ESPN -- Starting Beck is No Tank Job

[Chump Bailey]

This is really just you starting to go over talking points, that mean nothing to you. The man has 1 TD and 3 INT, 7 fumbles in his 5 actual starts and you think he's a good decision maker.

Anyone who attended BYU is IMO smart, which is why I used the term. I'm not judging the guy solely on what he did his brief stint playing with Miami. His draft profile coming out of BYU suggested he has what it takes overall except for ideal height. I stand by what I said. I like Beck and think Mike and Kyle do too. Did I say he was to be our savior? No: I said he can be successful. You don't like him - so be it.

[Pedro]

Your opinion is apparently based on Parcells his is based on Mike Shanahan.

Parcells likes Kerrigan as a 3-4 OLB, that's good because he has a good track record on them. Mike has a better record on QBs which is also good given where we are with that position

When Beck was on the field for the Redskins last year he looked a little skittish. We'll see.

He didn't know the playbook and neither did any of the guys he was playing with. I know it's an excuse but a reasonable one IMO.

I'm hoping Beck is good enough to not bring in any 'legitimate' QB other than Grossman this off season, I'd rather see what we have and if required draft one but then that's just me. YMMV.

[TGW21]

Very nice, well written article. I'm gonna have to start reading the NFCE blogs again.

It's gotten so much better...

It's actually a good thing that he doesn't "like" any of the teams hahaha

[Mahons21]

Anyone who attended BYU is IMO smart, which is why I used the term.

There are all different types of smart, just because your smart doesn't mean you'll be a good decision maker in the NFL.

I'm not judging the guy solely on what he did his brief stint playing with Miami.

Neither am I. I've watched his pre-season clips and I'm also basing it on his stock in multiple franchises including our own.

I stand by what I said. I like Beck and think Mike and Kyle do too. Did I say he was to be our savior? No: I said he can be successful. You don't like him - so be it.

I don't dislike him, I'm realistic about my expectations with him. I don't expect him to be the day one starter, and I certainly wouldn't agree that he has proper throwing mechanics.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I keep thinking that this is not actually a possibility.

This is basically the Colt Brennan obsession all over again....except in this instance he might actually be the starter and that no one has ever actually seen him play.

[ChillSkinzFan84]

I just cant believe that our beloved historical franchise has come to this. Fans excepting John Beck and Rex Grossman over proven vet QB's. Cant wait till the season starts so i can laugh at the threads on gameday. Everyone says they can take losing,,,i dont believe yall. I can tolerate it as long as we see the team progressing in the right direction. Just too bad all of this should of been done last season instead of year 2. Maybe we sign enough big name free agents to get the hype and expectations up just like the past decade. Maybe all of the free agents we sign will carry us to victory despite our embarrising depth at the QB position

[ILikeBilly]

It seems to me that many of the posters in this thread must be very young. In the old days, a young QB would almost never see the field. He would sit for 3 - 5 seasons and then get a chance. In that time, the QB would learn the system, gain strength via a pro football stengthening program and learn the speed of the game. To me, I think it is a good thing to have a QB that has been allowed to sit and watch for multiple years. Joey T. had to sit behind Sonny and Billy, Jay S. sat behind Joey T and I am pretty sure Mark R. sat behind Jay S. Jay and Mark were not great QBs, but they did have some great seasons. Sitting and learning is a good thing for a QB.

The problem for Beck is the lack of OTAs this year. My guess is that we resign Grossman and he starts for about 3 - 6 games until he gets hurt or fumbles too many times. Then Beck starts the rest of the way.

[ChillSkinzFan84]

It seems to me that many of the posters in this thread must be very young. In the old days, a young QB would almost never see the field. He would sit for 3 - 5 seasons and then get a chance. In that time, the QB would learn the system, gain strength via a pro football stengthening program and learn the speed of the game. To me, I think it is a good thing to have a QB that has been allowed to sit and watch for multiple years. Joey T. had to sit behind Sonny and Billy, Jay S. sat behind Joey T and I am pretty sure Mark R. sat behind Jay S. Jay and Mark were not great QBs, but they did have some great seasons. Sitting and learning is a good thing for a QB.

The problem for Beck is the lack of OTAs this year. My guess is that we resign Grossman and he starts for about 3 - 6 games until he gets hurt or fumbles too many times. Then Beck starts the rest of the way.

I agree that that is the best way for a QB to become good. And if the choice is between Beck and Grossman I would rather see Beck, I said that last year, but if McNabb is on the roster I would rather go with him. It would be the smartest thing to do. We killed his trade value and we gave up too much to get him to just let him walk after 13 games. So why not let him play in his 2nd year in the system, get his trade value back up, then trade him next offseason, draft a QB in the draft and still have an extra pick from trading McNabb. I think thats what most smart teams would do. But I dont expect us to do that with Shanny running the show.

[darrelgreenie]

I agree that that is the best way for a QB to become good. And if the choice is between Beck and Grossman I would rather see Beck, I said that last year, but if McNabb is on the roster I would rather go with him. It would be the smartest thing to do. We killed his trade value and we gave up too much to get him to just let him walk after 13 games. So why not let him play in his 2nd year in the system, get his trade value back up, then trade him next offseason, draft a QB in the draft and still have an extra pick from trading McNabb. I think thats what most smart teams would do. But I dont expect us to do that with Shanny running the show.

I'm with you: If they can work things out with McNabb that would without question be the best case scenario for us to have a competitive team.

But that is one giant "if".

[Floodzone004]

I agree that that is the best way for a QB to become good. And if the choice is between Beck and Grossman I would rather see Beck, I said that last year, but if McNabb is on the roster I would rather go with him. It would be the smartest thing to do. We killed his trade value and we gave up too much to get him to just let him walk after 13 games. So why not let him play in his 2nd year in the system, get his trade value back up, then trade him next offseason, draft a QB in the draft and still have an extra pick from trading McNabb. I think thats what most smart teams would do. But I dont expect us to do that with Shanny running the show.

I agree with the majority of this post. As long as McNabb works on buying into the system I'm totally down.

If I were Shanny, I'd sit down with McNabb and say "If you play how Kyle wants you to play and stop this passive aggressive crap, we will trade you soon afterward to someone you prefer." McNabb agrees and plays the season with Beck backing him up. He plays well, then awesome. Doesn't play well, we'll probably see Beck out there. Gets injured, we'll see Beck out there.

I think thats the most ideal situation. Do I think it'll happen? Nope. McNabb and Kyle have probably developed a nice little grudge against each other (though I'm on Kyle's side if choosing sides) and Mike probably doesn't care either way. McNabb playing probably feeds into what I interpret as his current "Win while rebuilding" method, Beck playing makes it more of a traditional rebuild.

[ChillSkinzFan84]

I agree with you guys and like you said it is a big IF...but if we dont trade McNabb its not like he's going to refuse to play or step on the field. Yes it will be a media circus but I think McNabb is professional enough to say the PC things and kinda throw water on the media fire by just choosing to say the right or non controversial things.

Yes it would be MUCH better if Mike, Kyle, and Donovan can get on the same page or atleast somewhat close to the same page, but if they didnt I think we could make it through the year because both parties know its in their best interest for things to go well this year. Donovan wants to play good to get his value up and get another decent contract and Shanny would want to get his value up so we can trade him.

Do I see this happening? No I dont but I think it would be best for the team.

[MrJL]

I just cant believe that our beloved historical franchise has come to this. Fans excepting John Beck and Rex Grossman over proven vet QB's. Cant wait till the season starts so i can laugh at the threads on gameday. Everyone says they can take losing,,,i dont believe yall. I can tolerate it as long as we see the team progressing in the right direction. Just too bad all of this should of been done last season instead of year 2. Maybe we sign enough big name free agents to get the hype and expectations up just like the past decade. Maybe all of the free agents we sign will carry us to victory despite our embarrising depth at the QB position

Grossman led a team to a Super Bowl. He's not a superstar but I think he qualifies as proven vet.

[darrelgreenie]

Our situation with Kyle and McNabb isn't typical.

The normally rules of what would happen when a proven QB and offensive coordinator bump heads doesn't apply.

I really hope they can work it out, but I doubt it.

[TheShredder]

Our situation with Kyle and McNabb isn't typical.

The normally rules of what would happen when a proven QB and offensive coordinator bump heads doesn't apply.

I really hope they can work it out, but I doubt it.

Why Redskins fans would want DM5 to take the snaps and watch him throw the ball into the ground is beyond me. He has a nice long ball, but can't hit the short passes that are the mainstay of this offense. He needs to go. I would rather give Beck a shot at the gig and have him manage a game the way the plan is designed vs DM5 playing along and not buying into the system. This is a systematic mess.

DM5 only excelled in Philly's system and he can't adjust his game to another system. He's too old to learn any new tricks. Can't fit the square peg into the round hole. Kyle saw this and MS agreed. That's that. John Beck has never been given a chance to succeed. Skins need a totally revamped OL and some MS running backs to open up a passing lane for a game manager to move the chains.

A bulked up D and strong OL and the Skins are on their way to being competitive. Without the OL and stout D, they're playing for draft picks whether they're planning on it or not. I believe that the 2011 Skins are not going to buy a QB. They're not going to go with DM5 and giving Beck a shot at the position is legit.

John Beck is 29 and you can subtract 2 years for his Mormon mission he committed to and served. That's more like 27 in football years. If you look at Brady Quinn at 27 and the others in his draft class you will see that only J.Russell was being a starting QB out of the draft. Quinn got to start a few games and nobody stuck with him. It takes a few years to get settled in at QB in the NFL. Beck has not been given a legit shot at a starting job and he's ready for his shot. Might as well give him the shot and see what he can do.

[darrelgreenie]

Why Redskins fans would want DM5 to take the snaps

.

If you're asking me why and not a rhetorical question my answer and I can only speak for myself is this: McNabb gives us the best chance to win.

Mike Shanahan isn't going to pass on the QB position via the draft then turn around and start a QB he doesn't believe in.

Wether its McNabb, Beck or #8 or a QB to be named later in Mike's eyes that QB gives us the best chance to win and when it comes to QB evaluation I'll pretty much always side the Mike Shanahan.

Now, like I said in my previous post the odds are long that he'll return but Mike Shanahan's recent comment gives an ever so faint glimmer of hope.

I would rather give Beck a shot at the gig and have him manage a game the way the plan is designed vs DM5 playing along and not buying into the system.

I like Beck. I'm not writing him off based on his past. Unlike many Burgundy and Gold fans I think if given the chance to compete he has a chance to win the job and be a good QB. But, if the choice exsists between Beck and McNabb its a no brainer for me I would rather see McNabb.

On McNabb 'not buying into the system' that notion is largley a media/fan creation based on speculation.

I like to stick with what I know: McNabb struggled in his first year in Kyle's new offense, the offense in general struggled and lacked balance in Kyle's first year as OC with one of the worst 3rd down conversion rates in the league.

But, I'm not blaming McNabb or Kyle.

Last year was the first year for everyone including Kyle who was learning his personnel and creating an offense on his own for the first time as opposed to Houston where the offense was already assembled and he just took over the playcalling.

There's strong evidence that Kyle and McNabb bumped heads.

I think its funny how fans pretend like players and coaches don't bump heads.

But, on most teams with an established QB like McNabb the onus on making the relationship work falls on the coach to figure it out and make it work.

The onus to make a proven QB (or any QB) comfortable and successful falls on the coach.

In most cases if the OC and a proven QB bumps heads they're more likely to replace the OC then a proven QB.

DM5 only excelled in Philly's system and he can't adjust his game to another system. He's too old to learn any new tricks

Maybe so, but I would say the old tricks worked pretty well.

But, the truth falls somewhere in the middle: McNabb may not have picked up the system as quickly as Kyle wanted but at the same time Kyle may not have adjusted his system to make McNabb more comfortable.

Also, its hard to deny that major part of McNabb's struggled was due to lack of pass protection.

It also hard to deny that many QBs and offenses in general struggle in the 1st year of a new offense.

And even if McNabb is an old dog that only excell's in Philly's system they traded for him, knowing that to use your word McNabb excelled in Philly's system then isn't it logic to make your system more like Philly's? Because at the end of the day what's more important McNabb's success i.e. the team's success or not adjusting your system?

Can't fit the square peg into the round hole. Kyle saw this and MS agreed.

Well, Mike has left the door open ever so slightly with his most recent comments.

The reality is they chose the square peg and they (Kyle) have the ability to make the round hole square.

[Chump Bailey]

There are all different types of smart, just because your smart doesn't mean you'll be a good decision maker in the NFL. I don't dislike him, I'm realistic about my expectations with him. I don't expect him to be the day one starter, and I certainly wouldn't agree that he has proper throwing mechanics.

Again, you have your opinions on him, but others feel quite differently. I've stated criteria (intelligence, mechanics, feet) that have all been attributed to Beck from several draft sites when he first declared. CBS draft profiles are indentical to those on nfldraftscout.com, which is a well respected draft site I believe. Joe Theismann commented during the video posted in DG's thread about Beck that he liked his throwing motion. I'm just trying to have a positive POV about the prospect of Beck being our starting QB.

Positives: Has a lean frame with room for additional growth, showing average overall muscle tone, good arm length and large, soft hands … Runs with a normal stride and has the functional hip snap to change directions and avoid pocket pressure … Has good balance and adequate body control throwing on the move, demonstrating good hip rotation … Has decent foot quickness in his pass set and shows good quick-twitch muscle fibers … Very intelligent player who has no problem executing a complicated game plan … Student of the game who breaks down opposing film and does a good job of making adjustments on the field … Plays through pain and shows very good poise in the pocket and confidence in his protection, as it is rare to see him bolt too early, as he will stand tall and take some shots under pressure … Has good throwing mechanics and sets his feet with agility and solid base

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/historical/406245

[Oldfan]

DG ~ And even if McNabb is an old dog that only excell's in Philly's system they traded for him, knowing that to use your word McNabb excelled in Philly's system then isn't it logic to make your system more like Philly's? Because at the end of the day what's more important McNabb's success i.e. the team's success or not adjusting your system?

The only major plus Mike has going for him as a coach is a proven offensive scheme. It would be kinda dumb to set that aside and build a new plan around a QB who will be 35 in November. Andy Reed thought it worthwhile in 1999, but it doesn't make sense for Mike Shanahan in 2011.

[darrelgreenie]

The only major plus Mike has going for him as a coach is a proven offensive scheme. It would be kinda dumb to set that aside and build a new scheme around a QB who will be 35 in November. Andy Reed thought it worthwhile in 1999, but it doesn't make sense for Mike Shanahan in 2011.

Well we disagree about a lot here then.

But, I'll start with what I agree with: Mike's offensive scheme is proven.

I think McNabb would have performed better in Mike's traditional Denver WCO then he did w/ Kyle.

I don't agree that a coach needs to set aside their scheme and build a new scheme to adjust to a different QB.

Mike has been able to adjust his scheme to allow several different types of QBs to have success.

In fact I would say all of Mike's QBs (many of which have been less talented then McNabb) have had a greater measure of success then Kyle had with McNabb.

Also, Kyle is the OC not Mike.

Mike and Kyle technically run the same scheme but they are very different playcallers.

Can we agree that coaches from the same tree/the same scheme can be very different playcallers?

[Oldfan]

DG ~ I think McNabb would have performed better in Mike's traditional Denver WCO then he did w/ Kyle.

Donovan McNabb has never been a prototypical WCO QB. He has always been inconsistent on his short to medium range throws, a problem that is unlikely to improve with age. His strength has always been his ability to extend plays and throw the deep ball.

I don't agree that a coach needs to set aside their scheme and build a new scheme to adjust to a different QB.

I didn’t make that general statement. So, you can’t disagree me.

Mike has been able to adjust his scheme to allow several different types of QBs to have success.

Let’s stick with McNabb as the topic, and not switch to QBs in general.

Mike and Kyle technically run the same scheme but they are very different playcallers.

Can we agree that coaches from the same tree/the same scheme can be very different playcallers?

Mike is in charge. He and Kyle prepare the game plan. Kyle is calling plays off a situational chart agreed upon.

[darrelgreenie]

Donovan McNabb has never been a prototypical WCO QB. He has always been inconsistent on his short to medium range throws, a problem that is unlikely to improve with age. His strength has always been his ability to extend plays and throw the deep ball.

McNabb's faults not withstanding I didn't say he was a fit for the "prototypical" WCO I said been better in Mike's Denver WCO.

I didn’t make that general statement. So, you can’t disagree me.

Direct quote:

It would be kinda dumb to set that aside and build a new plan around a QB

I don't agree that a coach needs to set aside their scheme and build a new scheme to adjust to a different QB.

Mike has been able to adjust his scheme to allow several different types of QBs to have success.

Let’s stick with McNabb as the topic, and not switch to QBs in general.

Its relevant because the discussion is partially about a coaches ability to adapt their scheme and i'm pointing out that Mike has proven this ability.

Mike is in charge. He and Kyle prepare the game plan. Kyle is calling plays off a situational chart agreed upon.

Yes, Mike is the HC but he's not the OC or the playcaller.

Sure Mike has input as any HC would but this is Kyle's offense or don't you accept that?

[KCClybun]

The difference between Mike's WCO and Kyle's WCO are probably minimal at best. I mean, how long was Kubiak offensive coordinator in Denver? Kyle pretty much learned from Kubiak, tweaked it a little, but at it's core and at it's heart, it's the same offense it's always been. Maybe Kyle requires a little more from his quarterbacks in terms of reads and progressions,, but the differences aren't really gaping like people tend to think. It's the same philosophy based around the same scheme with the same way of doing things.

Not sure how much Kyle really could've done to adjust the offense to make McNabb more comfortable.

[Oldfan]

DG ,

You called this “a direct quote:”

It would be kinda dumb to set that aside and build a new plan around a QB

You clipped that sentence short and took it out of context which distorted its meaning. If you’re going to play those games, we’re done.

Here is what I said in context:

The only major plus Mike has going for him as a coach is a proven offensive scheme. It would be kinda dumb to set that aside and build a new plan around a QB who will be 35 in November. Andy Reed thought it worthwhile in 1999, but it doesn't make sense for Mike Shanahan in 2011.

I have no interest in discussing the need to adjust to QBs in general. Would you like to start over and discuss the above comment about Donovan McNabb?

[TheShredder]

If you're asking me why and not a rhetorical question my answer and I can only speak for myself is this: McNabb gives us the best chance to win.

Mike Shanahan isn't going to pass on the QB position via the draft then turn around and start a QB he doesn't believe in.

Wether its McNabb, Beck or #8 or a QB to be named later in Mike's eyes that QB gives us the best chance to win and when it comes to QB evaluation I'll pretty much always side the Mike Shanahan.

Now, like I said in my previous post the odds are long that he'll return but Mike Shanahan's recent comment gives an ever so faint glimmer of hope.

I like Beck. I'm not writing him off based on his past. Unlike many Burgundy and Gold fans I think if given the chance to compete he has a chance to win the job and be a good QB. But, if the choice exsists between Beck and McNabb its a no brainer for me I would rather see McNabb.

On McNabb 'not buying into the system' that notion is largley a media/fan creation based on speculation.

I like to stick with what I know: McNabb struggled in his first year in Kyle's new offense, the offense in general struggled and lacked balance in Kyle's first year as OC with one of the worst 3rd down conversion rates in the league.

But, I'm not blaming McNabb or Kyle.

Last year was the first year for everyone including Kyle who was learning his personnel and creating an offense on his own for the first time as opposed to Houston where the offense was already assembled and he just took over the playcalling.

There's strong evidence that Kyle and McNabb bumped heads.

I think its funny how fans pretend like players and coaches don't bump heads.

But, on most teams with an established QB like McNabb the onus on making the relationship work falls on the coach to figure it out and make it work.

The onus to make a proven QB (or any QB) comfortable and successful falls on the coach.

In most cases if the OC and a proven QB bumps heads they're more likely to replace the OC then a proven QB.

Maybe so, but I would say the old tricks worked pretty well.

But, the truth falls somewhere in the middle: McNabb may not have picked up the system as quickly as Kyle wanted but at the same time Kyle may not have adjusted his system to make McNabb more comfortable.

Also, its hard to deny that major part of McNabb's struggled was due to lack of pass protection.

It also hard to deny that many QBs and offenses in general struggle in the 1st year of a new offense.

And even if McNabb is an old dog that only excell's in Philly's system they traded for him, knowing that to use your word McNabb excelled in Philly's system then isn't it logic to make your system more like Philly's? Because at the end of the day what's more important McNabb's success i.e. the team's success or not adjusting your system?

Well, Mike has left the door open ever so slightly with his most recent comments.

The reality is they chose the square peg and they (Kyle) have the ability to make the round hole square.

I'm not an expert but I have watched Redskins football for 25 years and watched every game last year. When I watched the games last year I came to understand what the Philly fans had told me and what they complained about when it came to DM5. He throws the ball in the dirt, a lot! He kills drives and isn't the consistency that you need to win. He gets picked off a lot. He is really a product of a system that he became and doesn't have the ability to do the B.Favre and go anywhere and gunsling a victory. It's not a matter of Kyle adjusting the system to DM5 anymore than he did. A pro QB is paid millions of dollars to execute a game plan. It's really not the OC's job to learn the QB and find a way to win with him. That's just not the way it works. DM5 failed miserably and my answer would be 'No, he doesn't give the team the best chance to win because he can't execute the offense.'

If you really want a look into what we can expect in the future then I believe instead of listening to the master half truth media master MS, look at what the QB's on the roster are doing. DM5 has been working out in Philly with the Eagles players and John Beck has been organizing Redskins.

[darrelgreenie]

I'm not an expert but I have watched Redskins football for 25 years and watched every game last year. When I watched the games last year I came to understand what the Philly fans had told me and what they complained about when it came to DM5. He throws the ball in the dirt, a lot! He kills drives and isn't the consistency that you need to win. He gets picked off a lot. He is really a product of a system that he became and doesn't have the ability to do the B.Favre and go anywhere and gunsling a victory. It's not a matter of Kyle adjusting the system to DM5 anymore than he did. A pro QB is paid millions of dollars to execute a game plan. It's really not the OC's job to learn the QB and find a way to win with him. That's just not the way it works. DM5 failed miserably and my answer would be 'No, he doesn't give the team the best chance to win because he can't execute the offense.'

To each there own.

We have fundamental differences in both our view of coaches and their roles with the offense and their players.

We also have major diffefrences in our views of McNabb's abilities as a QB.

The QB you describe above doesn't sound like a QB w/ McNabb's resume especially the part about him getting picked off a lot.

Either way I doubt he's around next year, but if he is I bet he performs closer to his career productions numbers rather then last year which was the worst season of his career.

HTTR

[SWFLSkins]

Nonsense.

John Beck sucks!

Sarcasm meter on the fritz, do you like him or not?