Anthony Armstrong wants Donovan McNabb back and so do I

[Hollywood1127]

This is now a friendly argument that I am enjoying. But lets continue.

Let's say that Michael Vick did good periodically in the games he played, rather than having these super star moments against us and most recently the New York Giants. In result of periodically doing good, the Eagles don't make the playoffs. Would it still be a good decision to keep Michael Vick in there? And then would we be arguing that Kevin Kolb should have been given his job back at QB? I've been told that Michael Vick would not have done well in Washington because our development is different here. We normally try and build pocket QB's rather than mobile QB's. But if Washington had taken him and still went down the same road this season, would Atlanta have been deemed correct for releasing Michael Vick?

With the way the NFL is now, it comes down to wins and loses. When the teams wins, the QB does not look so bad. But when the team loses, the main blame goes on the QB and the O-Line. With the Skins it seems to follow a trend with blaming the QB, rather than trying to develop them with new O-Line players.

[darrelgreenie]

Your ideas fail to look at the most logical question.

Why in hell would they give up so much to get him, only to treat him like this and run him out of town?

My guess? Because Kyle and McNabb cannot work together.

After all, two coaches ditched him in less than a year.

Why have two coaches given up on him so quickly?

Getting a 2nd round and 3rd isn't excatly ditching a player.

Its called getting value.

They had 3 QBs.

They would have traded Vick if they got the proper compensation.

For example if we trade Cooley or Davis does it mean they can't play?

---------- Post added January-14th-2011 at 06:11 PM ----------

So here you have a coach who is not known for making bad personel decisions trading a QB within the division... why?

If the possibility existed in his mind that it would hurt the Eagles, why would he do it?

2nd and 3rd round draft picks.

Plus the gamble that the Redskins aren't good enough as team to be competitive in the division regardless of who their starting QB.

Or Reid realized that the Redskins aren't a QB away from anything.

Coaches simply do not give up on good quarterbacks unless there is a major personal problem....I can buy there may have been friction here, but where does that stem from? I understand sometimes a coach and a player just don't get along, such as the case of Haynesworth. But teams simply do not give up what we did and then try to get rid of him this quickly for no reason.

The friction probably comes from the struggles/frustration at the lack of success in the passing game and the offense as a unit.

And when a QB and OC don't get along the situation is untenable.

Did you consider that maybe Kyle bears some blame in this?

The OC's job is get performance from their QB and their offense.

Given a QB of McNabb's talent wouldn't his level of performance be deemed a failure from a coaching standpoint in light of the success of Ryan Fitzpatrick, Matt Cassell and Jay Cutler?

[Bang]

This is now a friendly argument that I am enjoying. But lets continue.

Let's say that Michael Vick did good periodically in the games he played, rather than having these super star moments against us and most recently the New York Giants. In result of periodically doing good, the Eagles don't make the playoffs. Would it still be a good decision to keep Michael Vick in there? And then would we be arguing that Kevin Kolb should have been given his job back at QB? I've been told that Michael Vick would not have done well in Washington because our development is different here. We normally try and build pocket QB's rather than mobile QB's. But if Washington had taken him and still went down the same road this season, would Atlanta have been deemed correct for releasing Michael Vick?

With the way the NFL is now, it comes down to wins and loses. When the teams wins, the QB does not look so bad. But when the team loses, the main blame goes on the QB and the O-Line. With the Skins it seems to follow a trend with blaming the QB, rather than trying to develop them with new O-Line players.

Can't argue against that,, it's certainly a results-only league.

As to Vick, it's hard to say,, even after Vick came in when Kolb got hurt, he quickly showed that he had all the skills we always knew he did. And Reid waffled in the aftermath .. said Kolb was his starter. It wasn't until mid-week that he decided to go with Vick.

Reid doesn't strike me as a guy who bows to public pressure or media BS.. I think he watched the film and saw a better QB for his team in Vick . he had a good game against Green Bay in that first loss, and he played well again the next week in Detroit.. he had monster games against us and NY, but that doesn't give the guy a 100+ rating for the entire season.

if he had been marginal or made some mistakes,I think reid would have gone back to Kolb,, he wanted him originally .. but Vick gave him no choice with his play.

As to whether Vick would do well here,,i think a lot of credit should go to Reid and Morninwheg for adjusting to his skill-set. The Eagles ran a lot of plays designed to get him out and away from the pocket, and put him in space to either throw or go.

(Atlanta pretty much had to release him,, the bad publicity was murderous when he got arrested, and there was the personal betrayal part to think about. Arthur Blank handed him Atlanta on a platter, and the guy screwed up. I'm glad he's getting his life back together. I don't like what he did, but he paid his price. I think he can do a lot of good from his position now, and it looks like he's willing to do that. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt there.)

I agree a lot of people are quick to blame the QB, and while I agree there should be a grace period to develop the line, I'm not so sure McNabb's got that kind of time left in him.

I'm one of the more patient fans you'll meet. I tend to give players as many excuses as I can find, but with McNabb this is something that we've seen coming.. his propensity for throwing dirt balls is something that we have been chuckling about here in DC for a few years,, until he's doing it here.

I'm not blaming McNabb, so to speak. I just think he's much closer to the end than we'd like to think. I think we got suckered.

~Bang

---------- Post added January-15th-2011 at 12:07 AM ----------

My guess? Because Kyle and McNabb cannot work together.

So then the question becomes, do you give up on the young coach, or do you give up on the aging QB?

Kyle may be coach's son, but he's also shown he can run a pretty good offense. One thing I do think we've needed here for a long time is new ideas. We seem to always be one of those teams that plods along.. we don't innovate, and we don't follow the innovations going on around us.

If Kyle wasn't coach's son, what would everyone opinion of his qualifications be? Would we be salivating in watching Houston's offense, and hoping he can bring that to us here? I think maybe him being coach's son gives folks an eyebrow to raise. But, it just may be he's got ideas that make him qualified beyond that.

Getting a 2nd round and 3rd isn't excatly ditching a player.

Its called getting value.

They had 3 QBs.

They would have traded Vick if they got the proper compensation.

For example if we trade Cooley or Davis does it mean they can't play?

Good point, but they didn't float Vick out there, they floated McNabb out there. If they'd have floated Vick, we'd have heard, especialoly with their early QB controversy.

He got the 2nd and 3rd / 4th from us, but we weren't the first choice.. Maybe Mike Holmgren knew more than we did when he was offered Donovan.

Plus the gamble that the Redskins aren't good enough as team to be competitive in the division regardless of who their starting QB.

Or Reid realized that the Redskins aren't a QB away from anything.

This is another good point, but I think that going into the season with Kolb a lot of folks were writing the Eagles off as well. The gamble wasn't just that we weren't ready, but that Kolb and that defense of theirs was.

That's a pretty big roll of the dice.

The friction probably comes from the struggles/frustration at the lack of success in the passing game and the offense as a unit.

And when a QB and OC don't get along the situation is untenable.

Did you consider that maybe Kyle bears some blame in this?

The OC's job is get performance from their QB and their offense.

Given a QB of McNabb's talent wouldn't his level of performance be deemed a failure from a coaching standpoint in light of the success of Ryan Fitzpatrick, Matt Cassell and Jay Cutler?

Well, first I wouldn't put Jay Cutler in the same category with Ryan Fitzpatick. He was a blue chipper when he was drafted and he was showing it in Denver before Shanny got canned. Now that he's gotten into an offensive groove in Chiccago you see what he can do. I like him a lot. He's a Favre-esque gunslinger, moreso than almost anyone in the league right now.

I like Matt Cassell, and he's benefitted from some good tutoring in NE and now in KC (I like Todd Haley. Parcells disciples are usually my favorite brand of football. They are winners.)

I'm of a thought that maybe McNabb's talent is a bit overstated. He was awesome five years ago... now, maybe not so much.

As o whether or not Kyle bears culpability,, sure, whenever there's a failure this big there's plenty of blame to go around. Whether or not he made any adjustments.. McNabb's best throw anymore is his deep pass, and we led the league in deep completions this year.. so I think thgat is pretty evident that they recognized that and tried to make use of it. Unfortunately a lot of those deep passes were completed and then immediately tackled because the receiver had to stop and wait on an underthrow. In just thinking off the top of my head, there were probably 6-7 TDs that we didnt get because of underthrows, especially in Armstrong's case.

How many times did we see the ball go up deep, then see AA two or three steps past everyone and thinking 'Oh yeah! this is a TD!' only to see him slow down and wait on the ball?

Folks who think we ran more screens with Grossman.. maybe, I don't know the exact numbers, but we saw a lot of screens with MCNabb, and the main difference I saw between the two was the time Grossman gave the play to develop. McNabb seemed to throw it so fast that the DL just turned around and grabbed the receiver.

The rush is part of it, but when I saw Grossman run it, he would drift back and back before throwing the screen. Just my observation. I'm no fan of Grossman, and I have always felt even when we made the trade that the QB that would take us to th next level was not on the squad yet. I viewed McNabb as a patch from this mess to a more steady version of the Redskins. For that reason more than anything I was in favor of McNabb for his leadership and the respect he commands.

But if it ain't gonna work, it ain't gonna work. Better to find out now rather than later.

Sucks to lose the picks, but oh well.

As far as Cooley or Davis goes.. they're not in their 12th year, eh?

~Bang

[SkinsFTW]

McNabb is this decades Deion Sanders. Given up on by a division rival, comes here just in time to completely blow ass big time and then is gone.

I really don't see us keeping the guy. What would the reason be for doing that?

[Hitman21ST]

McNabb is this decades Deion Sanders. Given up on by a division rival, comes here just in time to completely blow ass big time and then is gone.

I really don't see us keeping the guy. What would the reason be for doing that?

You think he could be a mentor to Gabbert or Locker, or even Newton if we draft him?

[Portis N Pals]

You think he could be a mentor to Gabbert or Locker, or even Newton if we draft him?

Mentor what? How to throw balls in the dirt? How to be horrible in the clutch?

[SkinsFTW]

You think he could be a mentor to Gabbert or Locker, or even Newton if we draft him?

He doesn't strike me as the mentor type. He wants to play because he still has it. Kinda like Favre, would you see Favre as a mentor for Aaron Rodgers? Nope, he hit the road and went on tour because he still had it. Which may be true in the right situation like Favre had in 2009 but as you saw this year that window closes really fast on these old guys and McNugget has had a LOT more injuries than Favre who had never missed a game in 2 decades.

[Hitman21ST]

He doesn't strike me as the mentor type. He wants to play because he still has it. Kinda like Favre, would you see Favre as a mentor for Aaron Rodgers? Nope, he hit the road and went on tour because he still had it. Which may be true in the right situation like Favre had in 2009 but as you saw this year that window closes really fast on these old guys and McNugget has had a LOT more injuries than Favre who had never missed a game in 2 decades.

Well, the reason the Pack started Rodgers was because they thought that he was ready to step in without missing a beat. Which meant that for the 2 or 3 years he didn't start, Favre was showing him the ropes, and from the looks of things he did a good job.

[Hooper]

It all comes down to what he wants. Will he just stay and be one of the highest paid back ups? Or will he redeem his self as a contender in the NFL by refusing the Redskins money and playing like he did with Philly, but this time for another team?

I don't see him coming back as a backup as a real option. Or as a starter for that matter.

It's clear the Shanahans don't think he can play at a high level anymore. No matter what they say -- actions speak louder than words. I believe Adam Schefter when he says most people don't realize how much the coaches think of Rex and John Beck.

Not to mention the whole agent thing, where Fletcher Smith trashed the Shanahans because Donovan was too scared to do it himself. I mean, if nothing else be a man.

Shanny and Bruce Allen will keep praising McNAbb and saying they would welcome back in an effort to fool some team into trading for him with his current contract. Hopefully it will work. But I'm afraid the more likely scenario is us releasing him and a team signing him to a new, much cheaper deal.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Not many things I'm sure of in football.

Donovan McNabb not being a Redskin next year is one of them.

Unless the OC is leaving, there's ZERO way the third string QB is staying.

Hail.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

A couple thoughts...

1) As Bang mentioned, two very well-respected offensive minds have given up on McNabb in less than 12 months. One of them was comfortable doing so after watching two games of Kevin Kolb while the other was comfortable doing so watching three games of Rex Grossman. In addition, Reid now doesn't seem completely confident that Kolb (the guy who was supposedly his McNabb insurance) will be the future of his team...that says something also!

2) McNabb seems like a nice guy and is very classy, however this isn't even 1% of what the Eagles had to deal with when they pulled the plug on him. He's a life-long Eagle...so we shouldn't lose too much sleep over the "disrespect" aspect of this. Sure, treat the guy nicely and don't badmouth him, I can get on board with that...but the goodwill he built up while helping our division rival for a decade doesn't go very far with the Redskins, in my opinion.

Call this what it was...a bad trade, cut ties with McNabb, draft a long-term replacement, and live through Grossman/Beck for as many games as it takes that replacement to get up to speed.

[Hitman21ST]

In addition, Reid now doesn't seem completely confident that Kolb (the guy who was supposedly his McNabb insurance) will be the future of his team...that says something also!

I think that's more due to him stumbling on Mike Vick and Clay Matthews concussing Kolb more than a shot against Kolb's abilities (and by proxy McNabb's). But otherwise you're spot on TD.

[SkinsFTW]

Well, the reason the Pack started Rodgers was because they thought that he was ready to step in without missing a beat. Which meant that for the 2 or 3 years he didn't start, Favre was showing him the ropes, and from the looks of things he did a good job.

That's not what I remember hearing. Rodgers said a few years ago that Favre was a great player but he didn't talk to him at all.

http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2009/01/aaron-rodgers-interview-michael-irvin-brett-favre/

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I think that's more due to him stumbling on Mike Vick and Clay Matthews concussing Kolb more than a shot against Kolb's abilities (and by proxy McNabb's). But otherwise you're spot on TD.

It might be. But he seems willing to trade Kolb who just a year ago was the reason he was willing to trade McNabb. That leaves him with a 31-year old QB who relies on his legs and wore down at the end of the year this year.

But, you're right that Vick provides Reid with a little insurance and he could get good value for Kolb and draft someone even better.

[Hitman21ST]

It might be. But he seems willing to trade Kolb who just a year ago was the reason he was willing to trade McNabb. That leaves him with a 31-year old QB who relies on his legs and wore down at the end of the year this year.

But, you're right that Vick provides Reid with a little insurance and he could get good value for Kolb and draft someone even better.

What quarterback that would be better than Kolb/Vick would be able to be drafted as low as the Eagles are picking? Because there's no way in hell that they're getting a first for Kolb. Vinny wouldn't even make that deal.

[SkinsFTW]

In addition, Reid now doesn't seem completely confident that Kolb (the guy who was supposedly his McNabb insurance) will be the future of his team...that says something also!

Damn, maybe after this all happened, and you have to know that Vick is an injury waiting to happen, maybe the Eagles will trade us their 2nd rounder for McNugget!!!

Lol, I don't see that happening but I am surprised it hasn't been brought up.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

What quarterback that would be better than Kolb/Vick would be able to be drafted as low as the Eagles are picking? Because there's no way in hell that they're getting a first for Kolb. Vinny wouldn't even make that deal.

No...I meant that if they got two 2nds (I have no clue what someone would give up for Kolb) for Kolb and kept Vick for a couple more years while they groom another young QB, they'd end up in good shape.

They'd go from McNabb and Kolb to Vick, young QB, three 2nds* and a 4th...pretty good return on investment in a couple years.

* depending on what return they get for Kolb.

[Hitman21ST]

Damn, maybe after this all happened, and you have to know that Vick is an injury waiting to happen, maybe the Eagles will trade us their 2nd rounder for McNugget!!!

Lol, I don't see that happening but I am surprised it hasn't been brought up.

Seeing as how the initial comparision for the trade was "Kolb will be a better starter than McNabb," I contend that we still won that trade. I know I'm probably grasping at straws, but I'll take the silver lining any way I can.

[Bang]

Seeing as how the initial comparision for the trade was "Kolb will be a better starter than McNabb," I contend that we still won that trade. I know I'm probably grasping at straws, but I'll take the silver lining any way I can.

That's the spirit!

~Bang

PS, apologies for all my typos in this thread. Holy crap, you'd think I've been drinking all day

[darrelgreenie]

So then the question becomes, do you give up on the young coach, or do you give up on the aging QB?.....I think maybe him being coach's son gives folks an eyebrow to raise. But, it just may be he's got ideas that make him qualified beyond that.

Obviously we keep the OC he's gonna be around much longer then McNabb.

I maintain that Kyle is good young OC regardless of the struggles the offense had this year.

I also think that if Kyle wasn't Mike's son then there would be more fingers pointed in his direction though.

Good point, but they didn't float Vick out there, they floated McNabb out there. If they'd have floated Vick, we'd have heard, especialoly with their early QB controversy.

He got the 2nd and 3rd / 4th from us, but we weren't the first choice.. Maybe Mike Holmgren knew more than we did when he was offered Donovan.

No my firend, although that is a common misconception, they offered all 3 QBs check this article out:

“We sat back and we listened to offers and what I told you before, we listened to offers on all three quarterbacks. We came out of it that this was the good time, that this was the way we were going to go. The compensation was right.”

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-eagles/Reid_on_McNabb_trade.html

The gamble wasn't just that we weren't ready, but that Kolb and that defense of theirs was.That's a pretty big roll of the dice.

I think the Eagles were more or less resigned to a re-tooling year b/c adding talent on the defense was the aim via the draft that's why they wanted the picks.

The just happened to catch Vick in a bottle and got lucky.

Question:On whether the team is rebuilding:

“I don’t know if we’re rebuilding. I don’t see it that way. I see it as when it’s time to play we’ll have a good football team. We try to do everything that’s best for the team and we just felt that these moves will help us down the road here.”

Well, first I wouldn't put Jay Cutler in the same category with Ryan Fitzpatick.

I like Cutler also but was speaking about the perception and his performance the year prior by all accounts it was a done year.

I like Matt Cassell, and he's benefitted from some good tutoring in NE and now in KC

Right but the year prior before Weis he was turrible.

My point here is that having the right OC should be good for a QB.

I'm of a thought that maybe McNabb's talent is a bit overstated. He was awesome five years ago... now, maybe not so much.

He was good just last year, pro-bowl good.

As o whether or not Kyle bears culpability,, sure, whenever there's a failure this big there's plenty of blame to go around. Whether or not he made any adjustments.. McNabb's best throw anymore is his deep pass, and we led the league in deep completions this year.. so I think thgat is pretty evident that they recognized that and tried to make use of it.

I'm more then happy to have an in depth discussion about the offense.

But, in general in as much as their wasn't success both are to blame.

Its impossible to know what went wrong where with certain and we can all posit our theories.

But, bottom line the offense and passing game under acheived.

Folks who think we ran more screens with Grossman.. maybe, I don't know the exact numbers, but we saw a lot of screens with MCNabb, and the main difference I saw between the two was the time Grossman gave the play to develop. McNabb seemed to throw it so fast that the DL just turned around and grabbed the receiver.

The screen game was used here and there for example it was big part of Titans game (w/McNabb) and a big part of Cowboys game (w/Rex). My point about Kyle isn't only in regards to McNabb but to the whole offense and in general the screen game isn't as big apart of his offense as other top tier passing offenses like the Pats, Saints, Eagles and Packers all of whom use a lot of screen game RB, WR, TEs to increase efficiency in the passing game and efficiency is something we lacked.

I viewed McNabb as a patch from this mess to a more steady version of the Redskins. For that reason more than anything I was in favor of McNabb for his leadership and the respect he commands.

I viewed McNabb the same.

Shoot the moon this year and try to catch lightening in a bottle (in essence get lucky), but mainly to be a anchor while we re-built the team and groomed a QB behind him.

That's why the urgency to get rid of him doesn't make sense to me.(finacially it does)

As far as Cooley or Davis goes.. they're not in their 12th year, eh?

I could name a long list of guys that could still play that were cut or traded.

Gonzo, LT, the Packers were in same boat w/ Favre and ended up getting nothing via compensation while the Eagles got a 2nd and a 3rd, when you 2 or more QBs at the end of their contracts a franchise is essentially forced to get rid of 1 b/c its to much money to tie up at 1 position.

Good discussion-

D

---------- Post added January-14th-2011 at 08:57 PM ----------

That's not what I remember hearing. Rodgers said a few years ago that Favre was a great player but he didn't talk to him at all.

http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2009/01/aaron-rodgers-interview-michael-irvin-brett-favre/

The example is enough.

Watching a true professional at the position would help.

Plus, Vick openly talks about how McNabb helped him become a better professional QB.

[MartinC]

That's not what I remember hearing. Rodgers said a few years ago that Favre was a great player but he didn't talk to him at all.

http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2009/01/aaron-rodgers-interview-michael-irvin-brett-favre/

Thats the norm. I recall reading a vet saying that the stories about the savvy vet helping groom a young player learn the ropes at his position are mainly bull. That young stud is trying to take away the vets job - the vet may be professional about it and not take it personally with the young guy but he is not very motivated to go out of his way to help take his job. There are exceptions but its not the rule.

In another sport (cricket) one of Englands best ever opening batsman Geoff Boycott was asked by the then England Captain if he could help a young batsman work to think about how to play a particular bowler he was having trouble with. "Let him work it out himself" was the reply " I had to".

[Bang]

whole post

Very good post.. good info, I had no idea they tried to move all ofthem. Interesting.

I'll have to do sme thinking there.

~Bang