We all know the top priority for the Redskins in the upcoming NFL draft is finding a quarterback. And since the season has been going south for a few weeks now, it's time to start worrying about where the Redskins will be picking in the draft. At 3-6 (currently tied for the third-worst record in the NFL), they seem destined for a top 10, or maybe even top 5, pick.
But since I refuse to root against the Redskins, I'll do something different: hope that teams below them, particularly the ones that need quarterbacks, start racking up some wins.
Here are the 10 teams currently tied with or worse (record-wise) than the Redskins:
Colts (0-10)
Rams (2-7)
Dolphins (2-7)
Panthers (2-7)
Vikings (2-7)
Browns (3-6)
Cardinals (3-6)
Jaguars (3-6)
Eagles (3-6)
Seahawks (3-6)
(Let's all take a moment to mock the Eagles for being included on this list.)
Of all those teams, who will mostly likely not target a quarterback with their first-round pick? Probably the Rams (Sam Bradford), Panthers (Cam Newton), Vikings (Christian Ponder), Jaguars (Blaine Gabbert), and Eagles (Michael Vick). The Panthers, Vikings, and Jaguars all used top-12 picks in last year's draft to select a quarterback, so they probably won't look to take another one so soon. But this is all mostly guesswork, and no one knows exactly what teams will do with top picks, especially when Andrew Luck's name gets thrown into the mix. And that's without factoring in potential trades.
Eliminating those five teams, that leaves the Colts, Dolphins, Browns, Cardinals, and Seahawks -- all of whom would likely select a quarterback with their top pick (again, depending on where that pick is and which quarterbacks are available). The Chiefs (4-5) and Broncos (4-5) may also draft a top quarterback if they tail off and lose a bunch of games to end the season.
So with all of those teams in mind, who should Redskins fans be rooting for this week? Let's take a quick look at some relevant matchups (while hoping the bolded teams win):
Jets vs. Broncos
Jaguars vs. Browns
Bills vs. Dolphins
Seahawks vs. Rams
Cardinals vs. 49ers
Chiefs vs. Patriots
Honestly, it wouldn't hurt if all teams with awful records won a few games, but whatever. I'll admit, this is a little wacky, and it'll all be much simpler if the Redskins continue to lose games, which they probably will. But I'm tired of watching quarterbacks like Rex Grossman and John Beck, and this process is the best way I can hope for a franchise quarterback without rooting against my team. And, really, it's not like they need any extra help to lose games anyway.
Showing posts with label Rex Grossman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rex Grossman. Show all posts
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Hankerson suffers torn labrum, is placed on IR
A bright spot of watching a bad team is getting the chance to see that team's young players. The hope is that they'll learn quickly and develop, in the process transforming from talented prospects into productive players. Unfortunately for the 3-6 Redskins, one of those intriguing, young players, WR Leonard Hankerson, has been placed on injured reserve after suffering a torn labrum and a hip injury in Sunday's loss to the Dolphins.
The loss of Hankerson is a crushing blow to the Redskins, not only because of their shortage at wide receiver, but because Hankerson just had the best game of his young NFL career, catching eight passes from Rex Grossman for 106 yards.
Hankerson joins defensive lineman Jarvis Jenkins, the Redskins' second-round pick, as the second of the team's draft picks to be lost for the season.
The loss of Hankerson is a crushing blow to the Redskins, not only because of their shortage at wide receiver, but because Hankerson just had the best game of his young NFL career, catching eight passes from Rex Grossman for 106 yards.
Hankerson joins defensive lineman Jarvis Jenkins, the Redskins' second-round pick, as the second of the team's draft picks to be lost for the season.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Fans want John Beck
When it comes down to Rex Grossman vs. John Beck, Redskins fans are convincingly on Beck's side. Just take look at this poll on The Washington Post's Insider blog:
Out of more than 6,000 total votes, 86 percent want the Redskins to give Beck a chance. After watching Grossman play last week, it's hard to disagree.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
It's not about Grossman vs. Beck
It happens a lot. Whenever the Redskins don't look completely terrible to start the season, fans get excited. They start talking themselves into better performances, more wins, and maybe a playoff berth. Most people tempered their expectations because the Redskins weren't able to fill all of their holes in the offseason. But the same thing still happened, when Rex Grossman looked decent, the Redskins seemingly possessed a new and improved running game, and the defense started putting pressure on opposing quarterbacks.
The Redskins got off to a surprising 3-1 start, and some of those things continued. The defense is better than last season and has showcased the ability to generate sacks and turnovers. The offensive line is also better, and the Redskins have run the ball effectively at times. Quarterback, though, is still an issue. And, for some reason, after Grossman's four-interception game against the Eagles, fans are again expressing their disgust with the team's quarterback situation, even though there wasn't much of a chance the Redskins were going to rectify that problem during the season.
Let's step back for a moment. Whenever something embarrassing happens involving the Redskins -- this week's embarrassing performance being Grossman's awful game -- fans express their outrage. That's fine, I guess, and there will always be the crazy fans who come up with bizarre solutions or want the team to go in a completely different direction and start firing coaches left and right. But what exactly changed after the Eagles game? Obviously the injuries on the offensive line are huge concerns, but I'm talking about the quarterback issues. Did fans really need to witness Grossman's four interceptions to know that he was an average to below-average quarterback? He throws the ball well occasionally, but he's a turnover-committing machine. Wasn't that a given going into the season?
Before the season started and people started getting a little too wrapped up in how well the Redskins played at times in the preseason, I wrote a few quick notes for things to remember about this season. Here they are:
1. Nothing wrong with being excited about the team's young talent.
2. Don't up on some of those young players if they start slow.
3. Beck/Grossman doesn't mean a whole lot.
4. Going to draft a QB to develop; Beck/Grossman stepping up would help make that transition easier.
5. Getting a few wins shouldn't mean a change of direction.
6. Revamped defense and offensive weapons to eventually be aided by better quarterback and offensive line play = long-term goal.
So let's break these thoughts down:
1. The Redskins committed to the draft, and they've been rewarded for doing so. No, they didn't draft a quarterback and will have to do that next year, but they did add some much-needed, young talent to the roster. Ryan Kerrigan has been outstanding, and Roy Helu has been solid. Other rookies, such as Niles Paul, Chris Neild, Markus White, DeJon Gomes, and Leonard Hankerson, have either brought something to the table that the team lacked or have given the Redskins depth at a few positions. And that's not even counting Jarvis Jenkins, who had the best preseason of all the rookies before being lost for the season. Hopefully the Redskins embrace this strategy again in next year's draft.
2. This may really only apply to Hankerson, who has yet to play in a game yet. But it's not like the Redskins have a plethora of explosive weapons at wide receiver, so Hankerson should get his chance soon.
3. Rex Grossman is not the answer at quarterback. Neither is John Beck, regardless of what the Shanahans have said. This has not changed.
4. It's possible that the Shanahans really believed one of the quarterbacks would play adequately this season. There's still time for that to happen. But since they didn't select a quarterback in last year's draft, taking one next year is on the team's to-do list. There should be several quarterbacks to choose from then, and then the Redskins hopefully have their quarterback of the future. Still, Grossman or Beck playing better would be important to eventually bridge that gap until that young quarterback is ready, but then again, that's what happens when a team relies on quarterbacks like Grossman and Beck.
5. This is almost impossible for fans to avoid. The Redskins started 3-1, and some fans inevitably thought the team was on pace for something special. Eventually, they may be. But unless the defense transforms quickly into a shutdown, turnover-forcing unit that scores points or routinely sets the offense up with scoring chances and great field position, the Redskins will struggle to put points on the board. That's what happens when quarterbacks don't play well, receiving options aren't as skilled as they need to be, and when the offensive line doesn't block all that well or a few talented linemen get hurt. Over a full season, these things happen. That's why improving roster depth through the draft EVERY season is so important. Just ask the Packers.
6. As stated before, the Redskins still have holes. Considering how flawed the roster has been for several seasons, how could they not? But all of those problems can't be fixed with a single draft, even if every single drafted player exceeds expectations. The goal is to build a consistent winner.
It's important not to overreact to a few wins or losses here or there. Yes, the Redskins are a better team than last year. But no, Grossman or Beck probably are not good enough to lead them to the playoffs. Not much has changed besides the Redskins pulling out an unexpected win or two. It's not time to change course or overreact and make a hasty trade (like what the Raiders probably did by acquiring Carson Palmer).
The Redskins got off to a surprising 3-1 start, and some of those things continued. The defense is better than last season and has showcased the ability to generate sacks and turnovers. The offensive line is also better, and the Redskins have run the ball effectively at times. Quarterback, though, is still an issue. And, for some reason, after Grossman's four-interception game against the Eagles, fans are again expressing their disgust with the team's quarterback situation, even though there wasn't much of a chance the Redskins were going to rectify that problem during the season.
Let's step back for a moment. Whenever something embarrassing happens involving the Redskins -- this week's embarrassing performance being Grossman's awful game -- fans express their outrage. That's fine, I guess, and there will always be the crazy fans who come up with bizarre solutions or want the team to go in a completely different direction and start firing coaches left and right. But what exactly changed after the Eagles game? Obviously the injuries on the offensive line are huge concerns, but I'm talking about the quarterback issues. Did fans really need to witness Grossman's four interceptions to know that he was an average to below-average quarterback? He throws the ball well occasionally, but he's a turnover-committing machine. Wasn't that a given going into the season?
Before the season started and people started getting a little too wrapped up in how well the Redskins played at times in the preseason, I wrote a few quick notes for things to remember about this season. Here they are:
1. Nothing wrong with being excited about the team's young talent.
2. Don't up on some of those young players if they start slow.
3. Beck/Grossman doesn't mean a whole lot.
4. Going to draft a QB to develop; Beck/Grossman stepping up would help make that transition easier.
5. Getting a few wins shouldn't mean a change of direction.
6. Revamped defense and offensive weapons to eventually be aided by better quarterback and offensive line play = long-term goal.
So let's break these thoughts down:
1. The Redskins committed to the draft, and they've been rewarded for doing so. No, they didn't draft a quarterback and will have to do that next year, but they did add some much-needed, young talent to the roster. Ryan Kerrigan has been outstanding, and Roy Helu has been solid. Other rookies, such as Niles Paul, Chris Neild, Markus White, DeJon Gomes, and Leonard Hankerson, have either brought something to the table that the team lacked or have given the Redskins depth at a few positions. And that's not even counting Jarvis Jenkins, who had the best preseason of all the rookies before being lost for the season. Hopefully the Redskins embrace this strategy again in next year's draft.
2. This may really only apply to Hankerson, who has yet to play in a game yet. But it's not like the Redskins have a plethora of explosive weapons at wide receiver, so Hankerson should get his chance soon.
3. Rex Grossman is not the answer at quarterback. Neither is John Beck, regardless of what the Shanahans have said. This has not changed.
4. It's possible that the Shanahans really believed one of the quarterbacks would play adequately this season. There's still time for that to happen. But since they didn't select a quarterback in last year's draft, taking one next year is on the team's to-do list. There should be several quarterbacks to choose from then, and then the Redskins hopefully have their quarterback of the future. Still, Grossman or Beck playing better would be important to eventually bridge that gap until that young quarterback is ready, but then again, that's what happens when a team relies on quarterbacks like Grossman and Beck.
5. This is almost impossible for fans to avoid. The Redskins started 3-1, and some fans inevitably thought the team was on pace for something special. Eventually, they may be. But unless the defense transforms quickly into a shutdown, turnover-forcing unit that scores points or routinely sets the offense up with scoring chances and great field position, the Redskins will struggle to put points on the board. That's what happens when quarterbacks don't play well, receiving options aren't as skilled as they need to be, and when the offensive line doesn't block all that well or a few talented linemen get hurt. Over a full season, these things happen. That's why improving roster depth through the draft EVERY season is so important. Just ask the Packers.
6. As stated before, the Redskins still have holes. Considering how flawed the roster has been for several seasons, how could they not? But all of those problems can't be fixed with a single draft, even if every single drafted player exceeds expectations. The goal is to build a consistent winner.
It's important not to overreact to a few wins or losses here or there. Yes, the Redskins are a better team than last year. But no, Grossman or Beck probably are not good enough to lead them to the playoffs. Not much has changed besides the Redskins pulling out an unexpected win or two. It's not time to change course or overreact and make a hasty trade (like what the Raiders probably did by acquiring Carson Palmer).
Sunday, October 2, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Not overreacting to Grossman's solid game
In Week 1 against a wounded Giants defense, Rex Grossman completed 21 of 34 passes for 305 yards and two touchdowns. And he did so even though a couple of receivers dropped catchable passes and while under heavy pressure at times (he was sacked four times). Even the most optimistic Grossman supporters likely didn't think he'd play as well as he did.
Still, Grossman did have one unfortunate play: a crucial fumble early in the fourth quarter that led to a field goal attempt by the Giants. Fortunately, Brian Orakpo blocked the kick, and Grossman (aided by an Antrel Rolle unsportsmanlike conduct penalty) marched the offense down the field and put the game away with a four-yard touchdown pass to Jabar Gaffney.
Grossman looked more than competent in the Redskins' first game, and he seemed more than comfortable in a familiar offense. But he was hardly the only unheralded quarterback to have a solid Week 1. Sure, top quarterbacks like Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, and Drew Brees had fantastic games, but that's expected. Grossman's strong start wasn't, and neither were great performances by:
Ryan Fitzpatrick: 17-25, 208 yards, 4 TD vs. Kansas City
Cam Newton: 24-37, 422 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT vs. Arizona
Chad Henne: 30-49, 416 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT vs. New England
The surprising thing about Fitzpatrick's game is the four touchdowns, but at least he had a decent 2010 season (meaning he'd put up OK numbers before). Henne did not; he threw more interceptions (19) than touchdown passes (15) last season. And Newton wasn't expected to put up those kinds of numbers in his NFL debut, regardless of which defense he was facing.
None of these quarterbacks will play this well all season. That's not exactly a strong statement to make, especially since only one game has been played. But that also doesn't mean that Grossman, or the other three quarterbacks, can't exceed expectations and have better seasons than others predicted. Maybe Fitzpatrick and Henne have improved. Maybe Newton is better than the experts thought. And maybe Grossman really is better in an offense he's been studying and practicing in for a few years now. Or maybe none of these things continues.
But here's what we know: The Redskins offense, led by Grossman, looked pretty good on Sunday. Grossman found open receivers all game long, many of them down the field. If the Redskins get more consistent offensive line play and receivers keep getting open, there's no reason to think that Grossman won't keep finding them. And there's also no reason to believe that he will all of a sudden stop turning the ball over at inopportune times. He can still be effective, just probably not that effective. He is, after all, Rex Grossman, and he'll need a few more games like Sunday's before fans stop saying that.
Still, Grossman did have one unfortunate play: a crucial fumble early in the fourth quarter that led to a field goal attempt by the Giants. Fortunately, Brian Orakpo blocked the kick, and Grossman (aided by an Antrel Rolle unsportsmanlike conduct penalty) marched the offense down the field and put the game away with a four-yard touchdown pass to Jabar Gaffney.
Grossman looked more than competent in the Redskins' first game, and he seemed more than comfortable in a familiar offense. But he was hardly the only unheralded quarterback to have a solid Week 1. Sure, top quarterbacks like Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, and Drew Brees had fantastic games, but that's expected. Grossman's strong start wasn't, and neither were great performances by:
Ryan Fitzpatrick: 17-25, 208 yards, 4 TD vs. Kansas City
Cam Newton: 24-37, 422 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT vs. Arizona
Chad Henne: 30-49, 416 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT vs. New England
The surprising thing about Fitzpatrick's game is the four touchdowns, but at least he had a decent 2010 season (meaning he'd put up OK numbers before). Henne did not; he threw more interceptions (19) than touchdown passes (15) last season. And Newton wasn't expected to put up those kinds of numbers in his NFL debut, regardless of which defense he was facing.
None of these quarterbacks will play this well all season. That's not exactly a strong statement to make, especially since only one game has been played. But that also doesn't mean that Grossman, or the other three quarterbacks, can't exceed expectations and have better seasons than others predicted. Maybe Fitzpatrick and Henne have improved. Maybe Newton is better than the experts thought. And maybe Grossman really is better in an offense he's been studying and practicing in for a few years now. Or maybe none of these things continues.
But here's what we know: The Redskins offense, led by Grossman, looked pretty good on Sunday. Grossman found open receivers all game long, many of them down the field. If the Redskins get more consistent offensive line play and receivers keep getting open, there's no reason to think that Grossman won't keep finding them. And there's also no reason to believe that he will all of a sudden stop turning the ball over at inopportune times. He can still be effective, just probably not that effective. He is, after all, Rex Grossman, and he'll need a few more games like Sunday's before fans stop saying that.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Beck fails to separate himself from Grossman
To be honest, I don't care that much who gets the starting nod under center for the Redskins. I believe that John Beck and Rex Grossman give the Skins about the same chance to win, though I do think Beck is the somewhat more interesting choice because he hasn't thrown a pass in a regular season game since 2007-2008 with the Dolphins. Beck didn't impress then, and there's been no real reason since to think he'd catch on somewhere else and succeed.
Last night, the Redskins played their fourth and final preseason game, which basically gave a lot of back-ups, subs, and players who won't make the team a chance to see the field. Interestingly enough, Grossman sat out, while Beck played the first half. Beck didn't play all that well, though, which is discouraging because not only did the Redskins start their first-team offensive line in the game, but Tampa Bay's first-team defense did not play. The Redskins' better skill position players (Tim Hightower, Santana Moss, etc.) also sat out, but by most accounts Beck seemed pretty ordinary. So what exactly were the Shanahans thinking when they started Beck? Were they:
Last night, the Redskins played their fourth and final preseason game, which basically gave a lot of back-ups, subs, and players who won't make the team a chance to see the field. Interestingly enough, Grossman sat out, while Beck played the first half. Beck didn't play all that well, though, which is discouraging because not only did the Redskins start their first-team offensive line in the game, but Tampa Bay's first-team defense did not play. The Redskins' better skill position players (Tim Hightower, Santana Moss, etc.) also sat out, but by most accounts Beck seemed pretty ordinary. So what exactly were the Shanahans thinking when they started Beck? Were they:
- trying to give Beck a chance to win the starting job by having a solid final game;
- already convinced that Grossman is going to be the starter (considering that he's played better in the preseason);
- or simply allowing Beck to get more snaps in general, considering how inexperienced he is?
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Be quiet, Rex Grossman
It's one thing for the Redskins to go into a season with Rex Grossman and John Beck as their top two quarterbacks when they're overhauling the roster and getting younger and better. Fans don't have to like it, but sometimes such things are necessary. But because Grossman and Beck have a high expectancy to embarrass (and just flat out play poorly) on the field, they should be doing whatever they can not to embarrass the team off of it. Unfortunately, Grossman didn't receive that memo:
But let's get real: The Skins (for one season, at least) appear to be rebuilding -- whether they want to call it that or not -- and they have their share of holes. They finally held onto their draft picks and picked up several young players, but all of them aren't going to perform well from day one, regardless of how talented they are. And even though the Redskins will be better in the long term because of the youth movement, there's certainly no guarantee that they'll improve on last year's 6-10 record.
I'm glad that Grossman is confident, and I'm sure he's a nice guy. But he shouldn't be making any kind of bold predictions about the Redskins winning games when he is looking at a fair share of starts under center. Talent trumps confidence, and the Redskins lack the former at the quarterback position.
"We’re fine being the sleepers right now," Grossman said . . . "We’re just waiting in the wings ready to take over the NFC East. Nobody’s talking about us, it’s right where we wanna be. You look at us from top to bottom out here, there’s a bunch of great players. And we don’t need people saying we’re the best right now. But when it’s all said and done, I really feel like this team’s gonna win the [NFC] East."Players are supposed to be confident, and many of them make wild predictions at inopportune times. It happens every season. And if Grossman would have stopped in the middle of that quote, it would have been fine -- there's nothing wrong with using the "no respect" angle if that's what it takes to get motivated.
But let's get real: The Skins (for one season, at least) appear to be rebuilding -- whether they want to call it that or not -- and they have their share of holes. They finally held onto their draft picks and picked up several young players, but all of them aren't going to perform well from day one, regardless of how talented they are. And even though the Redskins will be better in the long term because of the youth movement, there's certainly no guarantee that they'll improve on last year's 6-10 record.
I'm glad that Grossman is confident, and I'm sure he's a nice guy. But he shouldn't be making any kind of bold predictions about the Redskins winning games when he is looking at a fair share of starts under center. Talent trumps confidence, and the Redskins lack the former at the quarterback position.
Friday, August 5, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, January 3, 2011
What did the Shanahans learn about Rex Grossman?
In his three starts this season, coming in an apparent audition for either the starting job next season or a long-term backup role -- depending on what the Redskins brain trust collectively decides to do in the offseason -- Rex Grossman performed reasonably well. Sure, everything is not about numbers, and the Redskins won just one of his three starts, but here are his stats anyway:
Week 15 at Cowboys: 25-43, 322 yards, 4 TD, 2 INT, 1 fumble lost, 93.4 QB rating
Week 16 at Jaguars: 19-39, 182 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 0 fumbles lost, 60.0 QB rating
Week 17 vs. Giants: 26-44, 336 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT, 2 fumbles lost, 88.8 QB rating
Total: 840 yards, 7 TD, 4 INT, 81.4 QB rating, 55.6 completion percentage, 3 fumbles lost
It's worth noting that Grossman did not face an elite defense in his three starts. In terms of points allowed per game, Grossman faced the 17th-ranked Giants (21.7), 27th-ranked Jaguars (26.2), and 31st-ranked Cowboys (27.3) -- not exactly a Murderers' Row of defenses. Considering how often he turned the ball over against those defenses, that doesn't bode well for Grossman if/when he faces better defenses in the future.
In Week 8 against the Lions when Grossman filled in for Donovan McNabb in the fourth quarter, Grossman, which I'm sure most fans remember well, was immediately sacked and lost a fumble -- which was returned for a touchdown -- putting the game away for good. The fumble wasn't necessarily his fault -- there was very little blocking on the play -- but it happened. Still, I didn't include that fumble in the numbers above and focused on his three starts.
Grossman's three-week performance indicates a few things: 1) He can, when given time, put up some points in this offense; 2) His completion percentage is a little low for an offense in which he's seemingly familiar with; and 3) He will turn the ball over. Turning the ball over seven times in three games is inexcusable, but he did also throw seven touchdown passes. If the Shanahans are going to go with Grossman as the starting quarterback next season, they're going to get a quarterback who can lead the offense to a few scoring drives, but he'll also make some boneheaded plays and turn the ball over at inopportune times. This is Rex Grossman, after all.
Grossman deserves credit for playing this well after holding a clipboard for most of the season. He faced enormous pressure when he took over for McNabb, and he didn't embarrass himself. His 81.4 QB rating (in his three starts) isn't spectacular or anything, but it still is about four points better than McNabb's (77.1). I, or probably most fans for that matter, didn't think Grossman would play well and would make the Redskins look even worse. Instead, he looked decent at times and certainly played no worse than McNabb did. Whether or not that means he'll get another chance to start next season is another question, and that will depend on what the Redskins do in the draft.
If I had to guess, I'd say that Grossman performed about as well as the Shanahans thought he would, meaning that they may decide to go with him as the starter next season and draft a quarterback for the future. Grossman as the starter for a full season? If that ends up being the plan, the Redskins better surround Grossman with some much-improved talent, or 2011 may end up being disastrous.
Week 15 at Cowboys: 25-43, 322 yards, 4 TD, 2 INT, 1 fumble lost, 93.4 QB rating
Week 16 at Jaguars: 19-39, 182 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 0 fumbles lost, 60.0 QB rating
Week 17 vs. Giants: 26-44, 336 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT, 2 fumbles lost, 88.8 QB rating
Total: 840 yards, 7 TD, 4 INT, 81.4 QB rating, 55.6 completion percentage, 3 fumbles lost
It's worth noting that Grossman did not face an elite defense in his three starts. In terms of points allowed per game, Grossman faced the 17th-ranked Giants (21.7), 27th-ranked Jaguars (26.2), and 31st-ranked Cowboys (27.3) -- not exactly a Murderers' Row of defenses. Considering how often he turned the ball over against those defenses, that doesn't bode well for Grossman if/when he faces better defenses in the future.
In Week 8 against the Lions when Grossman filled in for Donovan McNabb in the fourth quarter, Grossman, which I'm sure most fans remember well, was immediately sacked and lost a fumble -- which was returned for a touchdown -- putting the game away for good. The fumble wasn't necessarily his fault -- there was very little blocking on the play -- but it happened. Still, I didn't include that fumble in the numbers above and focused on his three starts.
Grossman's three-week performance indicates a few things: 1) He can, when given time, put up some points in this offense; 2) His completion percentage is a little low for an offense in which he's seemingly familiar with; and 3) He will turn the ball over. Turning the ball over seven times in three games is inexcusable, but he did also throw seven touchdown passes. If the Shanahans are going to go with Grossman as the starting quarterback next season, they're going to get a quarterback who can lead the offense to a few scoring drives, but he'll also make some boneheaded plays and turn the ball over at inopportune times. This is Rex Grossman, after all.
Grossman deserves credit for playing this well after holding a clipboard for most of the season. He faced enormous pressure when he took over for McNabb, and he didn't embarrass himself. His 81.4 QB rating (in his three starts) isn't spectacular or anything, but it still is about four points better than McNabb's (77.1). I, or probably most fans for that matter, didn't think Grossman would play well and would make the Redskins look even worse. Instead, he looked decent at times and certainly played no worse than McNabb did. Whether or not that means he'll get another chance to start next season is another question, and that will depend on what the Redskins do in the draft.
If I had to guess, I'd say that Grossman performed about as well as the Shanahans thought he would, meaning that they may decide to go with him as the starter next season and draft a quarterback for the future. Grossman as the starter for a full season? If that ends up being the plan, the Redskins better surround Grossman with some much-improved talent, or 2011 may end up being disastrous.
Friday, December 17, 2010
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Monday, November 1, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Grossman over McNabb? You must be joking
I've been critical of Donovan McNabb through his seven games with the Redskins, particularly the last few weeks. But never did the thought of benching him cross my mind. But according to Redskins Insider's Jason Reid, apparently some fans believe it's time to give Rex Grossman a shot:
McNabb (career): 86.0 QBRat, 58.9 Comp%, 222 TD, 107 INT
Grossman (career): 69.6 QBRat, 54.0 Comp%, 33 TD, 36 INT
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.
Also, for as below average as McNabb has been this season (76.0 QBRat, 57.5 Comp%, 6 TD, 7 INT), those numbers are still better than Grossman's best season (2006-2007: 73.9 QBRat, 54.6 Comp%, 23 TD, 20 INT). McNabb needs to start ramping up the touchdown production a little, but there's still time for that to happen. By the way, Grossman's experience in this offense in actual game situations is one game last season. In that game, when he replaced an injured Matt Schaub, Grossman threw nine passes, completing three of them, and also had an interception. He also fumbled once, but it was recovered.
If Grossman had spent several years learning this offense and was some kind of master of this scheme, then maybe, just maybe, it would be worth considering. But he's only been learning this offense since the Texans signed him in 2009, so it's not like he has some enormous advantage, or even one that comes close to the talent differential between him and McNabb.
Grossman seems like a decent backup. It should stay that way.
In e-mail we've received recently, many Insider readers have suggested that the Washington Redskins should bench Donovan McNabb and start backup quarterback Rex Grossman.Seriously, that's it? Because he's more familiar with the offense, Grossman should start over McNabb? That seems rather simplistic, especially when looking at this:
The thinking, if I read it correctly, is that Grossman has a better grasp of Coach Mike Shanahan's offense because he worked under offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan with the Houston Texans. Since he understands the offense better, readers have explained, he undoubtedly would be more productive than McNabb, who is struggling to learn the offense and is struggling on the field.
McNabb (career): 86.0 QBRat, 58.9 Comp%, 222 TD, 107 INT
Grossman (career): 69.6 QBRat, 54.0 Comp%, 33 TD, 36 INT
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.
Also, for as below average as McNabb has been this season (76.0 QBRat, 57.5 Comp%, 6 TD, 7 INT), those numbers are still better than Grossman's best season (2006-2007: 73.9 QBRat, 54.6 Comp%, 23 TD, 20 INT). McNabb needs to start ramping up the touchdown production a little, but there's still time for that to happen. By the way, Grossman's experience in this offense in actual game situations is one game last season. In that game, when he replaced an injured Matt Schaub, Grossman threw nine passes, completing three of them, and also had an interception. He also fumbled once, but it was recovered.
If Grossman had spent several years learning this offense and was some kind of master of this scheme, then maybe, just maybe, it would be worth considering. But he's only been learning this offense since the Texans signed him in 2009, so it's not like he has some enormous advantage, or even one that comes close to the talent differential between him and McNabb.
Grossman seems like a decent backup. It should stay that way.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
An injured Redskins team could be an ugly one
You probably already know by now that Donovan McNabb has a sprained ankle and hasn't been practicing. Head coach Mike Shanahan has said that he's not sure if McNabb will be ready in time to play in the season opener against Dallas. Unfortunately, Clinton Portis is also dealing with an injured ankle, though his injury isn't as much of a concern as McNabb's.
Neither practiced on Monday and both have already been ruled out of the Redskins' preseason finale against the Cardinals -- which is common since most starters are held out of the final preseason game anyway. Still, McNabb and Portis have nearly two weeks to get healthy, and according to Rick Maese (in the second linked story above), "both seemed to be walking around on their sore ankles without much problem" yesterday.
So they'll likely both be ready to play against Dallas. But don't expect this to be the last time that injuries plague McNabb and Portis this season. McNabb turns 34 in November, and although he's a tough guy and battles through an assortment of injuries, he has played a full 16 games just once in the last six seasons. (In three of those seasons, he played in 15, 14, and 14 games, so he's durable, but he will miss games.) Portis is a little younger -- he actually turns 29 tomorrow -- but he also plays a different position, running back, and has taken a pounding the last few seasons. Portis suffered a serious concussion last season and only played in eight games, but with Shanahan in town he seems to be in great shape and has been working out and practicing hard to impress the new coaching staff. If he stays healthy, he should unquestionably receive the bulk of the carries.
If McNabb and Portis miss games this season, especially at the same time, the Redskins are in big trouble. A starting lineup that features Rex Grossman at quarterback and Larry Johnson as the main rusher isn't exactly promising, to say the least. One of the risks the Redskins have taken over the last several years -- trading away their draft picks -- frequently results in a lack of depth at key positions. It's nice to have players like McNabb and Portis (both were acquired in trades), but it's even better to hold onto picks and draft solid players. Easier said than done, though, I guess.
For the Redskins to remain competitive this season, barring some kind of miracle, McNabb and Portis both need to be healthy and need to play well. It's a lot to ask of two players, but this team doesn't really have other options.
Neither practiced on Monday and both have already been ruled out of the Redskins' preseason finale against the Cardinals -- which is common since most starters are held out of the final preseason game anyway. Still, McNabb and Portis have nearly two weeks to get healthy, and according to Rick Maese (in the second linked story above), "both seemed to be walking around on their sore ankles without much problem" yesterday.
So they'll likely both be ready to play against Dallas. But don't expect this to be the last time that injuries plague McNabb and Portis this season. McNabb turns 34 in November, and although he's a tough guy and battles through an assortment of injuries, he has played a full 16 games just once in the last six seasons. (In three of those seasons, he played in 15, 14, and 14 games, so he's durable, but he will miss games.) Portis is a little younger -- he actually turns 29 tomorrow -- but he also plays a different position, running back, and has taken a pounding the last few seasons. Portis suffered a serious concussion last season and only played in eight games, but with Shanahan in town he seems to be in great shape and has been working out and practicing hard to impress the new coaching staff. If he stays healthy, he should unquestionably receive the bulk of the carries.
If McNabb and Portis miss games this season, especially at the same time, the Redskins are in big trouble. A starting lineup that features Rex Grossman at quarterback and Larry Johnson as the main rusher isn't exactly promising, to say the least. One of the risks the Redskins have taken over the last several years -- trading away their draft picks -- frequently results in a lack of depth at key positions. It's nice to have players like McNabb and Portis (both were acquired in trades), but it's even better to hold onto picks and draft solid players. Easier said than done, though, I guess.
For the Redskins to remain competitive this season, barring some kind of miracle, McNabb and Portis both need to be healthy and need to play well. It's a lot to ask of two players, but this team doesn't really have other options.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)