Rex Grossman on NFL Radio Sunday

[NLC1054]

Well I don't think it's like we didn't run screens at all before then. We just didn't run them with the frequency that we did later in the season.

You have to look at the circumstances of the game. The first Dallas game was just a struggle no matter what was the case. Versus the Texans, we were ripping their secondary to shreds, so the screen game becomes less neccessary.

Versus the Rams, the run game was functional enough that they did need to use the screen game. Torain exploded versus the Eagles the next week.

The Packers killed us defensively, and maybe using more screens would've been key there. But then you have Torain running for over 100 yards for Indy the next week (where they still ran some screen plays), and then he rushed for 100 versus the Bears in a team that's not suspetible to getting fooled by screens.

I think the Lions game is where we start to see them used more frequently, which is apparently where all the trouble really started to take place.

The screens worked to great effectiveness versus the Titans the following week, but the Giants were ready for it the next week and completely killed the screen game, which seemed like it was our whole gameplan. The same thing goes for the Vikings game the week after that. And then the next week you have Torain bulldozing every one in Tampa.

So when you go back and look at the game situations and how the team did and looked offensively, McNabb had trouble running the offense that Kyle wanted. And then when Kyle implemented more things McNabb was more comfortable with, McNabb still had more trouble with it.

Once teams figured out we were going to be running more screen passes, they did a better job of stopping us from using them. And that forced McNabb to play more within the regular offense, which he couldn't execute.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

Well I don't think it's like we didn't run screens at all before then. We just didn't run them with the frequency that we did later in the season.

You have to look at the circumstances of the game. The first Dallas game was just a struggle no matter what was the case. Versus the Texans, we were ripping their secondary to shreds, so the screen game becomes less neccessary.

Versus the Rams, the run game was functional enough that they did need to use the screen game. Torain exploded versus the Eagles the next week.

The Packers killed us defensively, and maybe using more screens would've been key there. But then you have Torain running for over 100 yards for Indy the next week (where they still ran some screen plays), and then he rushed for 100 versus the Bears in a team that's not suspetible to getting fooled by screens.

I think the Lions game is where we start to see them used more frequently, which is apparently where all the trouble really started to take place.

The screens worked to great effectiveness versus the Titans the following week, but the Giants were ready for it the next week and completely killed the screen game, which seemed like it was our whole gameplan. The same thing goes for the Vikings game the week after that. And then the next week you have Torain bulldozing every one in Tampa.

So when you go back and look at the game situations and how the team did and looked offensively, McNabb had trouble running the offense that Kyle wanted. And then when Kyle implemented more things McNabb was more comfortable with, McNabb still had more trouble with it.

Once teams figured out we were going to be running more screen passes, they did a better job of stopping us from using them. And that forced McNabb to play more within the regular offense, which he couldn't execute.

Also the screen is usually used against teams with aggressive defenses. The reason it was used more frequently might have been that other teams realized our OL sucked and they had pretty good chances at getting to the QB so the QB might have changed what ever play was called to a screen if he saw the rush was coming.

Might also be why KS favored Grossman over McNabb.

[SBXVII]

fanarchist,

However, I don't consider it an honorable move to deride and defame McNabb in the mainstream media, regardless of who it was who actually leaked the information. The way I percieve it, it's an underhanded tactic used to distort a well rounded focus on all the contributing factors in our poor offensive production, to shifting the blame to a single man.

Honestly, I don't think any of us really have any idea what actually went on. Unless you work for the team and stood there and observed everything you really don't know. What were the play calls? what was McNabb supposed to do? where was the ball supposed to go? did the OL break down? did the WR run the right route? etc. etc. etc. The only people who know what was right and wrong with each play is the coaching staff and the players. Maybe it is all one sided.... maybe it is all McNabb? We don't know.

In regards to the public issue's, people can't have it two ways. I loved Gibbs and how he coached. I grew up with that. Anything went wrong it was on him. Even when we fans knew that it might have been specific players on different plays Gibbs told the media it was he who screwed up. I'm totally with you on the not putting the dirty laundry through the media. However Shanahan is not that type of coach. No one cares that Haynesworth's crap is happening through the media because he's a douche. The only reason people are upset about McNabb's dirty laundry being aired through the media is because he's a nice guy. Doesn't mean the info is not true it just means his talent level is diminishing due to age and because he's a nice guy people are upset about it being made public.

Matty,

He may be the best QB on the roster but more importantly he's shown he's not the best fit for this offense.

Totally agree with you. Except the best QB is on the downward slide and if Grossman is picked back up then we have a QB who is stagnant. Then you have Beck.... who now is supposed to be "the man."

fanarchist,

I think great coaches have to adapt to the personel that they are given, or that they inherit.

Totally with you. What sets coach's apart is how well they use their players talents. Except I would still argue that although our coaching staff said the Skins were not "rebuilding" and did not dump everyone and start anew by "rebuilding" I still feel they are "rebuilding." Had it not been then the offense might have been the same somewhat because Zorn already implimented the WCO but the defense was a 4-3 and the team would have continued to use that and only dabbled with the 3-4 until they got the right personell. Instead they went all in as in "rebuilding" and implimented the 3-4 in hopes that most of the players will understand it better and that they would only have to change a few pieces.

NLC,

It might be a coaches' job to make his players feel comfortable, but it's a player's job to go out and execute the plays as called. Donovan just didn't execute the way he was supposed to.

and there in lies the problem. Although coach's should use the talent they have, players must be adaptable also. I'm sure the player adapted from little league to high school. They adapted from high school to college. and they adapted from college to the pro's. They should be able to adapt from one scheme to the next but we all need to remember McNabb was under one system for how long? He's getting old and starting to wear down. Right now McNabb's perfect situation would be to be on a team with an excellent OL to block for him and give him all day in the pocket to throw. Unfortunatly Shanahan's system is not that, it's got more roll outs and the second issue is our OL sucked, why? new scheme and new blocking style.

[Defensewins]

There are very few Qb's that can come into a new system, new team, with new teammates that are frankly substandard and expect do well. Not only did our offensive line, Rb's and Wr's suck last year and the year before, but our defense was awful. I think the expectation level placed on McNabb on the part of the Shanahan's, the press and the fans was unrealistic. There was this unspoken and unrealistic expectation that McNabb was going to make us a playoff team. I think the people that are still bashing Mcnabb still believe we are a Qb away from being a playoff team. We are not.
But then again when are the expectation levels of the Redskins fans realistic? The part that gets to me about this whole situation is in less than one season the Shanahan's made up their mind about Donovan and they did not allow for the normal learning curve process to take place. Then add to that the mysterious leaks that nobody has MAN-ed up to. The guy that made the leaks is still hiding like a big pussy.
At least Haslett has the balls to man up about his recent comments on AH.

[NLC1054]

Wasn't one of the things McNabb used to be renowned for is making a bunch of unknown and less than talented receivers look like star talent?

And that doesn't explain how Rex friggin' Grossman, with the same weapons, with the same bad o-line, with the same playcaller, was able to come in, after not playing for a year (whether he knew the offense or didn't) and was able to at least appear to play well and milk more production out of those weapons.

Jay Cutler had to learn a completely different offense, coming off a bad year, with a bad offensive line, and only one Pro Bowl receiver, and the other favorite target he had was benched by the offensive coordinator. He struggled at first, but over the course of the year, you saw that he was getting more and more comfortable with the offense.

Mike Martz molded his offense to things Jay was more comfortable doing, and Jay became more comfortable running Martz offense.

This notion that Donovan didn't have enough time in the offense is silly. We traded for him in April. He was at every OTA, every minicamp, had a whole training camp, two preseason games and thirteen regular season games to get a handle of the offense. Kyle added things he was more comfortable with and he still couldn't run it. He just wasn't a fit here, and was apparently a little hard-headed and wanted to do things his way.

The best offensive coordinator/quarterback relationships come from a willingness to work together. At some point, it became clear that there wasn't going to be a middle ground found between the two.

I am under no delusions that we are anywhere close to being a playoff team. Far friggin' from it. I think we're closer to being decent than we are from being cellar dwellers, but playoff teams are built, and we still have a lot of building to do.

And rather than getting upset about who leaked what, why not get upset by the fact that, instead of being interested in winning football games and being better, McNabb was more concerned with the fact that wearing an wristband would make him "look bad".

Why not get upset that he didn't practice hard? That he's the last guy on the practice field instead of the first? That he wasn't in the best condition?

I respect what McNabb has done in the past, and I think the organization had a hand in some of the shennigans that happened, but McNabb had more than his fair share to do with it. That's all anyone is saying.

The blame is shared.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

Wasn't one of the things McNabb used to be renowned for is making a bunch of unknown and less than talented receivers look like star talent?

And that doesn't explain how Rex friggin' Grossman, with the same weapons, with the same bad o-line, with the same playcaller, was able to come in, after not playing for a year (whether he knew the offense or didn't) and was able to at least appear to play well and milk more production out of those weapons.

Jay Cutler had to learn a completely different offense, coming off a bad year, with a bad offensive line, and only one Pro Bowl receiver, and the other favorite target he had was benched by the offensive coordinator. He struggled at first, but over the course of the year, you saw that he was getting more and more comfortable with the offense.

Mike Martz molded his offense to things Jay was more comfortable doing, and Jay became more comfortable running Martz offense.

This notion that Donovan didn't have enough time in the offense is silly. We traded for him in April. He was at every OTA, every minicamp, had a whole training camp, two preseason games and thirteen regular season games to get a handle of the offense. Kyle added things he was more comfortable with and he still couldn't run it. He just wasn't a fit here, and was apparently a little hard-headed and wanted to do things his way.

The best offensive coordinator/quarterback relationships come from a willingness to work together. At some point, it became clear that there wasn't going to be a middle ground found between the two.

I am under no delusions that we are anywhere close to being a playoff team. Far friggin' from it. I think we're closer to being decent than we are from being cellar dwellers, but playoff teams are built, and we still have a lot of building to do.

And rather than getting upset about who leaked what, why not get upset by the fact that, instead of being interested in winning football games and being better, McNabb was more concerned with the fact that wearing an wristband would make him "look bad".

Why not get upset that he didn't practice hard? That he's the last guy on the practice field instead of the first? That he wasn't in the best condition?

I respect what McNabb has done in the past, and I think the organization had a hand in some of the shennigans that happened, but McNabb had more than his fair share to do with it. That's all anyone is saying.

The blame is shared.

This.

I hate that this devolved into a blame game between Kyle and Donovan because at the end of the day it's meaningless.

Here's the forward spin, Kyle will be here in 2011 (and beyond) and Donovan won't. With what Grossman said, are we in good hands with a QB who is totally bought in and experienced in the system-as flawed as he is?

[fanarchist]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

This.

I hate that this devolved into a blame game between Kyle and Donovan because at the end of the day it's meaningless.

Here's the forward spin, Kyle will be here in 2011 (and beyond) and Donovan won't. With what Grossman said, are we in good hands with a QB who is totally bought in and experienced in the system-as flawed as he is?

I'm sorry you hate the de-evolution of this conversation. But some people are looking to define their opinions on whether or not Kyle directly contributed to Donovan's downfall in DC. If he sabotaged a guy who some of us consider a capable QB. I can't deny that McNabb won't be here and Kyle will. I'm more curious as to whether McNabb will join another team and be yet another name in a long list of former redskins players who were released prematurely, criticized to harshly and regained their glory on someone elses roster.

At some point you have to learn from past mistakes. Just seems like we hire different faces to make the same ones.

[NLC1054]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Here's the forward spin, Kyle will be here in 2011 (and beyond) and Donovan won't. With what Grossman said, are we in good hands with a QB who is totally bought in and experienced in the system-as flawed as he is?

You know...I kinda always thought Rex go a raw deal in Chicago. That run the Bears made to the Super Bowl, the Bears has a top flight defense, sure. But they also had the number one scoring offense.

There's no doubt he struggled, and maybe he wasn't as dedicated to his craaft as he should've been there. But the Bears also never seem overly concerned with developing their quarterbacks (see: not drafting Jay Cutler a single wide receiver in this year's draft) and instead are keen to rely on their defense, sometimes to the detriment. I mean, who's the last franchise quarterback the Bears had?

But he strikes me as a guy who needs a new start, and this system seems to suit what he does well. His decision is still damn near baffling sometimes, but looking at the situations from this season, I can really only think of two interceptions that were really his fault, and better offensive line play might help us to avoid that nasty problem he has with fumbling.

(And to his credit, when he did fumble the ball, most of the times it seems like he was making an effort to cover up the ball, when he wasn't getting blindsided by the rush).

He's older, wiser, he knows what Mike and Kyle expect out of their starting quarterback. He might not take us to a Super Bowl, but as a one or two year stop gap, I'm fine with him. I think he's willing to put the work in and can be effective, and if anyone can help mold a quarterback into a more productive player, it's Mike Shanahan.

I mean he took Gus Ferrotte to the friggin' playoffs, after all.

[fanarchist]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

You know...I kinda always thought Rex go a raw deal in Chicago. That run the Bears made to the Super Bowl, the Bears has a top flight defense, sure. But they also had the number one scoring offense.

There's no doubt he struggled, and maybe he wasn't as dedicated to his craaft as he should've been there. But the Bears also never seem overly concerned with developing their quarterbacks (see: not drafting Jay Cutler a single wide receiver in this year's draft) and instead are keen to rely on their defense, sometimes to the detriment. I mean, who's the last franchise quarterback the Bears had?

But he strikes me as a guy who needs a new start, and this system seems to suit what he does well. His decision is still damn near baffling sometimes, but looking at the situations from this season, I can really only think of two interceptions that were really his fault, and better offensive line play might help us to avoid that nasty problem he has with fumbling.

(And to his credit, when he did fumble the ball, most of the times it seems like he was making an effort to cover up the ball, when he wasn't getting blindsided by the rush).

He's older, wiser, he knows what Mike and Kyle expect out of their starting quarterback. He might not take us to a Super Bowl, but as a one or two year stop gap, I'm fine with him. I think he's willing to put the work in and can be effective, and if anyone can help mold a quarterback into a more productive player, it's Mike Shanahan.

I mean he took Gus Ferrotte to the friggin' playoffs, after all.

There was absolutely no game film on the dude in this offense from which opposing defenses could draw tendency and he still only won a single game in three starts. Matt Moore played well before defenses caught on to his weaknesses. Mike Vick was stellar in the early goings last season before the Giants wrote a blueprint on how to contain him and his production took a rapid decline as he became one of the most sacked QBs in the second half of the season. It was the same for Sanchez in his first season when he became an interception machine mid way through the season. Etc etc.

Rex is already in his old dog/new tricks stage. He proved he still make poor decisions with the ball in clutch situations. It's like he dips his hands in grease before every snap. He has difficulty getting velocity on the ball when rolling out on the play action bootleg and when it's not designed he has trouble improvising, eluding the rush and throwing on the run. He's only 6-1 so when he stands in the pocket he can barely see over the linemen which makes it hard for him to see throwing lanes. His lack of height will also lead to a slew of batted balls (ala Mike Vick, also 6-1), which means what class, that's right, more interceptions. He drops his head when attempting to aviod duress which closes split second windows of opportunity. Mike Shanahans good, but not that good. He needs a pixie fairy in the land of daffodils and delusion to sprinkle him with some magical dust just so he can grab his one way ticket to Never Never Land. If there's a band aid waiting in the wings please let his name be John Beck. Atleast when our line breaks down I know the guy is mobile.

Jay Cutler did fine with the receivers he had last year. That is if winning the division championship with a weak Oline in pass pro and an underachieving run game accounts for anything. The Bears have a franchise QB right now, you should be more concerned with the fact that we don't.

I also thought Ferrotte did pretty well a few years ago when he stepped in for Tavaris Jackson.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

Wasn't one of the things McNabb used to be renowned for is making a bunch of unknown and less than talented receivers look like star talent?

And that doesn't explain how Rex friggin' Grossman, with the same weapons, with the same bad o-line, with the same playcaller, was able to come in, after not playing for a year (whether he knew the offense or didn't) and was able to at least appear to play well and milk more production out of those weapons.

Jay Cutler had to learn a completely different offense, coming off a bad year, with a bad offensive line, and only one Pro Bowl receiver, and the other favorite target he had was benched by the offensive coordinator. He struggled at first, but over the course of the year, you saw that he was getting more and more comfortable with the offense.

Mike Martz molded his offense to things Jay was more comfortable doing, and Jay became more comfortable running Martz offense.

This notion that Donovan didn't have enough time in the offense is silly. We traded for him in April. He was at every OTA, every minicamp, had a whole training camp, two preseason games and thirteen regular season games to get a handle of the offense. Kyle added things he was more comfortable with and he still couldn't run it. He just wasn't a fit here, and was apparently a little hard-headed and wanted to do things his way.

The best offensive coordinator/quarterback relationships come from a willingness to work together. At some point, it became clear that there wasn't going to be a middle ground found between the two.

I am under no delusions that we are anywhere close to being a playoff team. Far friggin' from it. I think we're closer to being decent than we are from being cellar dwellers, but playoff teams are built, and we still have a lot of building to do.

And rather than getting upset about who leaked what, why not get upset by the fact that, instead of being interested in winning football games and being better, McNabb was more concerned with the fact that wearing an wristband would make him "look bad".

Why not get upset that he didn't practice hard? That he's the last guy on the practice field instead of the first? That he wasn't in the best condition?

I respect what McNabb has done in the past, and I think the organization had a hand in some of the shennigans that happened, but McNabb had more than his fair share to do with it. That's all anyone is saying.

The blame is shared.

Yes, when he has a good offensive line in front of him that can pass protect, something he did not have last year.
How long has Rex Grossman been in Kyle Shanhan's system? Grossman, who was with the Houston Texans with Kyle Shanahan in 2009 and came to Washington with him last year, is much more familiar with the system and the way the coordinator wants it executed.

How funny that you mention Cutler. He is exactly what I am talking about being given a second year to get used his new offense system. McNabb and Cutlers numbers are near identical their first year with the new team.

Culter in 2009 (first year with Chicago):
QB rating of 76.8, threw 26 interceptions and was sacked 35 times

Donovan in 2010:
QB rating 77.1, threw 15 interceptions and was sacked 37 times.

Kyle Shanahan emerges as a full-blown control freak | ProFootballTalk

[fanarchist]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

Well I don't think it's like we didn't run screens at all before then. We just didn't run them with the frequency that we did later in the season.

You have to look at the circumstances of the game. The first Dallas game was just a struggle no matter what was the case. Versus the Texans, we were ripping their secondary to shreds, so the screen game becomes less neccessary.

Versus the Rams, the run game was functional enough that they did need to use the screen game. Torain exploded versus the Eagles the next week.

The Packers killed us defensively, and maybe using more screens would've been key there. But then you have Torain running for over 100 yards for Indy the next week (where they still ran some screen plays), and then he rushed for 100 versus the Bears in a team that's not suspetible to getting fooled by screens.

I think the Lions game is where we start to see them used more frequently, which is apparently where all the trouble really started to take place.

The screens worked to great effectiveness versus the Titans the following week, but the Giants were ready for it the next week and completely killed the screen game, which seemed like it was our whole gameplan. The same thing goes for the Vikings game the week after that. And then the next week you have Torain bulldozing every one in Tampa.

So when you go back and look at the game situations and how the team did and looked offensively, McNabb had trouble running the offense that Kyle wanted. And then when Kyle implemented more things McNabb was more comfortable with, McNabb still had more trouble with it.

Once teams figured out we were going to be running more screen passes, they did a better job of stopping us from using them. And that forced McNabb to play more within the regular offense, which he couldn't execute.

I don't have every piece of game film from last season at my immediate disposal so I can't offer undeniable proof that we didn't run designed screens early on, but I'm guessing neither do you. I do, however, distincly recall asking myself early on in the season why we weren't running more screens in warrented senarios when I thought it should have been a weapon in a balanced offensive attack. What I do know is that in the win loss column McNabb was 4-4 (not superlative, but not wretched either) prior to the week 8 move into a more frequently used screen attack afterwhich his record plummeted to a feeble 1-4. In the 4-4 early stretch when we weren't running as many screens only 1 of the 4 games you could say was determined by RB output. In the other three we never rushed for 100 yds. Anytime an offense becomes one demensional and predictable you're going to get your card pulled.

I don't think the designed RB screens or the flanker screens or RB wheel routes or single read quick check downs are the way you win football games. I believe that they are simply a tool that should be used situationally to keep a defense off balance and guessing. When we became a predominant screen team it tended to be more pandering and excessive then it should have been. It became a central focal point and not a finite aspect of a larger concept. If you could win with McNabb prior to a screen game and without a dominant run game, which his record proves possible, why can't you win with him after employing a screen game. Perhaps it's because the play calling changed and it became overkill in Kyle's gameplan. I don't know for certain. I don't think McNabb was in the huddle changing plays or audiblizing to screens at the line.

You can't justifiably give a very generic and basic overview of every game and exclaim with any true conviction that we could have used screens in this game, but not in this one. The screen is a situational call. Just like a series of specific conditions must be present to brew the perfect storm. You can't just say, oh, look it's cloudy out there's probably going to be a tornado.

[Dirtbag59]

To me having a bad line shows me a QB's floor. I wouldn't expect McNabb to put up Peyton Manning type numbers given the level of play up front for most of the year however he still should have been able to put up much more respectable numbers then he did last year. QB ratings might be overrated and granted two of his int's were Hail Mary's at the end of the first half.

However he still threw a terribly low amount of TD passes, which wouldn't have been so bad, if he wasn't throwing for a virtually equal amount of Int's. Seriously if you're going to throw 14 touchdowns in a pass happy offense, with a defense on the other side that as shaky as they were at times, was designed to get turnovers and create a short field, well lets just say I expected more from someone that was the same caliber as McNabb.

Also we keep talking about how bad the receivers were, yet he still had Moss, Cooley, and Armstrong this past year along with Keiland on check downs. Not world beaters by any means but lets not try to pass this off as he didn't have anyone to throw to. And further more people may want to say that Armstrong was a product of McNabb, fact of the matter is he got better when Grossman got the job.

Even Cutler with his regrettable 2009 season was able to post 27 TD's (to 26 Int's) with a lesser receiving corps and line. Obviously not ideal, however if you're going to throw a bunch of Int's you better give me a bunch of TD's as well.

[SmootSmack]

Why you gotta hate on Matt Moore?

Vikings won despite Frerotte

[fanarchist]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Why you gotta hate on Matt Moore?

Vikings won despite Frerotte

Thanks for putting me in my place. I needed a good sadistic slap. I'll shuffle my way back into the throng now.

All hail Mods.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by fanarchist

Thanks for putting me in my place. I needed a good sadistic slap. I'll shuffle my way back into the throng now.

All hail Mods.

Damn straight. Hating on Moore...sheesh, I let that happen and we'll have total...fanarchy