Diesel__44 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Really this whole story is a non story and means nothing right now. Mcnabb is done in DC and the wristband deal has no effect on that either way. The redskins have not and will not comment on thisand I don't expect them to say it occurred. I don't expect mcnabb to come out and say this occurred either. This situation was never suppose to come out in the media and quite frankly like I have said I am very surpised it did. Csn is a good network but they will count a former player in Brian Mitchell as a source in regards to mcnabb so you know how that will go 10 out of 10 times.The fact that multiple people got confirmation from many different sources over the course of a few hours is the real truth. This shouldn't be a big deal now because it doesn't matter in the long run. ---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 02:34 PM ---------- Kelly Johnson's inside sources left with springs and blache. I won't discuss it further but she was the cause of marital issues involving shawn. She was even closer with Gregggg Williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgreen Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 I had heard during the season after the Detroit game this occurred and Mcnabb refused. Kyle and Mike then put Grossman on notice that there could be a situation where he would play against Detroit and as we all know that situation occurred . For the record, I believe the story. So, I'm not doubting you. But, this sentence doesn't make sense. McNabb was asked after Detroit and refused. But, then Grossman was put on notice where he would play against Detroit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavarleap56 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Again, you're confusing to different issues.Yes, you said that the players had issues with McNabb's playcalling after the Lions game. But, that is quite different from McNabb refusing to wear a wrist band. Players complaining and McNabb outright insubordination are 2 clear and disticntly different issues. Not confusing anything. Players had issues before the Detroit game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
authentic Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 For the record, I believe the story. So, I'm not doubting you. But, this sentence doesn't make sense. McNabb was asked after Detroit and refused. But, then Grossman was put on notice where he would play against Detroit? Naw, i think he's saying that "After the detroit game he [LL56] heard" that Mike and Kyle asked McNabb, before the Detroit game, to wear the wrist band....I could be wrong, but thats how i read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavarleap56 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Mcnabb was asked during practice the week of the Detroit game. I had heard about the issues after the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 She was even closer with Gregggg Williams I wonder what the extra G's stand for in that context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T.real,lights,out Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 This story makes everyone look bad and it makes the team look even worse if the story is true. I dont see how it makes the team look worse? B/c the info got out? I dont understand. He didn't want to wear the bands......which in turn resulted in him not playing. If thats the case i would say for 1st time we did the right thing. But like i said i may have missed your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPCreativelab Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 darrelgreenie: i can see where you are coming from for sure, but i'm not sure what you expect to have occurred. I cant see it going down like "you need to wear a wrist band" ..."im not going to" "OK, well then pack your things you are released!" i would think benching him and then making him 3rd string was "something"...maybe more should of been done, but i really cant see just out right cutting him being a reasonable option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgreen Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Mcnabb was asked during practice the week of the Detroit game. I had heard about the issues after the game. Ahh, yes, that makes sense. Sorry for my confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 darrelgreenie:i can see where you are coming from for sure, but i'm not sure what you expect to have occurred. I cant see it going down like "you need to wear a wrist band" ..."im not going to" "OK, well then pack your things you are released!" i would think benching him and then making him 3rd string was "something"...maybe more should of been done, but i really cant see just out right cutting him being a reasonable option. I'm not gonna speculate on how a story which amounts to hearsey went down.But I don't think any HC worth their salt would tolerate insubordination. They way I see it if the HC wants a QB to wear a wristband its not an request or an option. Its an edict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggosMohawk Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 DG I appreciate your take on this, but I personally think this story of the pre-Detroit meeting, if true, is actually an endorsement of Kyle and Mike. To keep this quiet, and not throw DM5 under the bus after several opportunities during awkward press conf's, and during Rexy's games... they took the high road. I understand your feelings that Mike should have laid down the "my way or the highway" edict, but I think he made a wise decision, didn't turn that incident into a bigger battle, and ended up winning the war so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPCreativelab Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 DG I appreciate your take on this, but I personally think this story of the pre-Detroit meeting, if true, is actually an endorsement of Kyle and Mike. To keep this quiet, and not throw DM5 under the bus after several opportunities during awkward press conf's, and during Rexy's games... they took the high road. I understand your feelings that Mike should have laid down the "my way or the highway" edict, but I think he made a wise decision, didn't turn that incident into a bigger battle, and ended up winning the war so to speak. my thoughts exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird_1972 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 DG I appreciate your take on this, but I personally think this story of the pre-Detroit meeting, if true, is actually an endorsement of Kyle and Mike. To keep this quiet, and not throw DM5 under the bus after several opportunities during awkward press conf's, and during Rexy's games... they took the high road. I understand your feelings that Mike should have laid down the "my way or the highway" edict, but I think he made a wise decision, didn't turn that incident into a bigger battle, and ended up winning the war so to speak. We will win the war if we're lucky enough to get draft pick(s) in return for McNabb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPCreativelab Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 I'm not gonna speculate on how a story which amounts to hearsey went down.But I don't think any HC worth their salt would tolerate insubordination. They way I see it if the HC wants a QB to wear a wristband its not an request or an option. Its an edict. yes but i dont think the coach tolerated anything and "did do something" and i think that your notion that he should of been immediately cut is not reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 DG I appreciate your take on this, but I personally think this story of the pre-Detroit meeting, if true, is actually an endorsement of Kyle and Mike. To keep this quiet, and not throw DM5 under the bus after several opportunities during awkward press conf's, and during Rexy's games... they took the high road. I understand your feelings that Mike should have laid down the "my way or the highway" edict, but I think he made a wise decision, didn't turn that incident into a bigger battle, and ended up winning the war so to speak.I'm not sure what you mean by pre-Detroit meeting?But, if true don't you find it disconcerting on both sides that a HC/OC relationship with their QB had deteriorated to the point that the QB would be insubordinate on a relatively simple request especially given that McNabb had done the given request before (in college). Further said HC/OC would tolerate open insubordination, especially given the level of performance? -One note on the 'high road' I thinks its fair to say that given the leaks and the petty acrimony, neither party has taken the 'high road'. I'm actually a little bit afraid. I know were only talking about sports here, but the concept that 'I heard it from a couple of guys I really, really trust' is enough for hearsey to become accepted is scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavarleap56 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 yes but i dont think the coach tolerated anything and "did do something" and i think that your notion that he should of been immediately cut is not reasonable. Yea.. you don't immediatley cut mcnabb after a few weeks in your season while your sitting Albert.Shannahan coming in and doing that after trading 2 picks would of caused turmoil like mcdaniels did in Denver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 yes but i dont think the coach tolerated anything and "did do something" and i think that your notion that he should of been immediately cut is not reasonable. It may be drastic but I don't take insubordination lightly and I love the Burgundy and Gold.I tend to be an all stakes kind of guy. For example I believe that any owner that doesn't own their team's stadium outright should share ownership of the team with which ever entity bears the burden of the remaining cost of the stadium. Eg. The Vikings want a new stadium and I hear the 'owenership' can pay 40% the other 60% is up for petition by the muncipality. The way I see it given the current labor issue all teams should be able to follow the Green Bay Packers model where the team is in essence 'owned' by the share holders residents. Imo if the muncipality owns more of the stadium then the owner; they own the team. They are the majority owner not the 'owner'. As the owner they are free to sell shares to the residents therein as per the Packers model. Total stakes. We were losing with McNabb why then tolerate insubordination on top of losing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scruffylookin Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 So where is Wilbon and others who mocked the notion that Rex was a better bet in the 2min drill in Detroit? Looks like he was, since McNabb had no idea what the plays were. Getting rid of this mistake could not happen soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 I can't believe the absurd amount of time I've spent debating a story that may or may not even be true. Wow, what's wrong with me. Cheers fellas- ---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 12:23 PM ---------- .........I'm out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krzy123 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Via Dan Steinberg Sports bog (Link): So that was fun. Meanwhile, Philadelphia Inquirer Eagles reporter Jeff McLane has chimed in with some interesting nuggets on Twitter, based on a 2009 story he wrote about Andy Reid’s complicated gameplans. Here’s the relevant passage: On Monday, after watching the film of the previous day’s game, the team begins work on the next game plan. Tuesday, when the players are off, is when the coaches compile the bulk of the plays for the next opponent. Quarterback Donovan McNabb receives a fax of the plays on Tuesday so he can study them before practice on Wednesday. McNabb has never worn a wristband with the plays listed. He doesn’t like it, Reid said, because he sweats a lot, and the band becomes too heavy for him. But the team recently asked its backups to wear one. So when Kevin Kolb and Vick arrive on Wednesday, the wristband is already in their lockers with the early version of the game plan. The Philly Daily News’s Rich Hoffman had actually broached the same topic back in 2006, when McNabb was being criticized for his speed of playcalling. If they really think there is a problem getting the plays in fast enough - and there sometimes is - give McNabb one of those cheat-sheet wristbands to cut down on repeating so much verbiage. Carolina’s Jake Delhomme wears one, as do a million college quarterbacks. Just do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 The idea that any head coach would immediately release their starting and once pro bowl QB, who he traded two picks for, for not wearing a wrist band is ABSURD. Shanahan showed serious cajones by benching McNabb for Grossman. He knew what kind of crap he would get for it. But outright releasing him that moment... please. No coach would do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsTime Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 The idea that McNabb's camp leaked this story actually makes a lot of sense. The Junkies said that Snyder found out about the wristband while having dinner with Shanahan, Bruce Allen and McNabb's agent during Super Bowl week. Only four people would have knowledge of that discussion, and I have a hard time believing that anyone associated with the Redskins organization would leak this while desperately trying to trade McNabb. McNabb's agent might have thought he was pulling a fast one by publicly releasing that the owner was unhappy with the way Shanahan handled the situation (if it's even true). But, in reality he just made his client look like an ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1972FAN Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Who cares, stupid report, McNabb is a moron, Tom Brady is a genus than. Good riddance McNabb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolio47 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Who cares, stupid report, McNabb is a moron, Tom Brady is a genus than. Good riddance McNabb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavarleap56 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 http://realredskins.com/2011/05/a-tale-of-two-mcnabb-tales/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.