Rex Grossman on NFL Radio Sunday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skins' QBs operated under siege in 2010 (http://www.csnwashington.com/06/07/11/Skins-QBs-operated-under-siege-in-2010/landing_redskins_loud3r.html?blockID=533140&feedID =6458)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I anticipated us trading back several times in the draft. That should have come as no surprise when you consider how they accumulated picks the previous year in the late rounds of the draft.

It's relatively easy to admit fault when it's already public knowledge that the fault belongs to you. Much more difficult to have the foresight to avoid a precarious situation before it blows up in your face. It wasn't a noble act for Shanny to create all that cryptic subterfuge after the first McNabb benching. LJ, Galloway and Parker never should have been on the team in the first place and this was my contension during last offseason. Sorry I don't have written proof to confirm that this is true, but you'll have to take my word for it. If a layman like me can make that distinction shouldn't the head coach be able to do the same. I'm not trying to boast. I'm just being honest.

I don't doubt Kyle's ability as an offensive coordinator, however I'm not convinced McNabb got a fair shake either.

As far as Grossman is concerned, the guy has done nothing meritorious in this league. Even in his best year he threw equally as many interceptions as he did TDs in an offense heavily predictated on the run. If you can't avoid throwing interceptions when you're consistently staring at 8 man fronts there is something inherently wrong with your game. Then again I believe we never should have traded JC, but that's just me.

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

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

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

Skins' QBs operated under siege in 2010 (http://www.csnwashington.com/06/07/11/Skins-QBs-operated-under-siege-in-2010/landing_redskins_loud3r.html?blockID=533140&feedID =6458)

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

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