WP: Brian Burke's Stats Find McNabb Blameless

[Chicken Fried]

That was what I originally thought, but then realized that he didn't even play well when he had opportunities.

[scampbell1975]

Really? Blameless? Then who do we blame for all the dirt balls to wide open receivers?

[Bang]

Really? Blameless? Then who do we blame for all the dirt balls to wide open receivers?

Obviously the groundskeeper. The field is graded too high , especially the areas of it that are directly in front of McNabb. This guy's piss poor mowing skills have cost us two draft picks and a hall of fame QB!

~Bang

[whitejimmy]

After 13 games this season McNabb ranked #25 on footballoutsider.com. Jason Campbell ranked #20 in Zorn's 2009 offense.

I'm with you on most points Oldfan, and while McNabb has been only a modest upgrade over JC's 2009 campaign, it should be pointed out that JC was trending downward. If JC had stayed, our 2010 season would have been brutal given his inability to escape pressure behind that line.

Looking back, JC finished that season with a nice little win over San Diego, but SD rested their varsity squad. In week 16, JC lead the Skins to zero points and was sacked 4 times. In week 15, the Skins were crushed 45 to 12. JC was sacked 5 times.

[SkinsFTW]

Exactly. What does Kyle Shanahan have to do with passes thrown at a receivers feet, or into double and triple coverage and other mistakes that most veteran QB's don't make?

And it's not like we didn't know about that before he came here. I seem to remember not worrying too much when we played McNabb the past few years and even in the redzone at the end of at least 2 games I remember he couldn't get it done and we won, even with the bad team we had at the time. Remember McNabb saying that the best team didn't win and was all butt hurt after the loss? LOL.

[Oldfan]

I'm with you on most points Oldfan, and while McNabb has been only a modest upgrade over JC's 2009 campaign, it should be pointed out that JC was trending downward. If JC had stayed, our 2010 season would have been brutal given his inability to escape pressure behind that line.

Different line, different scheme... It's even possible that Jason would have been a better overall fit for the scheme than Donovan. But, I think trading Jason for a pick was still the right move. Grossman as a placeholder QB and keep the picks we traded for McNabb was probably the right move.

[veteranskinsfan]

I like the fact that the Post has hired Brian Burke to do stats. While stats never tell the whole story, for those who play fantasy football as well as follow the Skins I think his columns can be most useful. On most days I agree with him and on other days I am not so sure. But it is very interesting to have a column like that in the paper. Something new and different so I do not have to listen to Kornheiser on the radio or television!!

[darrelgreenie]

-Happy New Year

Just wanted to clear some things up i didn't get around too last time.

Maybe, we are just arguing then what personality clash means because yeah it would mean to me "amiable versus acrimonious".............And where me and you am gathering depart is I don't believe that McNabb's opinion about play calling is just as valid as Kyle's take. Yeah McNabb having input is one thing but if he is departing a lot from the play calls -- no I don't think he has the right to go off script a lot or at the very least if he does he better be good at it.

Maybe so.

I think a personality clash can be amiable or acrimonious.

I gathered you wouldn't think a QBs input is as valid as an OC by the nature of your post.

To each his own.

But, in football most plays and concepts work.

I think the good OCs have a knack for either teaching how they want their plays that executed and/or catering their offense/playcalls so their QB can execute the gameplan at a high level.

(can we agree that QB is capable of executing an offense at a high leve?l)

I don't believe that McNabb departs from the playcall at all.

Its not like Kyle calls a Red Right Sprint X Shallow Cross and McNabb throws a screen pass.

The same you call for proof about their being discord between Kyle and McNabb their is no proof for McNabb departing from the playcall.

That imo would be an instantly benchable offense from any QB.

Each play has different options and the QB has a choice of where to go with the ball based on the defenses coverage.

There's little doubt that McNabb has often made the wrong decision about where to go with the ball but that is much different offense then departing from the playcall.

And I don't just mean it literally, in how teams function I do not think the QB's have equal say with play calling and game planning as their offensive coordinators.

I don't think they have equal say either, but the QBs opinions should carry a good deal of weight with how the OC gameplans and calls plays.

---------- Post added January-1st-2011 at 10:56 AM ----------

..I get into draft geek mode after the season generally,

Newton -- seems like is a McNabb type athlete, got the arm, got the legs

Locker -- quick release, runs well, but can be inaccurate and doesn't have a great deep ball

Gabbert -- I know the least about. I've been reading the draft thread including your comments and based on that Gabbert looks intriguing -- strong arm, mobile, smart

Luck -- we likely don't have a shot at

Mallet -- gun of an arm, good completion number, but a bit slow

At our draft position, seems like right now, we'd have the best shot at Gabbert or Locker. Despite, the McNabb issue, I trust, Shanny in that if he likes one of those guys, am on board.

I'm a draft nerd myself.

You know what's striking about your list?

Its almost exactly the same as mine except i take Newton off the board for the Redskins and while i acknowledge that Mallet is a good prospect there's things about him i don't like.

I like Locker (which you may have guessed from my sig) and Gabbert (dude has textbook throwing motion imo).

You should check out an all purpose on-going draft thread, its filled w/ fellow draftniks:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?328672-2011-Comprehensive-NFL-Draft-Database

[Oldfan]

I like the fact that the Post has hired Brian Burke to do stats. While stats never tell the whole story, for those who play fantasy football as well as follow the Skins I think his columns can be most useful. On most days I agree with him and on other days I am not so sure. But it is very interesting to have a column like that in the paper. Something new and different so I do not have to listen to Kornheiser on the radio or television!!

His column upgrades the Post's image. It's a step above their graphics showing that the Redskins are 10-1 when Portis runs over 100 yards or some other nonsense stat.

[bulldog]

the proof is in the pudding.

the Redskins as a team (without many starters who were there to help McNabb win earlier) the past 2 weeks have looked marginally better overall then they did when the team opened the season with a healthy McNabb and full roster.

[darrelgreenie]

You don't know why you bother?

Screw it. I don't want to put you out.

Is this gonna be your only response?

I reply to your question and that's all you come with it?

Here it is a again:

Simply put you have to design and include plays that increase overall efficiency.

A simple solution is to run the ball more, but that doesn't appear to be Kyle's style.

Another solution that is common in many of the better passing offense is the use of the screen game.

Philly, New England, New Orleans and the Colts all use multiple variations of the screen game as a major part of their passing offenses.

Another way to increase efficiency is through personnel.

For example Fred Davis is our most efficient receiver yet he's one of the least targeted receivers on the team.

He gets less playing time and fewer targets then our 3rd WR who over the course of the season has been or least efficient passing option.

But, then again i'm not an NFL OC the bottom line was that there was lack of production.

And the blame falls on both the QB and OC.

The same way Chan Gailey gets some credit for Ryan Fitzpatrick's success, or that Charlie Weis gets for Matt Cassels success etc.

(RZ is a different issue)

[grego]

I'm with you on most points Oldfan, and while McNabb has been only a modest upgrade over JC's 2009 campaign, it should be pointed out that JC was trending downward.

not a campbell apologist, but one could argue that JC did better with less (o lines probably a wash, HC and playcaller obviously better now, running game inconsistent but light years better than last year).

mcnabb obviously has had a great career, but this year has not been very good.

If JC had stayed, our 2010 season would have been brutal given his inability to escape pressure behind that line.

true enough, but isnt our 2010 season a disaster now? mcnabb is 34 and not getting any better in that category.

Looking back, JC finished that season with a nice little win over San Diego, but SD rested their varsity squad. In week 16, JC lead the Skins to zero points and was sacked 4 times. In week 15, the Skins were crushed 45 to 12. JC was sacked 5 times.

i have a terrible memory, but i'm pretty sure we lost that SD game. SD's second string scored late on our first string D. not a good moment.

[darrelgreenie]

not a campbell apologist, but one could argue that JC did better with less (o lines probably a wash, HC and playcaller obviously better now, running game inconsistent but light years better than last year).......mcnabb obviously has had a great career, but this year has not been very good.

I don't know, imo this years OL is much better then last season's.

We spent most of the year playing Levi Jones and an injured Stephon Heyer as our bookends which pretty much gave us the worst tandem in the league.

In the receiving dept we lost ARE but gained AA and we both Cooley and Davis healthy for the entire season.

Yet, our 2009 passing game was better in the important areas RZ, 3rd down and at the QB through-comp % and QB rating.

Campbell is an average QB in my view less talented and less accomplished then McNabb.

I agree the HC is clearly better but the results in the passing offense as a unit despite having better parts were not.

Assign blame where you want but in retrospect Zorn and Bingo Lewis scheme maximized the talent of a limited unit. They gotta get some credit for that.

[The Tris]

There are going to be two big benchmarks that will indicate our odds of a lockout or not.

First, come Monday, 20 team will be taking stock of their season, and making decisions about the future of the coaching staff. With multiple interm coaches, and a handful of teams who may or may not fire their HCs, we should look to what happens there as our first indication.

If the owners end up firing a lot of the hot seat coaches and/or choose not to retain their interim guys, this should be a strong indicator that they are optimistic they can reach a compromise (as it is really in their hands). No owner is going to hire and pay a new coach to install new schemes then lock him and out and prevent that.

Second, January 15th is the date underclassmen have to declare by. They will be smartly advised as to the prospects of a lockout. I'd go as far as saying if Andrew Luck declares, there is a better chance of a 2011 season than not. If we see a mass return to school...look out.

So we have the next two weeks to read what is happening before we freak out. Goodell has said new CBA in place by the Super Bowl. I doubt that, but I do think that we will have a very good indication of which direction we are going before the Conference Championship games.

OT, but in the past 24 hours or so, the Vikings and Cowboys removed "interim" from Frazier and Garrett's title's, and Kubiak and Del Rio have been retained.

Advantage, lockout.

OTOH, Blaine Gabbert just declared for the draft, which is surprising.

[Frostx08]

I have likened the Shanny's and McNabb to the Shannys and the 3-4 defense really. I'm not gonna bother getting too deep into the Westbrook thing(exaggerated if you look at EVERY one of McNabb's seasons)...but the facts of the matter is the Shanahans didn't adjust to a 12 year veteran.

You know the O-line has issues(was even worse earlier in the season) and the running game was anemic for the most part....so maybe you should become more screen oriented instead of becoming a intermediate-deep offense that requires time for plays to develop. You know your QB has read his routes short-medium-deep for 11 years....but you decide to make him do deep-medium-short knowing he's been in one system for a long time. McNabb has...imo been scapegoated for mismanagement by the Shanny's in this entire ordeal. If you're gonna get a veteran....you adapt to the veteran or you don't waste picks on him. Instead, they tried to completely overhaul what McNabb has been for years and then bash him for it. It's easy to belittle a player when you fail to highlight his strengths. That's what good coaches do....but the Shannys want everyone to adjust to them which is...imo rigid. McNabb has the skillset to be a good QB and his 12 year success was not imagined nor should it be dismissed

---------- Post added January-3rd-2011 at 05:51 PM ----------

the proof is in the pudding.

the Redskins as a team (without many starters who were there to help McNabb win earlier) the past 2 weeks have looked marginally better overall then they did when the team opened the season with a healthy McNabb and full roster.

McNabb was not healthy...had screwed up ankles and eventually a bad hammy

And second...saying the team looked better is debatable imo. The only thing that looked better to me from an objective standpoint was the defense....who played well in the last 3 games despite all the turnovers

---------- Post added January-3rd-2011 at 05:56 PM ----------

Exactly. What does Kyle Shanahan have to do with passes thrown at a receivers feet, or into double and triple coverage and other mistakes that most veteran QB's don't make?

Plenty actually. It's kind of like with Andy Reid. When you're one dimensional....or when you don't play to your teams strengths or game plan with your QB effectively...the players end up looking bad. It's easy to blame the player when you put them in that situation....the same way it's easy to give em all the credit when they succeed. As an offense, we still sucked on 3rd down...we still had drops...still couldn't move the ball at times. Other coaches are held responsible for their players and fired for it(Mangini, Childress, Singletary). Why not the Shannys??

What you said is equivalent to people bashing Landry last year.....or bashing our defensive players because our coaches decided to put in a scheme that didn't play to our players strengths

[Oldfan]

I have likened the Shanny's and McNabb to the Shannys and the 3-4 defense really. I'm not gonna bother getting too deep into the Westbrook thing(exaggerated if you look at EVERY one of McNabb's seasons)...but the facts of the matter is the Shanahans didn't adjust to a 12 year veteran.

The part you are missing is that a 34 year-old D. McNabb no longer has enough talent to make it worthwhile abandoning your scheme to adapt to his limited game. That's why Andy Reid cut the ties.

In their prime, great athletes have the coordination to adapt and minimize the problems created by poor mechanics. At 34, they have lost some of that fine coordination.

[ncr2h]

I have likened the Shanny's and McNabb to the Shannys and the 3-4 defense really. I'm not gonna bother getting too deep into the Westbrook thing(exaggerated if you look at EVERY one of McNabb's seasons)...but the facts of the matter is the Shanahans didn't adjust to a 12 year veteran.

What you said is equivalent to people bashing Landry last year.....or bashing our defensive players because our coaches decided to put in a scheme that didn't play to our players strengths

Hey, I know we got into it a couple of weeks ago on Mcnabb, but I wanted to pop in and give my thoughts.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but it's kind of sad to see you in here continuing to put forth arguments about why Mcnabb's poor play was everyone but Mcnabb's fault. Coaches, injuries, the players around him...at what point does the buck stop with Mcnabb? At what point do we start blaming the guy who has trouble consistently passing to wide open receivers? At what point do we start to expect more from a 12 year vet than an aborted-scramble-turned-fumble? At what point do we see that, with Rex Grossman behind center, Rabach magically stopped stepping on the QB's foot, we stopped burning timeouts to avoid delay-of-games, and we got to the LOS fast enough to read the defense?

Did the big plays suddenly disappear after we benched Mcnabb? Did the sacks increase because our new QB didn't have Mcnabb's same "elusiveness"? Did the new, turnover prone QB actually put the ball on the ground and throw more INTs than Mcnabb? Not really.

I think it's time to put the Mcnabb argument to bed. He's always injured, so let's not use injuries as an excuse. He's always going to be old, so let's not adapt the scheme to his fading abilities. And he had the same supporting cast as Grossman, yet Grossman has inarguably looked as good or better. He just doesn't have it anymore, and with Philly becoming an instant contender now that he's gone, you could at least imagine why people would question whether he ever really had it in the first place.

And the difference between Mcnabb and Laron Landry is that one is in his mid-twenties and still had obvious freakish athletic abilities and was being played out of position. Mcnabb is a QB - there are basic things we expect from all QBs, regardless of their style of play. Mcnabb couldn't do them consistently anymore, which is why we lost many of our games this year, which is in turn why he is on the bench.

[JWB]

I am not and never was a big fan of McNabb! But there is a big difference in McNabb's performance vs. Jason Campbell. Not once this season did you see the "Dear in the headlights look" from McNabb. Campbell was over his head here and is still over his head in Oakland. The guy has been benched twice this year and merely hands off to one of Oakland's stud running backs most of the time. The majority of his passes continue to be dump off passes gaining 3 to 6 yards when it is 3rd and 7. Remember that!

It was refreshing seeing a real QB at the helm. Unfortunately, he was still the same NcNabb we have seen in past years at Fedex Field.

[bigjumbo1971]

we simply dont have the personnel to do what kyle wants to do (why we didnt run more is beyond me) and I still believe they should have played it out with mcnab and given him another year but thats not happening so I hope they have a true open competition next year between grossman and beck while they prep the rookie