If we're down 17-0 next weekend at the half.........

[wildbill]

Does Marty the GM get in the way of Marty the coach, and play Banks even though he knows will never be better than 8-8 with him.Does he play him because he fears no QB worth while will be available in the off season?

Got to be honest, after reading the posts this morning, there sounds like there are many skins fans out there that are as frustrated as I am.

I know there has been a huge turn-around from the beg. of the season, but how many years do we have to go without a QB you can count on to make plays week in and week out.

Davis and the Defense played their hearts out just to get let down by horrible play calling and stupid mistakes in the red zone.

I almost hope we lose this weekend so all hopes of making the playoffs will be over, and these Mon. morning hangovers will go away till next season.Hail Skins

[bulldog]

My opinion was that the Redskins should have been starting Graham several weeks ago.

The lack of a credible passing attack against Dallas and Philly underscores the fact we are in essence playing with one hand tied behind our backs.

I would gladly give up an extra sack or two a game with Graham back there with more limited mobility if it means more completions and greater efficiency on third and 5's.

Interceptions are worse than sacks.

You get the ball 4 times in Eagles territory and come away with 3 points total?

Banks threw the ball to the Eagles twice on passes that should never have been launched.

The first one Westbrook was double covered. The second was a play where Banks got pressure and should have just thrown the ball out of bounds.

Graham can read defenses and deliver the football. He will stand in there and take some hits as well.

Also, with Graham the Redskins can use the entire playbook and not limit themselves in playcalling.

It is nice that Banks has added the post routes to his repertoire in Week 13, but those are throws Graham could make weeks ago.

You could make the argument the Redskins were auditioning Banks because he is only 28 and Graham is 33 and not a long-term solution.

But what you are looking at are two players that have strengths but flaws as well.

On this team IMHO it would have been better after the Denver game to go with Graham and see how he performed for another week or two.

With Davis and the defense playing well, it seemed to me that Graham's ability to invigorate the short and intermediate passing game using players Banks and Raye had forgotten about was exactly what the team needed.