Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Andrew Luck theory: After the bye, did Shanahan tank the Redskins season on purpose? Was there hidden purpose in the McNabb extension?

Atlanta Skins Fan

By Atlanta Skins Fan
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

Go_Jibbs!

Go_Jibbs!

Posted
Posted
Mike Shanahan famously benched McNabb in the closing minutes of the Lions game: a clear demonstration of frustration with his starting QB.

Two weeks later, and with the bye to think about it, the Redskins gave McNabb a huge contract extension in the hours before the Eagles game. On closer examination, the contract apparently gives the team annual opportunities to release McNabb at little cost.

So, what happened over the bye?

We know what has happened *since* the bye: the Redskins went from possible contender to a blundering mess. Eagles blowout was the opening act. A surprising win against the Titans is followed by a loss to the Vikings and a blowout by the Giants. The best defensive player is held back with a mysterious achilles injury. The starting left tackle is held out of the Giants starting lineup, in addition to Haynesworth. Then Haynesworth is suspended, after more friction with Shanahan.

What's going on here? A lot of smart people are starting to call out Shanahan and Bruce Allen for fielding a team whose progress from the Zorn era is hard to measure. I'm not one of them, for a variety of reasons.

One reason is a simple theory. What if Shanahan and Allen are a whole lot smarter than anyone dares imagine? What if Shanahan concluded over the bye that McNabb was simply not going to be "that guy" (i.e., Shanahan's next John Elway), and that the Redskins needed to define a strategy for landing the next franchise QB of the future, as priority #1? What if the target turned out to be Andrew Luck? What then?

If you were coach of the Redskins and you decided over the bye to go after Andrew Luck, the events since that time are relatively consistent with such a strategy. Sure, the Skins did beat the Titans, but the Titans helped that to happen by failing to field a QB in the 4th quarter. The McNabb contract extension and details, the blowouts to the Eagles and the Giants, the handling of injuries, and the handling of Haynesworth ... are all consistent with a plan to draft Andrew Luck.

They won't win the race for the #1 pick in the draft. But, the Redskins might land a top 6 pick. And, when you're trying to trade up to #1, it sure helps to be able to throw Donovan McNabb into your offer for the #1 pick. Especially with that nice contract extension you arranged over the bye.

The way to trade for the #1 pick is to offer a good QB with a good contract to the team holding the #1 pick, as part of the package. That's real value. Now think about that contract again. A curious contract by its timing, or an incredibly savvy play, looking months ahead to the draft?

Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen, you've got my vote of confidence. Especially if I'm right.

From what i've heard players say... they hate loosing. I can't think of a team that would purposely loose games to get higher draft picks to try and draft some "speculated" college talent. Any coach that did that would loose the support of the players. And making such an effort to get some college quarterback who has never played in the pro's is an incredible gamble. It would be like winning $50,000 on a lottery ticket, not cashing it in, and trading it someone who has an unscratched ticket that could win $10 Million dollars. I can't think of any coach in the NFL that would even consider doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aquariuzzz

Aquariuzzz

Posted
Posted
One reason is a simple theory. What if Shanahan and Allen are a whole lot smarter than anyone dares imagine?

Im tired of trying to believe our coaches are smarter than their play calling, personnel moves, use of timeouts, benching of starting qb's, draft decisions, etc.

I am only hoping for an off season of moves that i can agree with. Last season i disagreed with every decision except for drafting Trent williams. We could have had a rookie Colt Mccoy with our (third?) round pick! At least thats something to build on... We are worst than we were last season because of the signs showing that mcnabb is gone after week 17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hollywood1127

Hollywood1127

Posted
Posted
Mike Shanahan famously benched McNabb in the closing minutes of the Lions game: a clear demonstration of frustration with his starting QB.

Two weeks later, and with the bye to think about it, the Redskins gave McNabb a huge contract extension in the hours before the Eagles game. On closer examination, the contract apparently gives the team annual opportunities to release McNabb at little cost.

So, what happened over the bye?

We know what has happened *since* the bye: the Redskins went from possible contender to a blundering mess. Eagles blowout was the opening act. A surprising win against the Titans is followed by a loss to the Vikings and a blowout by the Giants. The best defensive player is held back with a mysterious achilles injury. The starting left tackle is held out of the Giants starting lineup, in addition to Haynesworth. Then Haynesworth is suspended, after more friction with Shanahan.

What's going on here? A lot of smart people are starting to call out Shanahan and Bruce Allen for fielding a team whose progress from the Zorn era is hard to measure. I'm not one of them, for a variety of reasons.

One reason is a simple theory. What if Shanahan and Allen are a whole lot smarter than anyone dares imagine? What if Shanahan concluded over the bye that McNabb was simply not going to be "that guy" (i.e., Shanahan's next John Elway), and that the Redskins needed to define a strategy for landing the next franchise QB of the future, as priority #1? What if the target turned out to be Andrew Luck? What then?

If you were coach of the Redskins and you decided over the bye to go after Andrew Luck, the events since that time are relatively consistent with such a strategy. Sure, the Skins did beat the Titans, but the Titans helped that to happen by failing to field a QB in the 4th quarter. The McNabb contract extension and details, the blowouts to the Eagles and the Giants, the handling of injuries, and the handling of Haynesworth ... are all consistent with a plan to draft Andrew Luck.

They won't win the race for the #1 pick in the draft. But, the Redskins might land a top 6 pick. And, when you're trying to trade up to #1, it sure helps to be able to throw Donovan McNabb into your offer for the #1 pick. Especially with that nice contract extension you arranged over the bye.

The way to trade for the #1 pick is to offer a good QB with a good contract to the team holding the #1 pick, as part of the package. That's real value. Now think about that contract again. A curious contract by its timing, or an incredibly savvy play, looking months ahead to the draft?

Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen, you've got my vote of confidence. Especially if I'm right.

How in the world can you give them your vote. Based on your contract extension theory, that sounds more like wasting someones time. Supposedly we brought McNabb on the team to win games for us. We told him how great he was and how happy we were to have him. After a few losses, you have determined that he should be given the cold shoulder? Even Jason Campbell got more time to prove himself, than McNabb just got. In the end, it won't matter if we get Andrew Luck. If the O-Line does not improve, Andrew Luck will end up just like Jason Campbell, Brunnell, and McNabb. We even told Brennan how great he was, and what did Shanny do it him?; he released him.

Based on the way you depicted this theory, I don't think you depicted the reality behind it. Look at the erra under Dan Snyder. How many of the QBs under Snyder's erra, have gotten long term success with the Redskins? Patrick Ramsey, Mark Brunnell, Jason Campbell, Todd Collins, Colt Brennan and now Donovan McNabb have received the trap door. All different coaches and the same results every time. The reason why none of them became great with the Redskins is simple. The answer is NO OFFENSIVE LINE. Patrick Ramsey, Mark Brunnell, Jason Campbell, Todd Collins and McNabb have had their share of getting the wind knocked out of them too many times. Even Rex Grossman got a taste of that on Sunday against Dallas. The same thing will happen to Andrew Luck if the O-Line is not improved.

In Conclusion. No Offensive line results in failure to make plays on offense. That means your QB will have a record high of getting sacked and fumbles. Too many sacks and fumbles, result in loosing games. Loosing too many games, result in coaches getting fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
HRNY4ZRNY

HRNY4ZRNY

Posted
Posted

Only Andrew Luck thread I could find and didnt want to start a new one even though I kinda wanted to start a new one.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwalterfootball.com%2Fdraft2012.php&ei=1gh1TbnJB6GT0QHCkYjFAQ&usg=AFQjCNEhsVlu5WmVeTBfBlePXKEUTYkxPA

We need to get this kid next year. And we need to get the BPA this year at need positions. WR, DL, OL, LB (Von Miller)

Lets be patient when getting a QB. Locker and Newton have to many red flags and Gabbert seems the best fit but will not be there at 10.

We might have a horrible season next year with Grossman but Im willing to do the right thing for once and make sure we get the right QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mad Mike

Mad Mike

Posted
Posted
Only Andrew Luck thread I could find and didnt want to start a new one even though I kinda wanted to start a new one.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwalterfootball.com%2Fdraft2012.php&ei=1gh1TbnJB6GT0QHCkYjFAQ&usg=AFQjCNEhsVlu5WmVeTBfBlePXKEUTYkxPA

We need to get this kid next year. And we need to get the BPA this year at need positions. WR, DL, OL, LB (Von Miller)

Lets be patient when getting a QB. Locker and Newton have to many red flags and Gabbert seems the best fit but will not be there at 10.

We might have a horrible season next year with Grossman but Im willing to do the right thing for once and make sure we get the right QB.

The only way to "make sure" we get Luck next year is to tank the season and pick #1. PERIOD. If that's your plan, NO THANK YOU. :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
addicted

addicted

Posted
Posted
The only way to "make sure" we get Luck next year is to tank the season and pick #1. PERIOD. If that's your plan, NO THANK YOU. :doh:

I love me some conspiracy therories as much as the next guy but the one on the front page didn't add up and neither does the idea. The only way you get this dude is if you willingly go into the season refusing to win a single game. You don't get Luck without that #1 pick. You don't start the last month of the season and then decide to tank the year if thats your plan all along. Any coach wanting to lose every game of the season is guarenteed to get fired. The object of the game is to win. Winning is what this franchise needs more then anything else. It would be a death sentence and likely rules violation if Mike told the team to go out and lose one for the Gipper...stupid idea and never gonna happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkinsFTW

SkinsFTW

Posted
Posted
The only way to "make sure" we get Luck next year is to tank the season and pick #1. PERIOD. If that's your plan, NO THANK YOU. :doh:

Why the hell not?

It's not like refusing to rebuild and expecting to win the SB from FA signings the past 15+ years has done us any good. Try something different, maybe we can see a consistently winning team in 2-3 years rather than the 6 to 10 win mediocre garbage (OMG we were this close to being 13-3 and all we need is this one guy and a kicker) we've been watching since the mid 90's. Snyder's gotta sell the merchandise though so building for the future will never happen.

This team goes into FA every year acting like we were in the NFCCG and if we had these 2 or 3 guys on the team it would put us over the top. Hint: It doesn't work. It hasn't worked for the Redskins for 15 years now, it didn't work for a decade in Denver for Shanahan either. It doesn't work for Dallas and it doesn't work for the Vikings, it doesn't work for Oakland or anybody who is consistently mediocre or bad. Hell, Minnesota brought in Brett Favre, a sure HOFer and top 5 QB at 40 years old to a SB ready team, he had his best season of his career there and they still didn't get to the SB. Dallas brings in players almost as much as we do and even if it's the best receiver in the game they never win anything. Oakland signs players left and right, and haven't won 9 games in close to 10 years. I don't even need to mention the list of FA's the Redskins have ran through since Dan Wilkenson and Stubblefield were gonna team up with Ken Harvey and Darrell Green to give us a dominating defense which ended up ranking at the bottom of the league.

I'd be all for a good 2-14 season to get the QB of the future. It's not a lot worse than our annual 6-9 win crap where we all point out this one play or that one ref call or the OC not doing this or that and we would have been 12-4.

I saw Rodgers in the Playoffs have receivers dropping balls more than Moss and Cooley and nobody made excuses for the guy, he just won the game anyway, even with an occasional bonehead play of his own. It was like the exact opposite of watching Jason Campbell for 50+ games or even McNabb here. Brees, Roethlisberger, Brady, hell even Sanchez are in the playoffs overcoming their own mistakes and the mistakes of their teammates to win games. Nobody says "well if Cooley hadn't dropped that pass, or the ref didn't bonehead that call, or the kicker didn't miss an extra point and we'd win" they just win. Thats what we need a real franchise QB, and we're never getting one of those in FA. A Brett Favre being available isn't going to happen and even if it did happen we'd never win a SB with him. It would be just like Montana in KC, Unitas in San Diego, or Favre in NY and Minnesota, even Warren Moon in Minnesota, didn't win a SB. Which franchise QB was ever traded or let go and then went on to win a SB somewhere else? Oh, Brad Johnson, lol. Yeah, he was a real franchise QB, just like Trent Dilfer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TD_washingtonredskins

TD_washingtonredskins

Posted
Posted
For Andrew Luck I am 100 percent willing to suffer a 1-15 year

This franchise would be set for the next 10-15 years and would be a year in year out Superbowl contender so long as Luck was taking the snaps

How do you do that though? I wish there were a way to just cut all the guys over 27 or making over a certain amount to "clean the books" and then play kids until we draft Luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkinsHokieFan

SkinsHokieFan

Posted
Posted
But I think we'd need that in addition to a top-10 next year (it's possible, but not exactly a given unless we play some young guys).

Agree. If we are able to have a top 10 pick, a 1st round pick and 2 fourth round picks (which we currently have) next year its ammo.

My hope would also be to address the lines and build some depth this year

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TD_washingtonredskins

TD_washingtonredskins

Posted
Posted
Agree. If we are able to have a top 10 pick, a 1st round pick and 2 fourth round picks (which we currently have) next year its ammo.

My hope would also be to address the lines and build some depth this year

That would be ideal. You still have to hope the team the ends up #1 overall isn't as hungry for a franchise QB as we are. If they are, it might take more than we have to trade up for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HRNY4ZRNY

HRNY4ZRNY

Posted
Posted

Lets just say this as a hypothetical.

The Arizona Cardinals select Blaine Gabbert and have him sit on the bench for the year. Now lets say the Cardinals record ends up being 2-12 and they are picking 1st overall.

They are not going to want Andrew Luck. Lets say the Redskins are picking 12 next year. This is a situation which is perfect.

We can give them our 12th pick and next years 1st and say a 3rd. Luck is worth it and we need to be aggressive and get this guy.

You dont trade the farm for Jason Campbell... You trade the farm for Andrew Luck,

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JPCreativelab

JPCreativelab

Posted
Posted
Lets just say this as a hypothetical.

The Arizona Cardinals select Blaine Gabbert and have him sit on the bench for the year. Now lets say the Cardinals record ends up being 2-12 and they are picking 1st overall.

They are not going to want Andrew Luck. Lets say the Redskins are picking 12 next year. This is a situation which is perfect.

We can give them our 12th pick and next years 1st and say a 3rd. Luck is worth it and we need to be aggressive and get this guy.

You dont trade the farm for Jason Campbell... You trade the farm for Andrew Luck,

yea its gonna have to be a scenario similar to this for us to even have a shot to get him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkinsHokieFan

SkinsHokieFan

Posted
Posted
That would be ideal. You still have to hope the team the ends up #1 overall isn't as hungry for a franchise QB as we are. If they are, it might take more than we have to trade up for him.

If that happens we simply are not going to get Luck. It will be same situation as with Bradford

Why take any chances with this? Trade guys like Cooley, who will be 29 this year, build the lines this year, stock pile picks next year, get the lines set with the scheme and watch us lose game after game realizing that we'll have Luck in a year

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joeknows

joeknows

Posted
Posted

im not on board..... i admit... at a college level Luck looks great. but in the NFL you cant get by staring down the receiver you are gonna throw to. not to mention those off balance throws are sure to be picked off at the pro level. and then there is always the fact that it appears that he has pretty damned good protection too.

does the guy have skills? sure.... he doesnt have the Tebow delivery issue, but i think there are some things this guy must seriously work on to get to the next level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkinsFTW

SkinsFTW

Posted
Posted
I would think in order to trade up we need another first round pick next year.

That could provide the ammo.

Then why not trade our #10 pick this year to somebody like like Denver or Carolina who more than likely will be a top 5 pick next year anyway? Trade Cooley for a 3rd or 4th. Trade McNugget for a 3rd or 4th or whatever next year, Haynesworth too. Cut everybody else over 30 except for Fletcher or trade Fletcher too if possible. Then we will have 2 top 10 picks next year and some extra's. Build for the future, but we don't do that, Shanahan never has, Snyder doesn't even want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkinsHokieFan

SkinsHokieFan

Posted
Posted
Then why not trade our #10 pick this year to somebody like like Denver or Carolina who more than likely will be a top 5 pick next year anyway? Trade Cooley for a 3rd or 4th. Trade McNugget for a 3rd or 4th or whatever next year, Haynesworth too. Cut everybody else over 30 except for Fletcher or trade Fletcher too if possible. Then we will have 2 top 10 picks next year and some extra's. Build for the future, but we don't do that, Shanahan never has, Snyder doesn't even want to.

I would be 100 percent for that.

I wouldn't want to trade to far down this year because there is some elite 3-4 talent and I want us to get our elite guy.

If Robert Quinn is there at 10, I want him here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...