Who do you want to start at QB?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

There's not much of a premium on opinions therefore they need not be valued. I understand.

Given the circumstances that have changed since then, no, I don't think you can put much value on those opinions from back then.

[rbanerjee23]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Beck for 3 simple reasons:
1. We've seen all that Rex can do-good and bad. We aren't in a position where the QB is going to be the difference between being a SB contender or being 3-13. We are probably firmly in the 7 to 9 win range so it's best to see what we have in Beck.
2. Beck seems to have the pulse and support of the team. Not trying to overstate things from one half of one preseason game but Beck has really stepped up to become a leader, Rex seems happy to just be part of the team. I want my QB to lead by example and set a tone.
3. I really want to shut up the Mike Greenburgs and Rich Eisens of the national media who keep singing the 'JOHN BECK!?!?' chorus like he's a guy we pulled out of the accounting department of IBM and plugged him in. I hope Mike and Kyle drop a big old 'told ya so' on those guys.

Amen brother ... the first thing I would add to this list is that Beck seems like he understands his role. He seems to understand that he hasn't done anything and how big of a responsibility it is to be the starting qb of a team (no one really knows what he's thinking but he's saying the right things). Lastly, MS and KS are really high on this guy and whether it's just a diversion, a ploy or they really believe it, these guys know good quarterbacks so I am more likely to trust their judgment -- I know, I know what about DMac? Hey, they let him go after a season, a good FO/talent evaluation team knows when they have made a mistake and corrects it ASAP and that's what happened in that situation.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

For me it was not about Shanahan and or his support for either QB. It was about opinions solicited from our posters and their support or lack thereof for those listed in the poll. I voted in the poll based on my feelings when comparing the QB's listed for comparison not having any idea how Shanahan felt about any of them...Beck/Grossman respectively since they were already on the team at the time the poll was conducted.

Look closely and you'll witness some suggesting Beck should not even be on the team, to now suggesting he should be the starter. Your word is your bond.

When DMac was benched, Beck did not play, Grossman did. Therefore there was no reason at the time of the earlier poll for me to think that Beck might start this year, which is what the earlier poll asked. That's why I voted for Rex in the earlier poll. Things changed on this point even before the preseason.

[IrMitchell]

Grossman, Beck will be a very unexciting check down machine which I am not prepared for.

[rbanerjee23]

Originally Posted by IrMitchell

Grossman, Beck will be a very unexciting check down machine which I am not prepared for.

I would happily take some boring, unexciting wins over some super exciting, adrenaline pumping losses

[MTK]

As opposed to Mr. Long Ball McNabb from last year who go us sooo far.

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

As opposed to Mr. Long Ball McNabb from last year who go us sooo far.

^^t

[FrenchSkin]

Ok, back with a beginner wondering: why does it seem unthinkable to have two quaterbacks? I mean, for example, Beck would be the stater, he'd play a lot more than Grossman, BUT, no one would be upset if at the end of some matches Grossman comed on the field for the last 10 minutes. Or if Beck has a little injury which doesn't necessarily prevent him from playing, Shannahan would make the decision to let Grossman start a game or two and let Beck come back when he's feeling better. Or, "hey this week at practice Grossman was better than Beck, he'll start next game, maybe next week Beck will be more in it at practice..."
I know this question will seem very very strange to football fans, but we see a lot of this in Rugby, at the higher level, and I think it's a good thing because it takes drama out of players' shoulders, they no longer pray for the other one to hurt himself, and it makes the competition for the job both permanent, more dynamic and it means less tension, and the possibility for both players to work together.

[rbanerjee23]

First and foremost, that's awesome -- a French Redskins fan. Are you legit french or an american expat/american parents but born in France?

Second, yeah we could have two qbs but its better IMO to have one unquestioned leader of the offense whom you want to have the ball with 90 seconds left to drive down the field and win the game.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

Ok, back with a beginner wondering: why does it seem unthinkable to have two quaterbacks? I mean, for example, Beck would be the stater, he'd play a lot more than Grossman, BUT, no one would be upset if at the end of some matches Grossman comed on the field for the last 10 minutes. Or if Beck has a little injury which doesn't necessarily prevent him from playing, Shannahan would make the decision to let Grossman start a game or two and let Beck come back when he's feeling better. Or, "hey this week at practice Grossman was better than Beck, he'll start next game, maybe next week Beck will be more in it at practice..."
I know this question will seem very very strange to football fans, but we see a lot of this in Rugby, at the higher level, and I think it's a good thing because it takes drama out of players' shoulders, they no longer pray for the other one to hurt himself, and it makes the competition for the job both permanent, more dynamic and it means less tension, and the possibility for both players to work together.

Welcome. As far as I know its never work very well in the NFL but someone could correct me. Steve S. tried that with us back in the old ball coach days.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by rbanerjee23

First and foremost, that's awesome -- a French Redskins fan. Are you legit french or an american expat/american parents but born in France?

Second, yeah we could have two qbs but its better IMO to have one unquestioned leader of the offense whom you want to have the ball with 90 seconds left to drive down the field and win the game.

no no, real French (I thought it was obvious when reading how I write), born in Toulouse , became skins fan... don't ask why ^^

Hard to describe (or compare to football) the situation in Rugby, but each team has a leader of the offense, undisputed starter, but it's no big deal if the back up starts a game because it's a "small game" (which no longer exists at high level) or just because the coach wants to give him a shot.
But in rugby, games last 80 minutes and there are very few stops, so you have to deal with players being exhausted 20 minutes before the end of the game because some plays can last several minutes, which you obviously don't have in football (unless if a coach designed a very sofisticated play in which he wanted all elligible players to pitch eachother the ball for 2 minutes to disturb the defense or win some time but I seriously doubt this would be efficient...)

[tryfuhl]

I know I know, but this was a great breakdown of the performances vs each preseason start considering opponent, individual play, etc

Preseason breakdown: Grossman’s Game 1 vs Beck’s Game 2. Sex Cannon dominates 13-4 Steelers. Admiral Checkdown rolls over 4-18 Colts. Mike and Kyle Shanahan’s Jedi mind tricks confuse everyone.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

I know I know, but this was a great breakdown of the performances vs each preseason start considering opponent, individual play, etc

Preseason breakdown: Grossman’s Game 1 vs Beck’s Game 2. Sex Cannon dominates 13-4 Steelers. Admiral Checkdown rolls over 4-18 Colts. Mike and Kyle Shanahan’s Jedi mind tricks confuse everyone.

That guy spent about four more hours on a Redskins preseason game than I would spend on their entire preseason. And I think his point is pretty airtight. Kyle Shanahan's playing a pretty darn big perception game right now. And he's winning. See: the above poll.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by IrMitchell

Grossman, Beck will be a very unexciting check down machine which I am not prepared for.

I suppose Peyton Manning "90% short and intermediate, 10% deep" ratio on his pass attempts disgusts you.

Here's the deal, NOT every short route is a ****ing checkdown. The checkdown is the LAST or "panic" option in the play. A quick slant or a quick out is not a ****ing checkdown because it's an early read.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

Ok, back with a beginner wondering: why does it seem unthinkable to have two quaterbacks? .

U need one guy and its due more for the rhythm and chemistry of the team. Its easier for the rest of the guys say the WRs on know how 1 guy throws the ball and when its gonna be deliveryed. Same for the RB getting the ball and the Oline getting use to the style of how far one guy drops back oppose to another, how he scrambles, etc. Its easier for the rest of the guys to adjust their game to one guy and creates chemistry and trust. I think it mentally much easier for one QB who knows he is the man and what he expects from the coaches. Rotating doors at starters spots in football just doesnt work as well unless say RB and that done to keep the D on its toes. Rotating door at QB usually turns into a distraction for the team.