Was McNabb misused in Minnesota also?

I don't have any grudge against him but if he's gonna talk smack, that opens him up to get blasted as well. If he was lighting it up in Philly, then stunk here and then lit it up in Minnesota, he'd be FULLY justified to say whatever he wanted. But he didn't. He stunk in Minny, got benched and then cut. He's got no credibility to criticize from my viewpoint.

I was really disappointed that he busted out in DC. I thought he would come in, be a winner, be a leader, be a force in our offense. I had high hopes that were quickly dashed when he became exactly what his Philly detractors said he was. An inaccurate QB with declining mobility and playmaking ability that made him one of the better QB of the late 90's-early 00's.

There's no reasonable analysis that would indicate that RGIII won't be a fit with Shanny and vice versa. I'll take the word of Mayock, Jaws, Cosell, Lombardi, Kiper and McShay over an embittered former one and done bust.

Did not mean to single you out and sincere apologies if it seemed as such. I guess my point is: isn't ultimate responsibility on Mike (and Bruce probably to a lesser extent) that we traded for a washed up QB? As in we can all agree McNabb wasn't the answer, but how did a SB winning legacy coach goof the evaluation so badly?! Savvy?

Right, because we don't have Mike's proven decades of history of running plays suited for his qb's style to use as evidence. Haven't we been over this?

No, just no. I have no idea whether you watched Denver while Mike was HC but that offense, even post Elway, doesn't resemble what we've seen thus far by any stretch of the imagination. Namely, Mike's was a run-first offense, even when he had slingers at QB (Elway, Plummer, Cutler). In Washington he's had average at best QB performance yet passed more than ever before, so personnel isn't the difference maker. Kyle is the difference, and (so far) it's his pass first offense we're seeing, which changes the nature of what Mike did for decades, as you say lol, and what he would likely do if this were still his offense.

So it's a bit tricky...hanging our hopes on a legacy coach for what he accomplished but recognizing it's not really his offense we're running. Would I feel more confident w/ Mike's offense? Indeed.

No, just no. I have no idea whether you watched Denver while Mike was HC but that offense, even post Elway, doesn't resemble what we've seen thus far by any stretch of the imagination. Namely, Mike's was a run-first offense, even when he had slingers at QB (Elway, Plummer, Cutler). In Washington he's had average at best QB performance yet passed more than ever before, so personnel isn't the difference maker. Kyle is the difference, and (so far) it's his pass first offense we're seeing, which changes the nature of what Mike did for decades, as you say lol, and what he would likely do if this were still his offense.

So it's a bit tricky...hanging our hopes on a legacy coach for what he accomplished but recognizing it's not really his offense we're running. Would I feel more confident w/ Mike's offense? Indeed.

Your whole argument is that Mike doesn't use his qb's to their strengths. I'm simply saying that past history indicates he does. If your problem lies with Kyle and his control of the offense, than you need to say so.

Personally, I believe Griffin, and even Luck, show the qualities that both Mike and Kyle look for in a quarterback, and they'd be hard pressed to come up with ways that would make Griffin fail. From what I can gather you seem to think that because we've failed with three has-beens at qb that means there's a 50/50 chance we're going to fail with a prospect who does everything we look for in a quarterback, and is also supremely gifted and to top it off, young, malleable, and willing to learn. Aka the perfect combination.

In the end, if Mike and Kyle fail to make this kid into the greatest quarterback DC has seen since Sonny J, by all means you can pull a CultBrennan and gloat about being right until we all tune you out. But I have more faith that the opposite will happen, and so do a lot of people that know a hell of a lot more about the subject than I do.

[QUOTE=mooby;906523]Your whole argument is that Mike doesn't use his qb's to their strengths. I'm simply saying that past history indicates he does. If your problem lies with Kyle and his control of the offense, than you need to say so.QUOTE]

See my original post bud I say Mike and Kyle, and that's not my argument anyway.

...thanks for the laughs though your post cracking me up.

Didn't Schaub have a couple of highly productive seasons under Kyle?

Yes he did, a great season in 2010.

Yes he did, a great season in 2010.

In 2010 Kyle was in Washington, no?

So maybe this is the wrong thread for this but how will you quantify success or that the Shanahans have 'finally gotten it right'? What are your benchmarks or milestones you are looking for to determine success or failure?When we start to compete with and beat NFL teams who are in year to year contention (like we did with the Giants last season), and when we start to crush the bottom 6-8 teams in any given year on the field. When we're competing with playoff teams in meaningful statistical categories. And finally, when we're making personnel moves that suggest we're a big market organization who knows how to use it's resources to separate from teams that don't (or shouldn't) have the means to compete with us.

If we can get a couple of those things right, we'll be on the right track. We already failed on the personnel front this year, but every other one of those criteria is still in play in 2012.

Did not mean to single you out and sincere apologies if it seemed as such. I guess my point is: isn't ultimate responsibility on Mike (and Bruce probably to a lesser extent) that we traded for a washed up QB? As in we can all agree McNabb wasn't the answer, but how did a SB winning legacy coach goof the evaluation so badly?! Savvy?For some reason this a truth that most media and fans don't recognize: although Mike and Kyle are running the same offense they are decidedly different playcallers.

Thankfully, Griffin fits either style.

See my original post bud I say Mike and Kyle, and that's not my argument anyway.

...thanks for the laughs though your post cracking me up.

So what is your argument? I'm having a hard time with what you're trying to say here. Do you think we're doomed to failure with Mike and Kyle at the helm? Is the glass half empty or is it half full? Too many cooks in the kitchen? Do you think they have no credibility, and deserve absolutely no benefit of the doubt based on past history?

Do you think no matter what path they take, be it draft, FA, or otherwise, that we will never be successful no matter what? I don't get it. It seems like every move this franchise makes, you laughably dismiss it as foolish. Why bother watching or following the team if you think we're just doomed to failure. Is it the fascination of watching a train wreck? I don't get it.

So what is your argument? I'm having a hard time with what you're trying to say here. Do you think we're doomed to failure with Mike and Kyle at the helm? Is the glass half empty or is it half full? Too many cooks in the kitchen? Do you think they have no credibility, and deserve absolutely no benefit of the doubt based on past history?



Do you think no matter what path they take, be it draft, FA, or otherwise, that we will never be successful no matter what? I don't get it. It seems like every move this franchise makes, you laughably dismiss it as foolish. Why bother watching or following the team if you think we're just doomed to failure. Is it the fascination of watching a train wreck? I don't get it.



I think we should all have a round of beers on Matty.