Quote:
Originally Posted by Longtimefan
For better or worse, it would appear that the name "Redskins" will be inexplicably linked to any potential QB availability as long as it's perceived an issue remains at the position. Touchy in deciphering the real from the imagined.
|
I think these rumors/speculations stem from more than a perception that an issue remains with the Redskins and their QB for next year and the year after that. It is much more than a perception; it's a fact.
The Redskins have Donovan McNabb "under their control" in the off-season. that is the way the Skins' FO wants to spin it - - but there is a nasty reality they choose to ignore. If they have McNabb on the roster at the beginning of the next NFL season, they owe him $10M for next year. $10M is what you may choose to pay your #1 QB; $10M is
not what you pay the guy who you know from the outset will be your #2 or #3 guy (don't have any idea how the "evaluation of John Beck" went in the last two weeks of 2010).
So, there is a "problem" at the Skins' QB position. Do The Shanahans swallow hard and put McNabb back in as the #1 guy next year? I doubt there is enough Tobasco sauce in the country to make the amount of crow they would have to eat taste good. I really don't see The Shanahans and McNabb kissing and making up.
So there is the "problem" and it is not hard to perceive that it is there. No one knows how it will be resolved - - but until it is resolved one way or another it will be easy for any NFL observer to see the problem exists.
Please note, I have made no statements here as to whether or not McNabb gives the Skins a better shot at next year's playoffs than does Rex Grossman, John Beck and/or any hypothetical draft pick at QB who might fall the Skins' way. The"problem" everyone perceives is that the Skins have a big-name QB that they probably have to move. That leave a vacancy at the position...