WP: Brian Burke's Stats Find McNabb Blameless

[Mursilis]

So while I don't blame Jason Campbell solely, by last season it was clear that we needed to move on.

I agree with that, but in those situations, you do what the really bad teams like the Rams and Lions did - you draft your franchise QB. KC got lucky in trading a 2nd for Cassel, but he was younger than McNabb, and for one season, about as good.

[Oldfan]

...*One note on ego, specifically that of the coaches. I don’t know why it always carries such a negative connotation. Most coaches are very egotistical individuals, Shanny is no exception. While unchecked ego can be a problem, a healthy ego is not evil as the popular media would suggest. I don’t mind Shanahan’s ego, so long as he checks it with a realistic eye at our skill level.

I can't speak for all, but when I speak of an ego problem in making a decision, I'm not talking about a high-grade ego, but a high-grade ego unchecked. I don't always make that clear.

[cphil006]

We spent picks in the second and fourth rounds for McNabb. And you are insisting, it was a good trade? How do you support that claim with anything more than rthetoric?

While the rankings at footballoutsiders.com are still a work-in-progress, they are more comprehensive and make more sense statistically than those at NFL.com based on yardage rankings. As of December 28, here are their rankings compared to the Zorn-Campbell 2009 team:

Offense:

2009 = #21

2010 = #25

Quarterback

2009 Campbell #20

2010 McNabb #25 (through 13 games)

Rankings? Would playing in the AFC Mess (West) have anything to do with that?

You're the same guy that said Norv Turner was on level with Mike Shanahan as a head coach. Would you ever retract that statement?

[The Tris]

I agree with that, but in those situations, you do what the really bad teams like the Rams and Lions did - you draft your franchise QB. KC got lucky in trading a 2nd for Cassel, but he was younger than McNabb, and for one season, about as good.

Please read my length post on the last page. I agree.

The first thing Atlanta, Detroit, and Tampa did was draft a QB. St. Louis drafted a T, then a QB a year later.

Look where they are now. These are the plans we should be following.

[TheLongshot]

I agree completely with Oldfan (that tasted bitter coming out:evilg:): "Good stats, flawed conclusion." The title should read “McNabb wasn’t solely responsible for Redskins offensive woes”. McNabb is pretty much the same QB he was in Philly, yet with worst weapons and a worse line. The mistake many (including Mike Shanahan) made was in assuming McNabb would be a massive upgrade over Jason Campbell, when as much as it pains to admit it, both QBs are of average skill.

Well, I think people were looking at the McNabb of the early part of his career that didn't have much weapons but still produced and thought that he could do the same here.

While he's been a good QB for most of his career, I've often been critical of him, mostly because of his accuracy. It was one of the things that I felt was holding him back. I also saw his reluctance to run being another aspect. He was so focused on not being known as a "running" QB that he often forgot to even when it would have benefitted his team.

So there is blame in expecting McNabb to be a huge upgrade, and fault to be laid at the feet of Mike Shanahan for assuming he could correct McNabb’s problems (accuracy, poor foot work, declining skills with age) that were limiting him to an average QB. I myself spent a long time comparing the career arcs of Elway and McNabb, the similarity of numbers, the declining stats at the time they crossed paths with Mike Shanahan, with the hope that they would have similarly twilights with the offensive guru that is Shanahan. I’m sure Shanny himself had similar hopes. But there are two big problems with that logic: 1) The 2010 Redskins are not as talented as the 1995 Broncos Mike Shanahan inherited, and 2) At no point in their careers has Donovan McNabb ever come close to Elway’s skill, not at their peak, and certainly not in their mid 30s. These are problems which mainly are to blame on Shanahan.

There is also the fact that he changed teams and had to get used to new teammates.

The McNabb trade never should have been made for a team with our offensive (and defensive) issues. This is clear, and anyone who disagrees is simply wrong. Heck, Mike Shanahan admitted as much THREE WEEKS AGO. But to make either the coaching staff or McNabb blameless in this season’s mess is equally wrong. The root of all of this is a reluctance to commit to a long term team building plan. I am encouraged by the moves of the past month, and a commitment to youth, and hopefully we will be trading our veterans for picks come 2011, and not the other way round. QB is, and has been a problem for a decade. But it is hardly the sole problem, and it is certainly not blameless in our troubles.

Up until the trade, I thought Shanahan was on the right path. Given the labor situation, there is only so much that can be done. But, the McNabb trade never really made sense to me given the other moves. There was a lot about this team that was in transition and was going to take time. The value in trading a couple high picks for an an aging QB for a team like this just didn't make much sense.

*One note on ego, specifically that of the coaches. I don’t know why it always carries such a negative connotation. Most coaches are very egotistical individuals, Shanny is no exception. While unchecked ego can be a problem, a healthy ego is not evil as the popular media would suggest. I don’t mind Shanahan’s ego, so long as he checks it with a realistic eye at our skill level.

I'm fine with ego. The problem comes when that ego selects players and the coach says "I can make it work". We have had many instances of that over the years here and, for the most part, most of it has ended in failure.

[Rypien1191]

CONSIDER THE LOCKOUT.

How is it almost an entire city has completely ignored this in their zeal to vindicate McNabb?

It is such a HUGE specter hanging over all of this, and it's like 2 out of every 3 people in this city just pretend it doesn't exist.

His age and the coming lockout are BIG GIANT FACTORS IN ALL OF THIS, and yet folks just waltz around it like it's not even there.

Enough if this ridiculousness. Quit drinking the water people. It's making you stupid.

~Bang

The lockout that is not going to happen?

[addicted]

Really? Toxic? I get that some fans are disappointed that Campbell didn't turn out to be a great QB, but some of the hyperbole being spewed is why many did come to Campbell's defense, because the negativity towards Campbell from those people was way over the top. The thing is, this year kinda proves out that Campbell, while maybe not the solution, wasn't the problem. We bring in a "great" QB, shore up the OL and put in a new offensive system and the results aren't much different from last year when conditions were much worse for Campbell.

The OP backs up my feeling from the beginning that bringing in McNabb was likely going to be a waste. There was just too much about this team that needed to improve to make trading for a 33 year old, injury prone QB even remotely worth it.

Things take time. Replacing two starters on the offensive line edges didn't fix any of the problems with the interior line and there wasn't any cohesiveness within the group to say it was going to work going in. The bottom line here is the lines issues aren't fixed yet

As far as changing coordinators again that takes time for the offense to get up to tempo yet we saw McNabb have his best game in the second week of the season because as you said he is great but no single player can do it alone. Not a QB, not anyone for an entire season. Why else do we see guys like Rex Grossman and Todd Collins outperform QB's time and again who they aren't physically up to par with? The answer is they are more familiar with these offenses.

And this doesn't even mention how Campbell was unable to ever beat a winning team the previous year yet with McNabb we beat the two of the Division leading teams with him under center and had our best division record in years.

The thing your understanding is lacking here is any sense of time. You discredit the wins over the Bears and Eagles, forget the team record and lack of a single quality win with Campbell under center, and show a complete lack the patience to see this through. We gave Jason Campbell 4 seasons yet give McNabb only one and want to say that in Campbell's fourth season in which the team was absolutely horrible and never beat a single team with a winning record or showed much of any thing resembling a professional football team was better then this years team with a QB in his first new offensive system in a decade.

The expectations and hyperbole here is really thick with some of you.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

We also spent 2 first round picks, a 3rd and a 4th round pick to draft Campbell.

:gus::gus::gus::gus::gus:

Jeebus lol...

[Oldfan]

We also spent 2 first round picks, a 3rd and a 4th round pick to draft Campbell. If your comparing the prices of each player we gave up much more for Campbell then we ever did for McNabb which is why we stayed with him for so long. I'm simply stating an opinion about the team here.

What we spent on Campbell has no bearing on the merits of the McNabb trade.

It's obvious you disagree and think that Campbell is the better QB of the two which I disagree with.

Why would I predict in April that McNabb would be a small upgrade if I believed that?

When the team ended 2009 with Campbell under center the team was depressed lacking the belief in itself that it could win with the man under center. For years the team was kept down because of Campbell's inability to make plays. When he had a running game to lift the burden of moving the offense from his shoulders Campbell had success. When the job of engineering the offense rested on his shoulders he failed time and again and the sames been seen with him in Oakland this year. When McNabb came in it seemed to me that the team was rejuvenated with a belief that we could win in the league this year and it only took the second week of the season to see the improvement at the QB position to the world.

You're ignoring all the evidence I posted that the 2010 Shanahan/ McNabb offense didn't improve from the 2009 Zorn-Campbell.

This passed the eye test, not the "football outsiders test" which is why I called it as I see it and think we are arguing over opinions. While your reference to that website may seem to compare apples to apples it's in fact completely meaningless to me.

As I said previously, you have only rhetoric to offer in support of your opinion.

I don't see at all how you can make this comparison to try and say that Campbell is the better QB here.

I didn't say that. You made it up.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

What we spent on Campbell has no bearing on the merits of the McNabb trade.

Even if it did, we did NOT spend two 1st round draft picks on JC lol ...

[addicted]

I don't think Donovan is a fit at any of those teams you mentioned. He will be 35 next season. I don't give up draft picks for a QB of that age who doesn't fit the scheme I want to run. He's too old to build around his skillset. Kevin Kolb isn't a free agent, but he's a likely candidate for a trade to SF or AZ. Oakland would be repeating the same mistake we made by bring him. They weren't interested when the Eagles put Donovan on the market.

Henne is better than he is in Miami's situation. The Vikes would do better with Hasselbeck for their WCO.

Wait so your saying that the Vikings would be better off with Hasselback who is older and much more injury prone then McNabb then going for McNabb? What sense does that make? And what about the Titans who are using a 38 year old man as QB? They aren't in the running either?

We are specualting on what happens with him but it's clear to me that your thinking we simply dump him for trash and I'm saying that doesn't happen at all. Once he's traded the full McNabb trade will be known but at this point the books not shut yet

[TheLongshot]

Jason Campbell was not THE problem, but he was A problem. I am sorry, but to have a consistent winner, and compete for Super Bowls, you need a QB that is more than "not the problem" (or you need a historicly great defense and special teams).

Today, a QB must be a solution, a player that elevates those around him and takes advantage of the rules that tilt the competetion in favor of a strong passing game.

One QB is not going to solve what ails this team, but until we have a QB that is a "solution", we will never be a great team.

So while I don't blame Jason Campbell solely, by last season it was clear that we needed to move on. Just as it is clear we need to move on from McNabb.

Problem is, you are looking at the wrong place for the solution. Campbell wasn't the problem, but exibited the symptom of the problem: 2 head coaches and 3 offensive systems in 5 years. Not to mention an offensive line that deteriorated over time. Under those conditions, it would be difficult for any QB to develop.

We also spent 2 first round picks, a 3rd and a 4th round pick to draft Campbell. If your comparing the prices of each player we gave up much more for Campbell then we ever did for McNabb which is why we stayed with him for so long. I'm simply stating an opinion about the team here. It's obvious you disagree and think that Campbell is the better QB of the two which I disagree with.

Why do people still insist we spent two 1st round picks on Campbell? It was a 1, a 3rd and a 4th, which was the going rate to trade into the first round to draft a QB.

When the team ended 2009 with Campbell under center the team was depressed lacking the belief in itself that it could win with the man under center. For years the team was kept down because of Campbell's inability to make plays. When he had a running game to lift the burden of moving the offense from his shoulders Campbell had success. When the job of engineering the offense rested on his shoulders he failed time and again and the sames been seen with him in Oakland this year. When McNabb came in it seemed to me that the team was rejuvenated with a belief that we could win in the league this year and it only took the second week of the season to see the improvement at the QB position to the world.

I think most of that depression came from Vinny yanking the reins from Zorn and all the injuries that happened last year that made it impossible to win games. Campbell was pretty gutty under those conditions, getting knocked down a lot but staying in there.

I think people here were more in love with the idea of McNabb and his "intangibles" which were, well, intangible. People kept talking about finally having a "real" QB here, when the performance on the field didn't match up. The emperor had no clothes.

I don't see at all how you can make this comparison to try and say that Campbell is the better QB here. In a game of value and worth Campbell was traded for next to nothing and we traded a lot for McNabb. This isn't the same as Vinny creating the market and over paying, this was the market value of these two men's worth as seen by the entire league. The league says that McNabb was the better QB regardless of stats going into the draft. This is undeniable. The fact that this didn't work out doesn't change this

You can do that and still overpay. We paid market value for Haynesworth as well, and we have seen how that has turned out.

[cphil006]

Problem is, you are looking at the wrong place for the solution. Campbell wasn't the problem, but exibited the symptom of the problem: 2 head coaches and 3 offensive systems in 5 years. Not to mention an offensive line that deteriorated over time. Under those conditions, it would be difficult for any QB to develop.

Why do people still insist we spent two 1st round picks on Campbell? It was a 1, a 3rd and a 4th, which was the going rate to trade into the first round to draft a QB.

I think most of that depression came from Vinny yanking the reins from Zorn and all the injuries that happened last year that made it impossible to win games. Campbell was pretty gutty under those conditions, getting knocked down a lot but staying in there.

I think people here were more in love with the idea of McNabb and his "intangibles" which were, well, intangible. People kept talking about finally having a "real" QB here, when the performance on the field didn't match up. The emperor had no clothes.

You can do that and still overpay. We paid market value for Haynesworth as well, and we have seen how that has turned out.

After 6 seasons I don't see Jason Campbell leading a team to a Super Bowl. Perhaps for Gibbs, where a QB just has to play good, but we don't have a Ravens defense (Trent Dilfer), so we need a QB... sometimes it's best for everyone (including Campbell) to just start fresh somewhere else.

A trade that backfired for a team... not the first time it's happened, nor the last.

[addicted]

Even if it did, we did NOT spend two 1st round draft picks on JC lol ...

Let me explain what I mean by this.

Jason Campbell was drafted as the 25th pick in the 2005 draft. We sent our 2006 first round pick to Denver for this pick along with the other picks wasted for that player.

This means we used one first round pick for Campbell in 2005 (could have gone to another player) and the one in 2006 (could have gone to another player). Had we never traded for him we would have kept the 2006 first round pick and never had Denvers 2005 pick. This is what I meant, he cost us two first round picks that could have gone to other players besides the other picks we wasted on drafting him. Technically speaking we didn't surrender 2 firsts for him but in my mind we used two firsts on him

[The Tris]

And what about the Titans who are using a 38 year old man as QB? They aren't in the running either?

The Titans are about the fire the longest tenured coach in the league beacuse the owner is in LOVE with Vince Young. They are not in the running.

---------- Post added December-30th-2010 at 11:43 AM ----------

Let me explain what I mean by this.

Jason Campbell was drafted as the 25th pick in the 2005 draft. We sent our 2006 first round pick to Denver for this pick along with the other picks wasted for that player.

This means we used one first round pick for Campbell in 2005 (could have gone to another player) and the one in 2006 (could have gone to another player). Had we never traded for him we would have kept the 2006 first round pick and never had Denvers 2005 pick. This is what I meant, he cost us two first round picks that could have gone to other players besides the other picks we wasted on drafting him. Technically speaking we didn't surrender 2 firsts for him but in my mind we used two firsts on him

Wrong. We only had one 1st in 2005 (#9, carlos rogers). We traded our 2006 1st for an extra 2005 1st. So we had a total of 2 1st round picks between 2005 and 2006. We didn't gain a pick.

Had we not traded for Campbell, we would have still only had one 1st in 2005 and one 1st in 2006. Two first round picks between 2005 and 2006.

How do people still not get this?

[Oldfan]

Rankings? Would playing in the AFC Mess (West) have anything to do with that?

No. The Campbell ranking is 2009 (Zorn) not this season and the DVOA is adjusted for strength of schedule.

You're the same guy that said Norv Turner was on level with Mike Shanahan as a head coach. Would you ever retract that statement?

1) Your comment has no relevance; 2) If you want to challenge any position of mine, have the balls to quote me and do it in the context of the thread where I stated my position.

[TheLongshot]

Things take time. Replacing two starters on the offensive line edges didn't fix any of the problems with the interior line and there wasn't any cohesiveness within the group to say it was going to work going in. The bottom line here is the lines issues aren't fixed yet

Actually, we've replaced 4 starters. And that's why I didn't think the McNabb trade was a good one.

As far as changing coordinators again that takes time for the offense to get up to tempo yet we saw McNabb have his best game in the second week of the season because as you said he is great but no single player can do it alone. Not a QB, not anyone for an entire season. Why else do we see guys like Rex Grossman and Todd Collins outperform QB's time and again who they aren't physically up to par with? The answer is they are more familiar with these offenses.

McNabb had his best game there because it was a perfect matchup for him: crummy secondary and his great deep ball. Course, once teams realized that was all he had, they took away the deep ball and McNabb has struggled to move the ball ever since.

The thing your understanding is lacking here is any sense of time. You discredit the wins over the Bears and Eagles, forget the team record and lack of a single quality win with Campbell under center, and show a complete lack the patience to see this through. We gave Jason Campbell 4 seasons yet give McNabb only one and want to say that in Campbell's fourth season in which the team was absolutely horrible and never beat a single team with a winning record or showed much of any thing resembling a professional football team was better then this years team with a QB in his first new offensive system in a decade.

Problem is, we didn't win those two games because of McNabb. We beat the Eagles because we knocked out Vick and we beat the Bears because of Hall's interceptions. Now, McNabb wasn't bad in that Eagles game despite the stat line, but I don't think he was the biggest reason why we won that game.

BTW, I find it highly ironic that you defend McNabb for "he can't do it alone", but yet you blame Campbell for last year when he had even less to work with.

[addicted]

What we spent on Campbell has no bearing on the merits of the McNabb trade.

Absolutely it does in my mind. We traded for a QB to get rid of the QB we traded to get. How can you say these don't cross?

Why would I predict in April that McNabb would be a small upgrade if I believed that?

What? Are you suggesting that people on this forum read every thing you post and remember what you said? A bit egotistical I think. I don't have any idea what you said in April. I said in Feb-March that we would be best to trade Hanyesworth before the season started because I saw his value going down this year. I guess we were both right but I would not expect you to remember this

You're ignoring all the evidence I posted that the 2010 Shanahan/ McNabb offense didn't improve from the 2009 Zorn-Campbell.

Because you haven't made a point here and are ignoring the factors into this. Simply pointing out on your website that the stats were better in 2009 and 2010 doesn't answer anything to me and I've explained why this is. The significance is in the details.

[TheLongshot]

After 6 seasons I don't see Jason Campbell leading a team to a Super Bowl. Perhaps for Gibbs, where a QB just has to play good, but we don't have a Ravens defense (Trent Dilfer), so we need a QB... sometimes it's best for everyone (including Campbell) to just start fresh somewhere else.

A trade that backfired for a team... not the first time it's happened, nor the last.

I'm not arguing that he shouldn't have moved on. Fact is, he was drafted for Gibbs and was probably best for Gibbs. But, I don't think the trade backfired as much as the team situation has backfired, not just for him but for many players.

[Oldfan]

Wait so your saying that the Vikings would be better off with Hasselback..?

Hasslebeck fits their scheme. McNabb fits no one's scheme.

Maybe you're right. Maybe someone will give us a pick for him. I doubt it, though.

[addicted]

Wrong. We only had one 1st in 2005 (#9, carlos rogers). We traded our 2006 1st for an extra 2005 1st. So we had a total of 2 1st round picks between 2005 and 2006. We didn't gain a pick.

Had we not traded for Campbell, we would have still only had one 1st in 2005 and one 1st in 2006. Two first round picks between 2005 and 2006.

How do people still not get this?

Oh I get what your saying. I'm saying that we moving up in the 2005 draft to get a first cost us that first. The 25th pick in the 2005 draft was used on Campbell but it could have been used on any number of players. Then in 2006 we didn't have a pick in the first because we gave it to Denver. That pick could have been used on any number of players as well. However what I am saying is in essance the same as what your saying.

If we don't trade up for Campbell in 2005 then we have the 2006 pick. This is a single pick moved from one year to the next. However what I am saying is it affected both years picks which you agree with. We didn't surrender two picks for Campbell but he affected two years first round picks which is why I've stated in my mind he cost us two firsts when in fact he didn't, he costs us one first. I've said this three times now and I agree with you. It's just how I see the pick. If we had done the smart thing in 2005 and drafted Aaron Rogers with our first pick we wouldn't have traded with Denver for that pick and gotten the better QB. Instead we skipped on Rogers, traded up to get Denvers pick, and lost the 2006 pick. Jason Campbell affected multiple first round picks in my mind because we didn't believe in Aaron Rogers and over estimated Jason Campbell's potential. He affected multiple first round picks for us

[wildbill1952]

Is Mcabb an upgrade over Campbell? Yes. Is he enough of an upgrade that he was worth two draft picks? Not based on what we've seen this year.

The real question has always been, and remains to be, is the quarterback position the majority of the problem with the Washington Redskins offense? And I believe that going from Ramsey to Brunell to Campbell to Collins to Campbell to McNabb to Grossman, we can say that no, it is not. We can say that it's the play-calling, as we did with Gibbs and the 700 Pager, or Zorn and the bingo guy, or as we now do with Kyle Shanahan, but, plain and simple, it always comes back to the offensive line and, to a lesser extent, the lack of multiple deep receiving threats.

The Skins keep trying to fix their offense by putting a new QB into a dysfunctional offense (see Ramsey, Brunell, Campbell, McNabb, Grossman) with the hope that somehow this will jump start the offense. Time and again, we have seen this tactic fail. Maybe it's time to fix the other offensive positions before we ruin another quarterback. I realize that about 80% of the ES'ers don't see this, but it just seems obvious to me. It nothing else, it's frustrating to see the same thing tried again or even proposed by so many fans.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Let me explain what I mean by this.

Jason Campbell was drafted as the 25th pick in the 2005 draft. We sent our 2006 first round pick to Denver for this pick along with the other picks wasted for that player.

This means we used one first round pick for Campbell in 2005 (could have gone to another player) and the one in 2006 (could have gone to another player). Had we never traded for him we would have kept the 2006 first round pick and never had Denvers 2005 pick. This is what I meant, he cost us two first round picks that could have gone to other players besides the other picks we wasted on drafting him. Technically speaking we didn't surrender 2 firsts for him but in my mind we used two firsts on him

Ok, what brand of tequila do I need to be drinking for that to make any sense whatsoever? lol

[bikie]

what I learned from this whole debacle was that andy reid is much much smarter than I ever gave him credit for... I have a new respect for his coaching and ability to evaluate talent...

[addicted]

Problem is, we didn't win those two games because of McNabb. We beat the Eagles because we knocked out Vick and we beat the Bears because of Hall's interceptions. Now, McNabb wasn't bad in that Eagles game despite the stat line, but I don't think he was the biggest reason why we won that game.

Quoted because we always give the QB too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses unless you want to prove a point right? Come on. Even with those things happening if McNabb had been careless or less accurate with the football we lose those games. The point isn't that he beat those teams but the fact looking from 2009 when our most quality win came against an 8-8 Denver team who went 3-13 this year doesn't compare. We won two more games this year with the new QB and the quality of wins was much much greater then before. All wins aren't created equal.

BTW, I find it highly ironic that you defend McNabb for "he can't do it alone", but yet you blame Campbell for last year when he had even less to work with.

Sounds like another excuse to me for defending Campbell. Your probably right I am harder on Campbell then McNabb but this is because I was stuck watching this guy get 4 years to show what he got and 1 from the other. It's not equal time in my opinion and that hurts Campbell. The more time you have to show what you can do the more it takes away from the mystery of what's possible. The entire world knew what Campbell could do after 50+ starts and wasn't impressed. Getting a 4th rounder two years in the future for a QB says to me that the league thinks he isn't valuable and so should it you. With McNabb we saw 13 games. I'm not saying we should keep him for year 2 even, I think we can get by with Rex and groom a rookie. But I'm not nearly as disappointed in McNabb's performance as I am in Campbells