Start John Beck Madness Thread

If you mean passing yards and TD totals then I do agree, not any QB could produce those numbers for NE. But like a lot of Redskins fans you seem to be stuck on meaningless passing, rushing, defense, etc, numbers. The only numbers that count are 3-1 (for both the Skins and NE) and in that case yes, I think NE could plug any QB in and the team would be 3-1.

That's where we differ then. I'd rather see everything functioning in concert for sustained success. Much like NE has had for the past decade. And you are clearly more enamored with what is a tenuous 3-1 start to our season. That being winning one game by 1 point, losing one game without allowing a TD, and winning another game by 7 points to a defense that ranks 26th who were out scored by 18 against Philly, 12 against the Giants, and 30 facing Baltimore. I have a feeling you'll have a change of heart if those "meaningless" numbers begin to reflect, and accumulate in the loss column.

That's where we differ then. I'd rather see everything functioning in concert for sustained success. Much like NE has had for the past decade. And you are clearly more enamored with what is a tenuous 3-1 start to our season. That being winning one game by 1 point, losing one game without allowing a TD, and winning another game by 7 points to a defense that ranks 26th who were out scored by 18 against Philly, 12 against the Giants, and 30 facing Baltimore. I have a feeling you'll have a change of heart if those "meaningless" numbers begin to reflect, and accumulate in the loss column.

A tenuous 3-1 start, that's one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. 3-1 is 3-1 no matter how it happened. The NFL is a week to week league and all they can do is beat that week's opponent. Once that game is over its over and on to the next game. Win by 1 win by 40 it doesnt matter in the NFL because of how tough it is to win games. If this team averages 20 yards rushing per game and 50 yds passing for the season and finishes 11-5 I will consider them to have had sustained success.

Shanahan said Grossman will be judged on wins and loses, does that mean if the D suddenly gives up for the next 3 games and we lose the next 3 games, Grossman will be pulled simply because we would have more loses than wins? No, Grossman is in control of his own destiny and if he continues to play the way he has been, he will be pulled.

Some of you are so content with 3-1 that your afraid to change anything at this point, I understand that but disagree with the logic.

A tenuous 3-1 start, that's one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. 3-1 is 3-1 no matter how it happened. The NFL is a week to week league and all they can do is beat that week's opponent. Once that game is over its over and on to the next game. Win by 1 win by 40 it doesnt matter in the NFL because of how tough it is to win games. If this team averages 20 yards rushing per game and 50 yds passing for the season and finishes 11-5 I will consider them to have had sustained success.

Tell me when the last time a team has won a Superbowl without having some form of balance, and barely eeking out wins on a weekly basis, and maybe your case will hold weight. Otherwise go back to playing with your Tonka Toys.

Shanahan said Grossman will be judged on wins and loses, does that mean if the D suddenly gives up for the next 3 games and we lose the next 3 games, Grossman will be pulled simply because we would have more loses than wins? No, Grossman is in control of his own destiny and if he continues to play the way he has been, he will be pulled.

Some of you are so content with 3-1 that your afraid to change anything at this point, I understand that but disagree with the logic.

Good post. There's no reason to think Mike will stick w/ any particular QB if he thinks the guy in waiting will produce more wins. One thing we absolutely know about our HC is he is all about winning.

I also agree Grossman controls his own destiny outside of Kyle's playcalling and gameplan. Sure Rex can make better decisions and avoid forcing the ball to covered targets. It also seems like it would be damn easy for him start protecting the ball when he's trying to waddle away from rushers. Those things are certainly in his control. On the other hand Kyle could help minimize errors by committing more to the run, especially when we have a hell of a RB corp, and giving Rex more downfield looks rather than lateral ones. Missing Armstrong obviously hurts but still we could throw the deep ball a lot more to Davis and Tana. Play-action should also be worked in more IMO.

I was watching the Kurt Warner story last night on NFLN watching Trent Green go down on a team with big aspirations, and hearing Dick Vermeil say that they would rally around Kurt Warner. I was thinking to myself what if Rex went down; Would Beck be like a Kurt Warner. I would love to see the somewhat unknown Beck play over the known Grossman.

Tell me when the last time a team has won a Superbowl without having some form of balance, and barely eeking out wins on a weekly basis, and maybe your case will hold weight. Otherwise go back to playing with your Tonka Toys.

Um, last year? The Packers barely made the playoffs at 10-6 and they did so by "eeking out" several victories. And they lacked balance on offense, as their leading rusher had 703 yards. They were 5th in passing yards but near the bottom in rushing yards.

Um, last year? The Packers barely made the playoffs at 10-6 and they did so by "eeking out" several victories. And they lacked balance on offense, as their leading rusher had 703 yards. They were 5th in passing yards but near the bottom in rushing yards.

To add to that, a truly poor Redskins team beat both GB and the Bears, who played the NFC championship.

when he's trying to waddle away from rushers.I was having kind of a downer day, this made me LOL and I'm still laughing when I picture the visual. Hilarious.

edit