DCdemolition Posted August 14, 2001 Share Posted August 14, 2001 This time, Wilbon is right. Marty should have made a QB move a while back, now a decent one will cost him a draft pick. Either Buerlien, Frerotte or Dilfer could have been signed for a million/year contracts. The Washington Redskins on Monday were doing what they should have done six weeks ago; they planned to sign a veteran quarterback. It was the natural reaction to Sunday night's non-performance against the Kansas City Chiefs. Often, stats lie, or at the very least they mislead. But not in this case. Todd Husak and Sage Rosenfels combined to complete only 10 of 27 passes in a controlled, short-throw system that calls for 60 percent efficiency. Together they combined to pass for 68 yards, and 28 of those came on a pass Rosenfels underthrew by five yards. I don't pretend to understand the formula used to determine passing ratings, but Husak's 3-for-10, 27-yard performance earned him, statistically, a zero, according to the box score. Wow. Passes were short, behind receivers, too far in front of receivers, and in a couple of instances nowhere close to receivers. The Redskins' inability to sustain a drive and the ease with which the Chiefs held on to the ball led Marty Schottenheimer to lament the limited "number of snaps we had in the first half." But after a pause, Schottenheimer acknowledged, "The [snaps] we had, we didn't do well with them." The easy thing to do here is to blame Husak and Rosenfels. Hey, they're pros, right? Once you start earning a paycheck you're expected to produce, even if you are young and without real NFL experience, right? After all, suppose Jeff George remains sidelined and can't start against Atlanta Friday night, or against Cleveland the following week? Suppose Husak has to start the season and Rosenfels has to back him up? Well, that would be the easy way out and the wrong way out. Husak and Rosenfels never should have been put in the situation of having to play virtually the entire first preseason game. Now, it may help them somewhere down the line to have been thrown into a sink-or-swim position. It's okay, as long as you acknowledge the possibility they could drown. They're smart enough and appear to have enough sense of self not to be discouraged by being tossed to the Chiefs like red meat to Lions Sunday night. But that doesn't change the bigger context here. The Redskins could have and should have come to camp with a veteran quarterback besides George. Is Danny Kanell, who knocked around with the New York Giants for a while, any kind of season-long solution at the position? Nope. Still, sometime you have to bring in a veteran you have no plan to keep long-term, a guy who is primarily there for training camp or an insurance policy against injury or a marginal backup who has been around long enough to at least run the team. You think the Indianapolis Colts of Peyton Manning have big regular season plans for Mark Rypien? If Kanell has to go out there and take his lumps against a big-time defense because the No. 1 guy is injured, so be it. He's prepared for it better than Husak or Rosenfels. Have you noticed the Baltimore Ravens have Elvis Grbac, 31, being backed up by 38-year-old Randall Cunningham? Sunday, in Kansas City, the Chiefs had 31-year-old Trent Green being backed up by 29-year-old Todd Collins and 38-year-old Bubby Brister. Sure, you have to break in a young quarterback. Husak needs experience and the only way to get it is by playing. But do you have to break in a second-year quarterback and a rookie at the same time? And even if the answer to that is yes, have an old head around just in case something goes wrong. Failing to do that is a far bigger sin than Husak throwing behind a receiver. It's not like anybody gets George and Cal Ripken confused. This is a fairly big blunder. Did you see Rypien turn back the clock the other night for the Colts? Wouldn't Trent Dilfer be a huge help now? Sportswriters are expert at 20-20 hindsight. But the issue of having a second veteran quarterback isn't hindsight. There should have been plenty of foresight on this issue long before training camp started. Maybe the Redskins will take young, misguided-but-talented Cade McNown off the Chicago Bears' hands or relieve the Cincinnati Bengals of Akili Smith and the whole thing will soon enough end happily ever after. But in the short-term, it doesn't look good. And this isn't an indictment of Husak. He had no protection, no running game, and got to throw a grand total of 10 passes after re-injuring a muscle in pregame warmups. Do we really want the kid's head on a platter after 10 passes in one preseason game? It was good to hear Schottenheimer take on himself a degree of blame we haven't heard around here in, oh, seven years. "I did a lousy job," he said after the game. "There were so many things hanging on my belt I felt like a pack horse." The presumption is that he was talking not about the delay in bringing in another veteran quarterback, but something more specific to Sunday night's 20-0 loss. Either way, it was good to hear. Schottenheimer said this one sentence three times at the very least in his post-game remarks: "I've been here before." We can safely presume he was referring to that dark place coaches and players go after they've been smacked around, dominated in every phase of competition. Not many coaches can wear a look of total confidence, almost defiance after getting shut out, but Schottenheimer did. It would be absolutely dumb to make too big a deal of Sunday night's performance. There's too little correlation to preseason performance and regular season performance. The Redskins have time to get this right, and getting a veteran quarterback on board, even one as generic as Kanell, is a small step in the direction of bringing some calming experience to the huddle, to practices. That, in turn, should scale back expectations for two young, smart, ambitious quarterbacks who deserve more of a fighting chance than they were given Sunday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted August 14, 2001 Share Posted August 14, 2001 As I mentioned in my post today regarding keeping Deion Sanders past June 2, I think it was more than just a small gamble to go with no capable backups for Jeff George, Bruce Smith and Marco Coleman, each of whom is 32 or older and past his 10th year in the league. While everyone was clamoring for help at CB and WR in the offseason, I think we may have overdone our attention to these areas and neglected the lines. We HAD to sign Donovan Greer and then draft Fred Smoot because Deion was not returning and Darrell was 40 right? We Had to draft Gardner and McCants and also sign Lockett because we didn't have any established receivers other than Westbrook returning right? Well, we didn't have ANY experienced quarterbacks returning. Husak threw 5 passes in his career and Rosenfels by everyone's judgment is on a 3 year plan to development. J June 2 we needed to end the Deion merry go round and cut his a$$. Ditto for considerations on the DL. If there were doubts that Darrell at 40 could play regularly at CB alongside Champ for the entire 2001 season, there should have been similar thoughts regarding 38 year old Bruce Smith. Having 27 year old undrafted free agent Derrick Ham as the only backup through the end of July was a big mistake. Once again, cut Deion June 2 and pickup Ahanatou or another DL player and move Lang back to end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamaran Posted August 14, 2001 Share Posted August 14, 2001 Great post, DCdemo! Moreover, I'd take a Kannel or Friesz now, then, as the camp goes on and cuts are made, injuries happen, etc., we may find a better suited QB and a team that lusts for one of our many young WRs. There's a long way to go and many strange things will still happen before Sept. 1. I just hope we don't trade a draft pick for someone now, when that same someone may be free in a couple weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 14, 2001 Share Posted August 14, 2001 By Deion retiring I think he actually got MORE money back and if he were cut on June 2nd. He didn't get this years salary plus like 500K. What would we of gotten if he was cut? This years salary and nothing. What's the difference? ------------------ Bufford T Justice- Inventor of the Todd Husak "Future Starter" logo.... with the help of Blade <IMG SRC="http://www.extremeskins.com/ubb/ranks/husak2.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://old.theinsiders.com/redskins/images/wash1-sm.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://207.230.156.92/images/thn22.jpg" border=0> "Hi, I'm the best CB in the NFL, who are you?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCdemolition Posted August 14, 2001 Author Share Posted August 14, 2001 The only problem with releasing Deion was that we'd take a $5 million hit on next year's cap. That would royally screw up next year's roster and cap situation. I think the Skins handled Dan Snyder's failed experiment as well as they could this year. His retirement will only cost the Skins the amount of his signing bonus that is amortized for next year, which is 1.45 million if I'm not mistaken (that sure as hell is better than 5 million (which is two quality players)). But, signing Frerotte, Rypien, Dilfer or Buerlien for a million a year was well within Marty's budget. As far as I am concerned, this is Marty's first major mistake as coach of the Skins. Like I've said many times before, tendinitis is a very nagging injury and therefore, I don't expect George to start 16 games this year. We need a backup more than ever! Even Rodney Peete would be an upgrade over Danny kannel (though I think Kannel's signing is just to have an arm in camp to throw balls to receivers). ------------------ Hail to the Redskins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted August 14, 2001 Share Posted August 14, 2001 the difference in all this is time. From June 2 to July 27 we sat hostages with no money to spend on anybody because we were all waiting to see what happened with Sanders. To get back a measly $500,000 on an $8 million bonus, we screw ourselves by having no backup plan at qb or on the DL? That is a short-sighted, venal move if I ever saw one. We have to keep our eye on the prize, which is doing well on the field in 2001 and beyond. This team needed to forget the past and get rid of Sanders as quickly as it was feasible to do so. We needed to wait until June 2 to defer the cap hit to 2002, that's fine and we all understood that. But to wait another 6 weeks just to make sure he didn't "show us up" by signing on somewhere else was just plain vindictiveness and to no end. So, we win a Pyhrric victory. Sanders doesn't play anywhere else right away but the cost is we have $3.0 in cap room but there is no one available to sign that can play a lick. Great win on that $500K, Dan. I'm sure Deion is crying about that as he cashes the other $7.5 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted August 14, 2001 Share Posted August 14, 2001 Hindsight is 20/20. We all want our team to make it to the big dance this year but you all have to be patience and not give up your seat on the Marty express. We are still in the garage loading up on supplies. The criticism is coming out too early. If George returns and is healthy for the season all is forgotten especailly if we have a successful season. If Marty back in the spring brought in a veteran QB, Husak was toast and the majority would have been sniveling how Marty didn't give a high draft choice a chance. He did and now he may or may not pay for it. Apparently Marty gets one preseason game to have the skins Super Bowl ready yet during 7 years of Norv where was the doom and gloom during the preseason? This isn't some Jiffy lube job that wifey can have done in 15 minutes.This is an engine job that has to be done right and all of the parts aren't there yet. ------------------ Take a sip of the Marty Kool Aid and Believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.