ESPN -- Starting Beck is No Tank Job

[darrelgreenie]

[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?

In what way did I distort the meaning?

You're the one choosing to play word games about what you said:

I don't agree with the princple of your statement:

I don't think Kyle would need to set aside their scheme and build a new scheme around McNabb for McNabb to have success.

Its not about whole sale changes its about adjustments.

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

They just need to adapt their scheme as many coaches do when they have new QBs.

As 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.

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

---------- Post added July-10th-2011 at 04:24 PM ----------

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.

I don't know what you mean by minimal at best?

I'm not arguing that its a different offense, in fact I agree that technically its the same system just like Mike Martz and Norv Turner are run the same system but they're very different playcallers.

I've been a fan of Mike Shanahan's Denver WCO especially w/ Elway and Kyle's offense was different.

I could go into detail but I have to look through my post but one easy place to start is pass/run ratio.

The difference between individual playcallers is what gives them their identities.

Andy Reid, Mike McCarthy and Mike Shanahan all come from the same tree and all learned the same offense using the same terminology.

But, you wouldn't say that their offense are the same would you?

I wouldn't and I don't think most fans would.

[Oldfan]

DG ~ In what way did I distort the meaning?

You're the one choosing to play word games about what you said:

You clipped my sentence in half, took it out of the context of my paragraph, distorted its meaning, and now you’re accusing ME of playing word games.

Forget it.

[KCClybun]

Andy Reid, Mike McCarthy and Mike Shanahan all come from the same tree and all learned the same offense using the same terminology.

But, you wouldn't say that their offense are the same would you?

I wouldn't and I don't think most fans would.

Let me clarify; what I mean to say is this.

If Mike was the ones calling the plays, and this was Denver, I think McNabb's problems would've been the same. Because at their core, the fundamentals of the offense are the same. The way you make reads are the same. The progressions are the same. The expectations are the same. The bootlegs and rollout may be more numerous, but that's about it. There might be different philosophies, but the basis of Mike's offense was the basis of Kubiak's offense which became the basis of Kyle's offense. It's not so much the play caller as it's about the player sometimes.

Andy Reid managed to hide a lot of McNabb's weaknesses for years; working with Kyle exposed them again. And to that point, I think Michael Vick operated the Eagles offense better than McNabb, because Vick dedicated himself to learn the fundamentals and the basics of the offense and working within it, and he COULD make plays with his legs, but he could also play the more typical "ball control" WCO without having to constantly check the ball down to LeSean McCoy all the time.

My point was that Mike would more or less ask Donovan to do the same things Kyle did, in the same way.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

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.

Sporting News tends to agree with you there, based on analyzing his play last year:

McNabb is much more of a classic “playground”-style QB who functions best when he can rely on his play-making ability. He is not a fundamentally sound passer — he does not plant his back foot and drive into throws on quick-hitting passes. McNabb is much better throwing to a receiver who is stationary on short and intermediate routes, rather than leading on quick-timing routes. He really lacks accuracy as a passer and misses wide-open targets way too often. A windup in his delivery makes him deliberate and allows defenders to easily break on, and break up, his passes. Because he is not a technically sound thrower, McNabb struggles to consistently convert key downs into first downs and touchdowns.

BOTTOM LINE

McNabb was a frustrating quarterback to evaluate because he is big and strong with very good physical tools, a cannon for an arm and the ability to be an accurate deep passer. However, he is a not a fundamentally sound thrower, which greatly hinders accuracy and consistency...

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/feed/2011-02/nfl-free-agency/story/mcnabb-still-has-tools-but-flaws-becoming-more-pronounced

[darrelgreenie]

There might be different philosophies, but the basis of Mike's offense was the basis of Kubiak's offense which became the basis of Kyle's offense. It's not so much the play caller as it's about the player sometimes.

I don't see how this is accounts for the difference between Mike and Kyle as playcallers.

I agree they come from the same source just like Mike Martz and Norv Turner come from the same source but its their philosophies that make their offenses different.

The philosophy of the playcaller makes the offense.

I can expound of the difference but I would need to do a search on my posts but in short:

Mike was more balanced pass/run (career 50/50) and in todays NFL he would probably be considered a run 1st coach.

Mike called a much more diverse running game.

Kyle's running game was very basic: inside zone/out side zone.

Mike's was more diverse of course the staple was zone runs but it also featured traps, draws, tosses.

I was saying earlier this thread that our run game playcalling under Kyle was very vanilla.

It basically consisted of inside zone, outside zone and stretch vs Mike's Denver WCO which was multidimensional not just inside-zone outside zone it had pulling, trapping, draws and the toss.

Below are some elements that were missing from Kyle's running game: Inside Trap/Draw

Another element missing: The Toss:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3HtvBdam5A

His emphasis on the run creates favorable passing match-ups.

The emphasis on the run dictates coverages.

Mike also moved the pocket more not just play-action based rollouts and bootlegs but non-playaction dash outs and sprint outs.

The result was an offense that featured well defined and often half-field reads.

The result was an offense easy to execute for the QB.

Kyle's offense is pass first.(and there's nothing wrong with that I'm not saying that Kyle is a bad playcaller. I'm pointing out the difference is their playcalling as I see it.)

In Kyle short career his pass/run ratio is 60/40. (2010 it was actually less then 60/40)

Kyle's offense is more of a straight drop back 5 step passing game.

There is more onus on the QB dropping back and reading out full field progressions.

Its a more QB decision making intensive offense.

Those differences are the big ones that jump out to me.

Mike's offense was alo more multiple w/ formations and had more shifts.

Andy Reid managed to hide a lot of McNabb's weaknesses for years; working with Kyle exposed them again. And to that point, I think Michael Vick operated the Eagles offense better than McNabb,

I don't get your point here every OC hides their QBs weaknesses and play to their strengths, its what coaches do because every QB has weaknesses.

And McNabb's career speaks to him having enough strengths to make him a borderline HOFer.

I'm a huge Vick fan, and I think in time Vick cold prove to be a better QB and possibly run Reid's offense better then McNabb I think you're a bit premature.

In order for Vick to run the offense better then McNabb runs it Vick would need to have a better year then any year McNabb has.

Last year was not better then McNabb's best.

My point was that Mike would more or less ask Donovan to do the same things Kyle did, in the same way

And I disagree.

Good discussion though.

[darrelgreenie]

Interesting tidbit from last 30 seconds of Schefter interview on ESPN980:

Sheehan: Grossman or Beck on opening day?

Schefter: Beck.

http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=65&c=428&f=111151

[ChillSkinzFan84]

What will the Mcnabb haters say if he plays elsewhere & returns back to his usual form? That would be another knock against the Shanny tandem. They have screwed this situation up so much but people blame the player more than the man who gave up 2 picks to bring him here...then failed to coach to his strengths. Still mcnabb was close to setting franchise records. He gets alot of blame for the ground balls, some warranted, but its blown a bit out of proportion. We never talk about the 3rd down plays he made only to have the receiver drop a would be 1st down. I challenge people to go back and look at the film from all of the games and then form your opinion.

I just hear a bunch of people saying the same thing others say without looking at the film to decide for themselves. Coach/gm should get much more blame & criticism then what he gets. Gave up 2 costly picks to a division rival just to get rid of the player the next year. If Vinny were the one making these moves he would be crucified...but shanny gets a pass smh.

He ruined mcnabbs & Als trade value & is inviting the media circus to come right along for the ride. Why can't people see where this is headed? He better hope Beck saves his azz this year. I said from day 1 that Shanny's ego is a problem. The disaster is playing out right in front of our eyes yet people choose not to look.

[Pedro]

Regardless of how McNabb plays anywhere else go back to last season and watch our team with him at QB and then with Rex at QB. Our team on O look better with Rex due the tempo.

Is Grossman a better QB than McNabb? I don't think so either and yet we are better without McNabb (see what I did there?).

McNabb wouldn't run the plays called and doesn't run the O with any tempo or consistency. He is not the QB we are looking for.

[ChillSkinzFan84]

Regardless of how McNabb plays anywhere else go back to last season and watch our team with him at QB and then with Rex at QB. Our team on O look better with Rex due the tempo.

Is Grossman a better QB than McNabb? I don't think so either and yet we are better without McNabb (see what I did there?).

McNabb wouldn't run the plays called and doesn't run the O with any tempo or consistency. He is not the QB we are looking for.

The tempo was better because they ran less 5 and 7 step drops and ran more screens and quicker routes...which McNabb suggested but it wasnt done until Rex got in and Kyle wanted to prove his point.

And if he isnt the QB we're looking for then why did Shanny give up 2 picks to get him. He should of did his homework before making the deal. Shannahan messed up point blank. You can believe the propoganda hype if you want to but theres a reason why Rex would most likely be out of the league if we dont re-sign him but there are multiple teams that want McNabb.

So i guess McNabb is a bette fit in every other offense in the league except this one. lmao. No other team would choose Rex over McNabb...and theres a reason for that.

---------- Post added July-13th-2011 at 04:36 AM ----------

I agree that McNabb didnt play at his highest level but to suggest that the offensive problems were on him is laughable to me. He was learning a new system, injured, had no o-line and his recieving corps was a joke. To suggest that Grossman or Beck is a better option than McNabb in year 2 with better weapons and in better health is moranic to me. But thats just my opinion

[Oldfan]

.. Rex would most likely be out of the league if we dont re-sign him but there are multiple teams that want McNabb...

I think you're wrong. It's my impression that Andy Reid tailored his offensive scheme to fit young Donovan McNabb's unique skillset. And he's unable to run another team's disciplined offense. There aren't many schemes designed for inconsistent short-to-medium range passers.

[Chump Bailey]

I think you're wrong. It's my impression that Andy Reid tailored his offensive scheme to fit young Donovan McNabb's unique skillset. And he's unable to run another team's disciplined offense. There aren't many schemes designed for inconsistent short-to-medium range passers.

I agree with you OF. You pretty much said from the start he was a poor fit when we first signed him. I really don't understand why we gave him an extension though. Must be some reason - I just can't figure it.

[Oldfan]

I agree with you OF. You pretty much said from the start he was a poor fit when we first signed him. I really don't understand why we gave him an extension though. Must be some reason - I just can't figure it.

I don't know, CB. Maybe they thought they could salvage a draft pick by having him under contract, but the benching deflated his value. I don't know. There's no obvious reason.

[Chump Bailey]

There's no obvious reason.

Very strange. I wonder if either Bruce or MS has been asked specifically why they did that. I'd love to hear the reasoning.

[pjfootballer]

Actually it's my understanding and observation that more teams want Rex then McNabb.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Hopefully for the sake of my sanity and my Skins this works out. I do not believe it will though.

[MartinC]

I agree that McNabb didnt play at his highest level but to suggest that the offensive problems were on him is laughable to me. He was learning a new system, injured, had no o-line and his recieving corps was a joke. To suggest that Grossman or Beck is a better option than McNabb in year 2 with better weapons and in better health is moranic to me. But thats just my opinion

His receiving corp was a joke?

Santana Moss over 1000 yards receiving on 90 plus catches

Armstrong over 800 yards at around 20 yards per catch

Chris Cooley 77 catches and just under 850 yards

Fred Davis 21 catches for 300 plus yards

The pass protection was inadequate at times and the running game vanished when Torrain got hurt for stretches and Kyle lost the sheet with the run plays at other times but McNabb had weapons. At times he used them but he missed too many easy throws and after all these years in the league still has horrible footwork. Add is he has lost his mobility and he is a shadow of the QB he was.

Shanny should have watched the film and realized that but that's water under the bridge. At this point there will be a very limited market for McNabb as a starting QB IMO, he will probably end up being cut by us and he might get a start at say the Vikes but I would not be at all surprised if he is not riding the bench again by the end of the year.

---------- Post added July-13th-2011 at 03:37 PM ----------

Very strange. I wonder if either Bruce or MS has been asked specifically why they did that. I'd love to hear the reasoning.

If we had not extended him McNabb would be a free agent. By extending him we control his rights so we essentially paid him $3M so we have the option of keeping him, trying to trade him or cutting him.

As it turns out we are not keeping him and I doubt we can trade him but extending him was a smart move given we had traded a 2nd round pick and some change it would have been dumb to just let his contract expire and watch him walk away.