the Redskins obviously have plenty of those.

I'm a fan of taking the best available player, and I think the Redskins should do that -- even if it's a quarterback. But they should also be exploring the possibility of taking any other position -- offense or defense -- or even trading back to replenish some of the picks they gave away when trading for Donovan McNabb and Jammal Brown.

In the end, if the Redskins do decide that Newton is the guy, that's fine. But he's not going to be the team's savior with so many other gaping holes on the roster, and it would be wrong of them to believe that. Shanahan and Allen have a ton of work to do, and hopefully they are not solely focused on finding a quarterback. This team needs much more help than that.

Analyzing, but not overreacting to, McNabb's benching

As you've undoubtedly heard by now, Donovan McNabb has not only been benched in favor of Rex Grossman for Sunday's game against the Cowboys, but likely for the rest of the season. McNabb will not even serve as the backup in Dallas; that duty will go to John Beck. The decision, handed down by Mike Shanahan, will also presumably end McNabb's brief tenure in Washington.

McNabb may still be with the team for the next few weeks, so it's worth noting that in mid-November, McNabb signed an extension to stay with the Redskins beyond this season. But as Barry Svrluga of Redskins Insider mentions, the only guarantee in that extension was that McNabb would earn $3.5 million if the Skins decided not to bring McNabb back. And with today's events, that outcome seems extremely likely.

There are basically two points to take away from this mess:

1) The decision itself to bench McNabb is absolutely justifiable. That isn't something that I thought I'd ever write, especially considering that on October 27 I discussed this very topic when the Grossman-over-McNabb rumors were rumbling. Here's a sample of what I had to say:

Do fans really want to start someone who has thrown more interceptions than touchdowns in his career just because he's more familiar with the team's offense? Now, I understand that there are some crazy fans with irrational ideas -- mainly the types of fans who routinely call into sports talk radio shows and ramble on and on about random things -- but that type of thinking is just ridiculous.

Regardless of how bad that looks now, I still stand by that statement. At the time, the Redskins were 4-3 after a win -- an extremely ugly win -- over the Bears in Chicago. After that win, though, came arguably the toughest three weeks for Washington this season: a horrible loss in Detroit that included McNabb being benched late in the fourth quarter in favor of Grossman, a horrendously long bye week that included endless discussion of said benching, and then a 59-28 beating on Monday Night Football by the hated Eagles.

Since the Bears win, the Redskins are 1-5. In the first seven weeks, McNabb had six touchdown passes and seven interceptions. In the six games after that, he had eight touchdown passes and eight interceptions. For the season as a whole, McNabb has posted a 77.1 QB rating. So yeah, McNabb has been consistently mediocre the entire season.

That's not to say that the Redskins' poor offense and recent collapse as a team are both his fault -- of course not. He only has a couple of offensive weapons around him, the only young one being 24-year-old Ryan Torain, who has been fantastic -- when he's actually healthy enough to play. The receiving corps, outside of Santana Moss and Chris Cooley (and maybe Anthony Armstrong), isn't anything to get excited about either. And that's not even mentioning the offensive line, which is just a running joke at this point because of how often it has been neglected in the draft.

Benching McNabb in favor of Grossman does not give the Redskins a better chance to win. I think that bears repeating: Grossman starting at quarterback obviously does not present an upgrade at the position. With that being said, if the Shanahans have already decided that McNabb is a) not the quarterback they want to lead this team for the next few seasons, and b) deteriorating as an effective playmaker, then what's the point of running him out onto the field for the next three weeks? Sure, beating Dallas would be great, but with all of the major problems with this team, it's not really that big of a deal at this point. Sure, the idea to give Grossman all the reps is a little strange, considering that Grossman just isn't that good no matter what offensive system his team runs. Starting Beck would provide some intrigue, and maybe that's something that happens before the season ends. It's also entirely possible that no quarterback on this current roster ends up starting under center in Week 1 next season.

But really, if Shanahan wasn't going to bring McNabb back after this season, there's no reason to give him any more snaps. He's seemingly decided to go in another direction, and from what most people have seen this year from McNabb, that doesn't seem like a horrible choice. (That's not to suggest that McNabb won't look much better when he plays on a team next season that's able to surround him with more talent. Getting out of D.C. could be the best thing to happen to McNabb.)

2) The trade for McNabb was/is a complete disaster. In case anyone forgot, the Redskins parted with a second-round pick in the 2010 draft and either a third- or fourth-round choice in the upcoming draft. The Redskins have a ton of holes on offense and defense, and those two picks certainly would have helped. The Redskins could have selected a quarterback with that second-rounder -- who knows.

(Sidenote: Here's a quote from Brian Mitchell in the linked ESPN article above on the McNabb trade:

"In his voice I heard a lot of enthusiasm," Mitchell reported on Comcast SportsNet. "And you know, he may not be exactly like me, but I could hear he had a little revenge in that voice, too. And he wants to go to the Eagles and show them that they made a mistake."

It's nothing that's a big deal, of course, but it's still funny to read after the fact.)

As is the case with most Redskins trades, many fans focused on the veteran the team traded for instead of the value of the draft picks. The Redskins fan base's disdain for trading away draft picks is definitely growing -- and will continue to grow until these types of trades stop happening -- but there were a ton of excited fans when the news of the McNabb trade broke. And I'll be honest, my immediate thought that was I didn't like the trade, particularly because the team was again giving away more draft picks, but as the season got closer I did feel a little better about the Redskins having an established quarterback under center. But that obviously didn't change much about the team, and here we are now.

For what it's worth -- and believe me, I don't like to quote myself very often, let alone twice in the same post, but I think it's constructive in this case -- here was my reaction to the trade:

I understand why the Redskins made this move, and I think most fans can see the rationale behind it. If the Redskins are able to find a young quarterback they like in this year's draft or next year's, then McNabb isn't a bad choice to be the team's quarterback until then. However, the Redskins really need to stop trading draft picks. It's downright laughable at this point. There probably isn't another team in the NFL that values draft picks less, and it's not surprising to understand why the Redskins don't have adequate depth at most positions.

Although McNabb is a little more mobile than Campbell, he still needs an offensive line to give him time. Even if the Redskins take a left tackle at No. 4, there's still work to be done to significantly improve the line.

The move made some sense at the time; it would be a bit of revisionist history to suggest that it made no sense at all. But the Redskins didn't adequately address the offensive line woes and also didn't bring in enough offensive weapons around McNabb. Oh, and McNabb didn't turn out to be the quarterback that the Shanahans thought they were getting.

Determining the winner and loser of this trade was always going to depend on how well McNabb played in Washington. Well, he didn't play all that well, and now it looks like he's on the way out. The McNabb trade is just another failed move, and now it's back to the drawing board for Shanahan and Co.

Skins give game away with special teams mistakes

Another game, another heart-breaking loss. Here's what they're saying about the Redskins' latest embarrassing moment (both the loss and the extra point debacle, I guess), this time a 17-16 loss to the Tampa Bay Bucs.

- "On the deciding play of the game, a snap on the extra point that went through holder Hunter Smith's hands, Gano said he did not see what happened because he keeps his head down on attempts. Gano seemed to be injured trying to pick up the fumbled snap, but he said he only aggravated a rib injury suffered against the Detroit Lions earlier this season and that he was 'fine.'

Asked if he was worried about his job security, Gano said he would 'love to still be here,' and Redskins Coach Mike Shanahan did not sound as if the Redskins were immediately considering releasing the kicker - who is 22 of 32 on field goals this season and 26 of 36 for his career." [Paul Tenorio, Redskins Insider]

- "The Redskins (5-8) overcame a lot of adversity to have a shot at putting this game into overtime. But a high snap and the failure of holder Hunter Smith to catch a wet football doomed the Skins with 9 seconds left on the clock. After falling behind for the first time in the game, Redskins quarterback Donovan McNabb engineered a late scoring drive that ended with a short touchdown pass to Santana Moss. This was by far the most painful loss of the season for the Skins because of the way things ended." [Matt Mosley, NFC East Blog]

- "Brett Conway. Eddie Murray. Michael Husted. Kris Heppner. Scott Bentley. James Tuthill. Craig Jarrett. Jose Cortez. John Hall. Ola Kimrin. Jeff Chandler. Nick Novak. Shaun Suisham.

After Sunday's performance, Graham Gano seems likely to join the gentleman above in comprising the list of ex-Washington Redskins kickers of the past decade. Gano missed two chip shot field goals in the rain and was part of a unit that blew a routine extra point that would have tied the game with nine seconds remaining. He's missed the most field goals in the NFL this season (10)." [Chris Chase, Shutdown Corner]

- "Smith was a stand-up guy, fielding the same questions about the play over and over again until everyone had finished. And he was matter-of-fact about what happened, refusing to blame his teammates or the elements or anyone else. 'It's raining,' he said, shrugging. 'The ball is wet when it goes on the field, it's wet when it's put down, it's wet when Donovan throws a touchdown pass to put us in a situation to tie the game. And it's wet when I go out and have to hold the ball in a manner that we can kick the ball and tie the game up. I didn't do that.'

And, later, he summed that sentiment up even more concisely: 'The ball's catchable; the kick is makeable; put this one on me. If anybody needs to take the blame, I'm willing to take it.'" [Matt Terl, Redskins Blog]

- "Let’s count the special teams gaffes: 1. Gano’s first missed FG. 2. Gano’s second missed FG. 3. Wilson’s fumbled kickoff. 4. The holding on Brandon Banks’ long kick return. 5. The botched snap/hold on the extra point. Also, fire Danny Smith." [Jamie Mottram, Mr. Irrelevant]

- "For a while, it appeared that the league lucked out with the Redskins winning. The play-by-play at NFL.com initially revealed that, the Redskins got a fifth down from the Tampa Bay six yard line, 20 years after Colorado received five downs to beat Missouri.

The play-by-play on NFL.com has since been changed to show that what was believed to be second-down and one from the Tampa two was actually first and goal. So when it appeared to be fifth down for the Redskins, it actually was fourth down.

Either way, it doesn’t matter, thanks to Hunter Smith’s popcorn hands." [Mike Florio, Pro Football Talk]

- "David Akers could miss a potential game-winner and keep his job. Because he's done his job well for years. He's earned the right to make a mistake or two. Gano hasn't.

Just like every other career in the world, if you do your job well consistently and you make a mistake, your employer will understand. If you make the same mistake repeatedly, you could be out of a job. It's been nice knowing you, Graham." [Martin Shatzer, SB Nation D.C.]

- "The botched snap/hold on the decisive extra point attempt was such a Redskins play, if you know what I mean. This team just makes sloppy, boneheaded mistakes every week. They come in different forms, but the baseline is the same: They’re what losers do to lose games.

This season, alone, they’ve had a block in the back that negated a kickoff return for a touchdown against Minnesota, Houston’s 34-yard touchdown reception against them on fourth-and-10 with 1:13 to play, blocking breakdowns that resulted in two blocked punts, a missed chip-shot field goal in today’s 1-point loss, and the list goes on. Such lapses are what separate the Redskins from contenders such as New England and Pittsburgh. [Editor's Note: That and, you know, several other things.]" [Rich Campbell, Redskins Journal]

- "Go ahead, cut [Hunter Smith]. Make him turn in his playbook.

Send him to Oakland like Jason Campbell. Give more money to a millionaire malcontent before deciding way too late to get rid of him.

Hunter the Holder is just today's alibi. We'll find another martyr, another scapegoat, someone else to deflect blame from another 12-year veteran in that warm luxury suite." [Mike Wise, The Washington Post]

- "But should it really be surprising that the Redskins couldn’t close out their game against the Bucs on a victorious note? It was a bad day for the Redskins from top to bottom.

The players committed costly mistakes on the field and mental errors as well, but they weren’t the only ones. Mike Shanahan had a rough outing from a clock management standpoint. . . . The Redskins were able to overcome those last-minute mistakes and score on the pass from McNabb to Moss. But with so much confusion flying around throughout the game, it’s no wonder Washington couldn’t get things right when they really needed to on Sunday." [Mike Jones, TBD Skins]

- "Heck, I almost feel bad for Redskins fans at this point, if it wasn’t for the fact that something like this happens to them every year. Feeling bad for a Redskins fan after epic failures like Sunday is like feeling bad for a friend who keeps getting sick eating dairy but refuses to admit he’s lactose intolerant.

Wait, there’s a pill you can take for that. There’s no pill to cure the almost weekly gut-wrenching the Redskins provide." [Dan Levy, Press Coverage]

- "Unless you actually play for the Redskins, you probably had to scream, laugh or just watch slack-jawed in awe at the single most unfathomably amateurish and embarrassing blunder in the last 18 years of gaffe-, gall- and guffaw-filled Washington football.

That decisive play - a snap that wasn't terribly bad and a muffed hold that wasn't all that easy - combined the cruel and unfair, but also seemed perfect and symbolic, too. It captured everything the Redskins have promised to be but then, for almost two decades, usually have failed to deliver.

The sublime and the ridiculous, usually poles apart, occasionally collide to produce the sublimely ridiculous. The Redskins are artists in the form. Yet, somehow, they never flip the script and accidentally stumble into the ridiculously sublime." [Thomas Boswell, The Washington Post]

-----

And after all of that, the Redskins face the Cowboys next Sunday. With a win, the Skins would sweep the season series -- not that I'm expecting something positive or non-embarrassing to happen, of course.

Quick note on the Haynesworth saga

So the Redskins have suspended Albert Haynesworth for four games, which also happens to be the rest of the season. Claiming that Haynesworth demonstrated "conduct detrimental to the club," the Redskins are also saying that Haynesworth had stopped talking to Mike Shanahan and that he refused to play in certain defensive packages during games. Obviously there's much more behind this fiasco, and things are far from over.

It would be hard to argue that any single party in this matter handled things well. It's also possible that the only reason the Redskins didn't release or trade Haynesworth this season was to build a case against him, including all the negative things he's done in a Skins uniform (and there's a lot of them), and go after not only the rest of his salary this season, but also some of the $21 million bonus he received before the season (in April).

Lots of fans and commentators have been talking about how it's just Haynesworth's fault or that Shanahan's huge ego is to blame. Many have also blamed Dan Snyder and the departed Vinny Cerrato for signing Haynesworth to begin with; remember, Shanahan and Bruce Allen didn't bring him in, though they knew dealing with him would be part of the job. In actuality, they're all at least partly to blame. Shanahan and Haynesworth seemed to butt heads from day one, and the trouble really began with the whole conditioning test debacle that lasted way too long. If Shanahan really didn't want Haynesworth on the team anymore, Allen could have dealt Haynesworth away to the Titans at some point during the season, but they either asked for too much in return or really weren't that serious about a trade. And Cerrato and Snyder made the huge mistake of not doing their homework and making Haynesworth the highest paid defensive player in the league two seasons ago. Switching to the 3-4 defense also looks like a huge mistake, not only because the Redskins front office had to know that Haynesworth would not be happy, but because the entire defensive unit has been abysmal.

But for those people who think that Haynesworth is only playing a small part in this matter -- and believe me, there are some people out there who think that everyone is to blame except Haynesworth -- do me a favor and watch the play below.

You've likely seen that play at least a few times by now. Is that really the guy you want to defend? Does that look like someone who loves the game of football, like he says? Or is that someone who just quit on this team and his teammates when they needed him most?

Haynesworth's appeal of the suspension should be coming soon, and this situation won't go away for at least another few weeks -- and maybe not until the season is over and the Redskins officially get rid of Haynesworth. So there's always that to look forward to.

Quick take on the McNabb situation

The decision by Mike Shanahan to pull Donovan McNabb in the Lions game has been the dominant NFL story the last few days, even with all of the Randy Moss drama unfolding. Whether or not Shanahan was trying to send a message to McNabb that he needs to play better, Shanahan never offered a logical reason for the move and has instead given a range of excuses: the possibility that McNabb doesn't practice hard enough; that McNabb was very sore going into the game and was told he could be removed from the game at some point; Shanahan at first saying that Grossman "gave us the best chance to win"; that McNabb might not be that great at running two-minute drills; and that maybe McNabb isn't as familiar with the team's offense as he needs to be (which at first was insinuated and then never touched on again, for obvious reasons). Some people have raised the racial implications of some of the things Shanahan has said (like that last example above), and even Vinny Cerrato has offered his opinion, for what that's worth (next to nothing).

Trying to sort through all of the nonsense from Shanahan, here's my take: This situation has less to do with removing McNabb from the game and more about the timing. What coaches let their quarterback play the entire game and then pull him with two minutes left when they're down by less than a touchdown? It doesn't matter if McNabb's hamstrings were sore, if he's in bad shape, or even if he knew that there was a possibility he could be taken out of the game. Shanahan is wrong on this issue, and now he has to deal with this for maybe the rest of the season -- and especially for the next two weeks. Nice work.

People aren't exactly lining up to congratulate Shanahan. And that's to be expected. When was the last time that a starting quarterback had played just about the entire game, and then was unexpectedly removed from the game while his team had a chance to march down the field for a game-winning score? I honestly can't remember, though I'm sure at some point it's occurred.

McNabb can play much, much better. And really, he needs to for this team to go anywhere -- or for him to even possibly return to D.C. after this season. But Shanahan deserves all of the blame in this case. If he didn't know this was the quarterback he was getting in McNabb, or that the offensive line would be even close to as bad as it currently is, why even trade for McNabb in the first place? Keep that pick and draft a young QB or another offensive lineman (or three).

Shanahan already has a difficult job, but he didn't help himself at all with this move. The only way he wins in this whole mess is if McNabb somehow starts playing better and rallies the troops in the team's final eight games. But even then, when it comes to the possibility of re-signing with Washington, would McNabb forgive Shanahan for not only taking him out of the game, but criticizing him, if only briefly, about his lack of knowledge of the team's offense?

Who knows what McNabb or Shanahan are really thinking, but hopefully McNabb is able to focus his rage on something that may anger him even more than Shanahan: the Philadelphia Eagles.

Praising the common-sense genius

In last night's game between the Steelers and the Saints, an interesting situation arose in the second quarter that definitely got my attention. On a 4th and 3 on the Pittsburgh 13 and 12 seconds remaining in the half, the Saints, for some reason, shifted out of field goal formation and looked as if they were going to run a pass play. Instead of letting his field goal unit cover the possible trick play, Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin simply called a timeout (the Steelers' third and final timeout of the half). After the timeout, the Saints opted to kick the field goal instead.

Not only was the decision by Tomlin to call a timeout logical, but it seemed like a simple solution. But Cris Collinsworth seemed amazed by Tomlin's timeout-calling genius, and he and Al Michaels discussed the move for the next few moments/minutes until the Saints lined up for their actual field goal attempt.

Now, there are thousands of coaching decisions behind the scenes both during the week for preparation and during actual games that fans will never know or be able to comprehend. But many coaches these days seemingly make so many bone-headed decisions that an obvious coaching move by Tomlin was enough for Collinsworth and Michaels to praise as if Tomlin had just pulled off some difficult maneuver that only he could have accomplished. Why is it so tough to have a common-sense approach?

Maybe that's because just about every bad coaching decision is analyzed endlessly by SportsCenter, teams' local media, other sports TV/radio shows, etc. But like it or not, that's going to be the case this week (and next week) with Mike Shanahan and his decision to pull Donovan McNabb in favor of Rex Grossman in the fourth quarter. (And that's not counting his two decisions to go for two in the second half, but I'll leave that for others to examine.)

To be clear, I completely disagreed with the decision to pull McNabb, even if he was having another mediocre game. I don't think McNabb has played all that well this season, which I've noted in previous posts. But that doesn't mean that Grossman gives the Redskins a better chance to win, which, oddly enough, was another topic that was discussed this week. There's very little, if anything, on the football field that Grossman does better than McNabb, especially with how poorly -- very, very poorly -- the Redskins offensive line was playing against the Detroit front four.

I think Shanahan likes to play these little head games with some of his team's best players. He was (still is?) in a battle of wills with Albert Haynesworth, though hopefully that's over as Haynesworth has played rather well the last few weeks. It's possible that Shanahan was trying to send a message to McNabb that mediocrity from him won't be enough to a) possibly get the Skins to the playoffs and b) earn him a contract to stay in Washington if it's not deserved.

But the timing of the move was beyond questionable. Let's take a look at the fourth-quarter situation again. Leading 25-20 after a Brandon Banks kickoff return touchdown, the Skins defense forced the Lions to punt the ball away, and McNabb and the offense took over at their own 26 with a little more than five minutes to go. The Lions also still had all three of their timeouts. On first down, Keiland Williams rushed for no gain. But on second down, McNabb made a disastrous decision, forcing the ball into a crowded area. Detroit intercepted the pass and took over in Redskins territory. Detroit both scored the go-ahead touchdown and completed the two-point conversion, which gave them a 28-25 lead.

The Redskins got the ball back with 3:12 remaining -- unfortunately, Banks didn't return the kickoff for a touchdown again -- and the offensive line again ruined any potential scoring drive. Trent Williams was called for holding on first down, and after two incomplete passes on second and third down, McNabb was sacked on 4th and 10. With the ball already in Washington territory, the Lions ran the ball three times and kicked a field goal to go up by a score of 31-25.

And that's when the switch to Grossman happened. Three thoughts popped into my head when I saw Grossman running onto the field: 1) Is McNabb hurt? 2) Why would Shanahan do this? 3) How exactly is Grossman supposed to perform any better than McNabb did with the way the offensive line was playing? As if it was destined to happen, Grossman was immediately sacked, and his fumble was recovered and returned for a touchdown. With the game now out of reach, Grossman threw a few short passes when the Skins got the ball back, but they didn't mean anything.

After the game, Shanahan said he made the switch because Grossman "gave us the best chance to win" at the time. I really hope he didn't believe that, no matter how poorly or slowly McNabb had previously run the team's two-minute drill in other games. Grossman had absolutely no chance behind the Redskins offensive line in that game, and that was evident from the beginning of the first quarter. McNabb ran for his life all game, basically having to avoid one or two potential tackles on most passing plays just to get the ball off. Sure, he missed his fair share of open receivers when the line actually gave him time. That's been an issue all season. Does that mean that pulling him in the fourth quarter when all the team needed was a touchdown was really a good decision?

If Shanahan really was trying to send McNabb a message, maybe he could have found a different time to make such a choice. Or maybe he decided that was the single best opportunity he'd have all season to demonstrate to McNabb that he needs to play better, no matter what. Unfortunately, unlike Tomlin, Shanahan did not use common sense in assessing the situation, and it may not only have cost the Redskins the game, but now Shanahan and the team face some serious question marks heading into their bye week.

Redskins release Devin Thomas

The Devin Thomas era in Washington has ended. According to Redskins Insider's Rick Maese, the Redskins released Thomas yesterday, making room on the roster for Keiland Williams.

In the end, Thomas was right. For weeks, he admitted in interviews that he was worried that his roster spot was in jeopardy. He survived four games under Mike Shanahan, only contributing as the team's kick returner. In parts of three seasons in Washington after being drafted in the second round in 2008, Thomas caught a grand total of 40 passes for 445 yards and three touchdowns. He also had a rushing TD in 2008.

Obviously there was something about Thomas that the Redskins coaching staff didn't like, or else he would have gotten a chance. Thomas, who's only 23, will likely move on to another team with wide receiver issues, though not many teams have as thin of a wide receiver corps as the Redskins.

It would be nice to have some more answers on why Thomas was released, but two things probably contributed: 1) somehow he got in Shanahan's doghouse and couldn't get out of it, and 2) maybe he just wasn't that good to begin with. After all, he was drafted by Vinny Cerrato.

Jason Reid also shared a story about Thomas during the preseason:

An incident during a meeting in the preseason probably did not help Thomas improve his standing with the Shanahans.

As Thomas slept in the meeting, rookie wideout-punt returner Brandon Banks used his cell phone to take a picture of Thomas. Banks then transmitted the picture via Twitter. After team officials informed Shanahan of what occurred, Banks quickly deleted the picture from his Twitter account.

If Thomas was talented enough, him falling asleep in one meeting probably wouldn't have been a big deal. But that unprofessionalism, combined with his apparent talent deficiency, was enough for Shanahan to show him the door after just four games.

Here are some other links/reactions on Thomas's departure:

• "Redskins release Devin Thomas after four games; Keiland Williams promoted" [Mike Jones, @TBDSkins]
• "Thomas cut, Williams promoted" [John Keim, Redskins Confidential]
• "D.C. Is Where Wide Receivers Go to Die" [Jamie Mottram, Mr. Irrelevant]
• "Devin Thomas era in D.C. is over" [Matt Mosley, NFC East Blog]
• "Devin Thomas Cut by Redskins" [J.J. Cooper, FanHouse]

Haynesworth opens mouth, inserts foot

It's not that I don't like Albert Haynesworth. He's probably an OK guy, but he obviously believes that he's in the wrong kind of football situation (the 3-4 vs. the 4-3) and isn't happy about it. I also don't think he's being completely honest with himself, and that was evident in his "exclusive" interview on Thursday with ESPN.

Go ahead and watch the video. I did and wasn't that impressed, particularly with this portion here from the article (pardon the long quote):

"I wanted to be the greatest defensive lineman ever to play the game," Haynesworth told ESPN's Sara Walsh in an exclusive interview on Thursday.

In the time since, the Redskins have changed coaches -- from Jim Zorn to Mike Shanahan -- and defensive schemes -- from the 4-3 to the 3-4.

The change made Haynesworth hesitate before depositing the $21 million bonus check he was given April 1.

"Yeah, check sat at my house for a couple weeks before I cashed it," Haynesworth said. "I was weighing my options about what I should do. ... Do you want to take this? Do you want to commit yourself to playing a 3-4 [defense]? Do you want to go somewhere else and try again?"

Haynesworth ultimately took the money and stayed with the Redskins. But he did protest the change by skipping the team's offseason conditioning program and a mandatory minicamp.

There are several things to take away from his quotes, but let's examine two.

First, regardless of whether the check actually sat in his house for a few weeks or not, was there even a minuscule chance that Haynesworth would not cash that $21 million check? Of course not, even if the Redskins adopted Chris Cooley's 6-2 stack monster defense (which link I can't locate right now). Who would even say something like that? (There's an easy joke to be made about why he didn't get up and cash the check; I'll let you figure it out.)

Second, take a look at the last paragraph in the block quote. Haynesworth cashed the check, which, according to his own words and logic, meant that he was going to stay with the Redskins and commit to the 3-4. And then he skipped both the offseason conditioning program and minicamp, which both contradict that he was ever actually on board with the change in defenses. No one said he had to be happy with the 3-4 defense, and he's not the only one to blame in his power struggle with Mike Shanahan. The defense has also been awful, giving up lots of yards each game, and defensive coordinator Jim Haslett could really use a dominant Haynesworth on the defensive line for an entire game. But not only hasn't that happened, but Haynesworth frequently stands alone on the sidelines, looking like he'd rather be anywhere else.

If Haynesworth really wanted to be the greatest defensive lineman ever, he would find a way to get the job done in any defense. But not only did he convince himself that he couldn't be effective in the 3-4, but when he did show up, he was, at the very least, out of shape and was already behind the other linemen in terms of learning the new plays and schemes.

Instead of occupying multiple blockers and making things easier for other linemen and linebackers to make plays, Haynesworth would rather be somewhere where he can make tackles and get sacks. Is he more effective in that style of defense? Yeah, probably, but that's not really the point.

He doesn't have to stay in Washington for much longer. He's only been with the Redskins for two seasons, and yet it feels like he's been here forever. Honestly, it wouldn't be much of a surprise if he's with another team next season (barring a lockout, of course).

I'm just tired of the drama, and I know I'm not the only Redskins fan feeling that way. Haynesworth is tremendously talented, and it's a shame that those skills haven't been on full display in Washington -- especially since they desperately need them now. But whether Haynesworth leaves after the season or not, I'm confident in saying that they won't be losing the greatest defensive lineman ever -- not even close.

McNabb, others out for Friday's preseason game

An ankle sprain will keep Donovan McNabb out of the Redskins' third preseason game (against the Jets). McNabb hurt his left ankle in last week's loss to the Ravens.

Here's what head coach Mike Shanahan had to say about McNabb's injury:

"I don't think it's a bad ankle sprain. I don't think it's too bad. But it's still real sore right now, sore enough where he couldn't play this week if it was regular season, so that kind of gives you an idea."

Teams typically play their starters the most in the third preseason game, so the injury hurts the offense in that regard. But McNabb should be ready for the first regular season game against the Cowboys on September 12. The rest of the offense may lose the chance to become more familiar with McNabb and open things up a bit more for the rest of the preseason, but it's important to keep McNabb as healthy as possible. With McNabb out, Rex Grossman will get the start.

According to Shanahan, fullback Mike Sellers and wide receiver Malcolm Kelly will also miss Friday's game. Safety Kareem Moore will miss the game as well and is out 4-6 weeks with a sprained knee. Reed Doughty will get the start in his place.

Maybe Shanahan isn't so mean after all

So Albert Haynesworth has failed Mike Shanahan's conditioning test twice in a row, and on Saturday morning he didn't take the test because of some swelling in his knee. Shanahan said that he wasn't sure when Haynesworth would be able to take the conditioning test again:

"I don't know; it all depends on how the knee is, how he's feeling. I never said he had to take the test every day. We want to get you in football shape and when you feel like you can pass the test, we'll let you take it and if you pass it, we'll let you practice with the team."

Seems fair, right? Haynesworth missed just about all of Shanahan's offseason program, so Shanahan is forcing him to pass this test to prove he's in shape enough to participate in practices. Sure, Shanahan is likely upset that Haynesworth basically skipped his program, but he's using a test that Haynesworth should be able to pass.

And just in case you thought the conditioning test is unfair, Titans' coach Jeff Fisher has admitted that his team uses a very similar test as well. Here's what Fisher had to say, according to Redskins Insider's Jason Reid:

"That's the test we do - the 300-yard shuttle with a recovery time and then another one. What we do is ... if you've made a minimum number of offseason workouts, then the test is modified.

"Those that have been here for at least eight offseason workouts, it's a 300-yard shuttle, [but] they will run 50-yard increments instead of 25-yard shuttles, so it's a little bit easier. The 25-yard, 300-yard shuttle is an appropriate test for what kind of shape you're in."

There you have it -- similar workout under similar circumstances. So, yeah, Shanahan might have it in for Haynesworth because of how he treated Shanahan's offseason program, but if Haynesworth passes the conditioning test, he'll be able to practice -- case closed. Whenever that will be, though, remains to be seen.

Redskins release five players

This is more of a quick link post than much of an analysis, but the Redskins released five players this morning, with two of the names being noteworthy -- to me, at least. The first three were running back Anthony Alridge, receiver James Robinson, and running back P.J. Hill. But the other two were a bit surprising: receiver Marko Mitchell and defensive lineman Anthony Montgomery.

As a seventh-round draft pick, Mitchell wasn't really expected to produce much or play much, and he really didn't do either of those. In 10 games, he had four catches for 32 yards. And, as the Redskins Insider post notes, Mitchell didn't play on special teams. So if he's not catching passes and isn't playing on special teams, what exactly is his role? The only shocking thing about Mitchell being cut is the promise he showed in preseason last year. Then again, it was just preseason, and apparently Mike Shanahan wasn't very impressed.

Montgomery is another late-round draft pick -- he was picked in the fifth round in 2006 -- but since the Redskins are switching to a 3-4 defensive alignment and have signed several linemen hoping that maybe one or two of them can contribute something, Montgomery was basically expendable.

I can't say that I saw either move coming, but in the grand scheme of things, they're relatively minor anyway.