the-perforator Posted December 11, 2001 Share Posted December 11, 2001 Art I don't think it's a fair comparision taking Bank's last seven games. Take the whole season and see how they compare. You might as well just pick the games he did good in and leave out the poor games if you really want to tilt the scale. As far as Donavan's performance it has not been superstar. He hasn't been making very many mistakes at least though. I thought Bank's played better the last game. Hopefully this game will be Donavan's turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 11, 2001 Share Posted December 11, 2001 Actually, Perf, it really wouldn't be fair to utilize the Redskins early season offense to make a fair comparison or to get a full understanding of what Banks has done. He's a guy thrown into the mix with, admittedly, about 25 percent of the offense known to him when he became the starter. It simply wouldn't be reasonable to assume he was going to be remotely efficient for a couple of weeks. But, it has now been seven weeks since the Redskins started to get a mild clue as to what to do on offense. And over a seven-week period, one game short of a full half of the season, which is a substantially long period of time, Banks has been better than McNabb. Surprisingly, perhaps, but, just the same, accurate. It is fair to select a batch of games, and compare both players on the strength of those games. Banks wasn't the starter for Washington until the third game, and when he got in, he didn't know the offense and certainly wasn't ready. His performance level has certainly increased and it has increased to a point that he has steadily outperformed McNabb over a seven-week stretch. This is obviously a valid look at two players and where they are at present. McNabb is, to me, the best young QB in football, and it's likely he's going through a bad patch. But, if the Redskins win this week, and Banks looks, again, better than McNabb, it'll be half a season of play and pretty soon, you'll start asking what's wrong with McNabb. Not that some of you already aren't. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWDrexel Posted December 11, 2001 Share Posted December 11, 2001 Art, Although it is a recurring theme among Redskin fans, I don't know if its fair to throw away a part of the season to prove a statement false (other than INTs). If the contention here is that McNabb has shown average passing ability you couldn't find anyone that agreed with you more. However if this community is trying to 'get under my skin' and tell me how McNabb can't win for the franchise based on his 2nd starting year passer rating.. I can only assume they've not watched the NFL for very much before this season. [grammar, hope I got it all] [ by MWDrexel on December 11, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 11, 2001 Share Posted December 11, 2001 MW, I think this board, generally, holds McNabb in very high regard. I believe what is being attempted here is to try to get you to understand the game a bit better than you do, so that you don't think it's reasonable to take Banks, a month in uniform, and force him to start by cutting the starter, and think he'll be clicking. Hell, he's still not clicking, though, with Banks, it may well be that this is what clicking looks like. The fact is, the Redskins have been on a mild roll of late, and for seven weeks, Tony Banks has been a better player than your second year QB who single-handedly led you to the playoffs a year ago. That's quite a testement to the turnaround experienced in Washington. When a complimentary, journeyman QB like Banks can perform at a level better than one of the league's top young players at the position, over an extended period, it likely explains in large part why the Redskins are 6-1. There are just other large parts. McNabb experienced one of those in the Redskins defense a few weeks ago. The Eagles also got introduced to an invigorated running game. None of these factors existed when we were 0-5. There was a change and judging the team's performance since the change is not only reasonable, but fair. How real that turnaround was will be determined to an extent on Sunday. If we handle you again, it will likely validate you aren't playing a 6-6 football team. But, a 6-1 team that just took a while to find its footing. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted December 11, 2001 Share Posted December 11, 2001 Originally posted by Art:The fact is, the Redskins have been on a mild roll of late, and for seven weeks, Tony Banks has been a better player than your second year QB who single-handedly led you to the playoffs a year ago. McNabb's a third-year player. He was drafted in '99. ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://www.thelocker-room.com/images/RedskinLogo.jpg" border=0> "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 11, 2001 Share Posted December 11, 2001 Thanks Redman, but, for the record, the comment was a bit reflective and was meant to speak about McNabb as described by MW, as the second-year QB who single-handedly lead his team to the playoffs. I.E., last year since the Eagles have been to no other playoffs. Could have been more clear though. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the-perforator Posted December 11, 2001 Share Posted December 11, 2001 Mcnabb played the last two games sparingly in his rookie year. Last year was the first year he started, fyi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the-perforator Posted December 11, 2001 Share Posted December 11, 2001 Ps: when's the cutoff? When do I become the water boy . Perf-out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWDrexel Posted December 11, 2001 Share Posted December 11, 2001 [see below, accidentally hit return] [ by MWDrexel on December 11, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWDrexel Posted December 11, 2001 Share Posted December 11, 2001 Originally posted by Art:MW, I think this board, generally, holds McNabb in very high regard. I believe what is being attempted here is to try to get you to understand the game a bit better than you do, so that you don't think it's reasonable to take Banks, a month in uniform, and force him to start by cutting the starter, and think he'll be clicking. Hell, he's still not clicking, though, with Banks, it may well be that this is what clicking looks like. The fact is, the Redskins have been on a mild roll of late, and for seven weeks, Tony Banks has been a better player than your second year QB who single-handedly led you to the playoffs a year ago. That's quite a testement to the turnaround experienced in Washington. When a complimentary, journeyman QB like Banks can perform at a level better than one of the league's top young players at the position, over an extended period, it likely explains in large part why the Redskins are 6-1. There are just other large parts. McNabb experienced one of those in the Redskins defense a few weeks ago. The Eagles also got introduced to an invigorated running game. None of these factors existed when we were 0-5. There was a change and judging the team's performance since the change is not only reasonable, but fair. How real that turnaround was will be determined to an extent on Sunday. If we handle you again, it will likely validate you aren't playing a 6-6 football team. But, a 6-1 team that just took a while to find its footing. Actually I only felt with regard to such a statistic as completion %, that it was unfair you drop 5 of McNabb's games just for being a starter the whole season. There are other QBs that I feel are better than McNabb that haven't played better than him this year or last over a select 5-7 games. Again, only wanted to point out I didn't believe it was fair to ignore a 1/3 of the season, especially when McNabb had 2 of his best games as a passer in that period. But I understand many Redskins fans would like their team and players judged without regard for those first 5 weeks. And I'll never say the Redskins haven't played well over their last 7 games, however I can not be fairly expected to ignore 5 weeks of absolute garbage whether they are happy with their coach or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 MW, you are showing a density best reserved for meteors and not football discussion. The fact is, Banks was in uniform for a month and was not likely to know the offense when he was moved into a starting role. The fact is Steven Davis got the ball 13 times a game through four weeks. The fact is our defense was in predominate zone for the early part of the season. There are a lot of factual tendencies about our team that have tended to be a little less factual as the year wears on. Given the tale of two seasons the Redskins have experienced so far this year, it is completely reasonable and factual to take a very long, seven-game stretch, and measure the performance of players at comparable positions. The Redskins are in the position they are right now, at 6-6, due to a very poor start. However, if you feel there is some statistical basis for judging our performance, you are going to fall miserably short in so doing should you include the early Redskins and lump them in with the Redskins of late. It is precisely true that the Redskins are Ranked 19th in the league in defense for the year. It is equally true that over the last seven weeks, the Redskins have been among the league's best units. You seem to feel there's hope in this game based upon the fact that the Redskins were bad early, and therefore, that aspect of gives you a concept of what a person may be capable of. But, for a guy who admits to receiving much of his football knowledge from SportsCenter highlights, it's crucial you recognize that the statistics aren't lying when they tell you the present statistical measure of where the Redskins are on the year as compared to others. It's just that this team is no longer that team and the same statistical measurements taken over a long stretch indicate a massive change in performance. But, please, keep looking at SportsCenter highlights of the Redskins playing KC in Week 3 if it will give you hope of winning Sunday. Anything that helps. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWDrexel Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 As far as watching SC, it was only in regard to what I can remember (not everything I have seen) of Albert Connell in a Redskins uniform. I would never be accused of following the Redskins closely but your generalization regarding the depth of my knowledge of other-NFL topics is unfair. Next, I made the point that taking the portion of what you think are Banks 'real games', and comparing them to a subset of Donovan's 'real games', is unfair. To clarify, Donovan has had highs and lows this season whereas Banks has been pleasantly consistent and average (nice game against Arizona, though). You aren't taking Donovan's full set of 'real games', and while it makes your inequality figures work out, the comparison just isn't all that interesting to me. Third, I have yet to say "Eagles win 27-7" or even predict a win at all for the Eagles. I don't know who will claim victory Sunday because I believe the Redskins gave the Eagles more problems in Game 1 than they could prove to handle. I am hoping of course that the Eagles get their act together and make a game of it. I've said already that I feel the Redskins are an inferior team, but I don't have absolute confidence in the Eagles to win a game simply because I think they should. [ by MWDrexel on December 12, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 MW, I'm not really being too hard on you. I understand where you are coming from, and where you are coming from tends to be offset by reality. I didn't pick special games for Banks and special games for McNabb. I picked the last seven games. Hell, I could have picked the last eight and it would be the same. I could almost pick the last nine and it would be the same. Banks has been better through MUCH of the season than has McNabb, save a difficult start to the year in which he was kind of thrown into the lineup a little more quickly than he probably was ready for. But, hell, if you take McNabb's season as a whole, and take Banks over the last eight weeks, giving him some mild credit for being a little less than ready early, Banks has STILL been a better QB than McNabb given the whole of the year and McNabb's performance. But, that is an unfair comparison, because you can't judge one player against another using two different starting points. Nor can you compare Banks to McNabb using Banks first playing time, as he was not close to ready for the lineup. Eight weeks is a long time. In fact, the part that should disturb you is visible in the season's stats. McNabb, who no one questions as a fine player and great leader, started the season off on fire. Passer ratings of 90, 106, 105 and 103 started his year. Nine touchdowns and two interceptions marked his start. McNabb hit on 63 percent of his passes in the first quarter of the season. The man was a beast. On the way to MVP after a great season as a second-year player. So, where Banks has his seasonal stats diminished by a poor start, mitigated by the fact that he didn't know the plays, yet has proved more and more able as the year has worn on, McNabb started with superior numbers and has seen his play diminish greatly. He's fallen off and there are no mitigating factors, except the most damaging one. Teams adjusted to McNabb and started seeing what he could, and couldn't do, and forced him to do that which he could not do. At the very same time Banks has seen his play improve, McNabb has seen a dramatic and problematic drop off. You have to allow yourself to see reality for what it is to be credible. I'm not saying you've predicted any score for the Eagles. I also have not predicted any score for the Redskins. I'm just matching your understated, voice of reason arguments with my own, using the same stats you use. And it tells you a lot can be understood if you'll just understand it. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWDrexel Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 Your reality blatantly ignores some factors. One being that if the NFL hasn't figured out McNabb after last season's performance (in which he had no starting NFL RB or WRs), then it never will. "Figuring out McNabb" has not been a factor in his drop-off in play. Very simply, it has been anti-mobile QB style he has been forced to play since the BYE week. You'd be the first to take credit on the Skins' behalf for 'containing McNabb', but according to post-game accounts even the Redskins were surprised he didn't take the open running lanes he had. Andy Reid felt it was important for his development to remain in the pocket and not run. This has been the way of things for McNabb during your selective set of 7 games in which you wish to compare the two. He went from consistently good to peaks and valleys and being wholly uncomfortable resisting his urge to move outside the pocket. So if the end-all and be-all of your point is that Banks, during the period following the BYE week where McNabb has been forced into throwing from the pocket despite his instincts, has been a better NFL QB, you're right. McNabb has been less than efficient at it. The major factor here being that during these games Tony Banks has been put into situation where he is most likely to succeed (i.e. not screw up), and conversely McNabb as a sophomore starter has been coached into a style where he is most likely to fail (i.e. not win games). And for that I feel it is not a fair comparison of their overall season performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 13, 2001 Share Posted December 13, 2001 MW, reply within.... "Your reality blatantly ignores some factors." I see. Yet, you have no qualms ignoring factors when stating negative comments about the opposition. You just don't want factors overlooked when comments are made that are not glowing about your team. Is that how it works? "One being that if the NFL hasn't figured out McNabb after last season's performance (in which he had no starting NFL RB or WRs), then it never will. "Figuring out McNabb" has not been a factor in his drop-off in play." You hope this is so. You pray this is so. In fact, you don't know that this is so, and it may well be precisely so. Your rationalization for his struggles lack a factual basis. We are left to wonder why McNabb could start out so strongly only to be so below average. A lot of the same symptoms are seen with Culpepper. Teams have seen enough of the player to adjust and force the player to do something else to win. McNabb has won, he's just not looked good doing it. He'll need to adapt his game to account for the changes he's seen. If he can't, well, let's just say you better pray you do win the division this year . "Very simply, it has been anti-mobile QB style he has been forced to play since the BYE week." Interesting thought. It would be nice if it were true. McNabb, prior to your bye week, had 22 carries for 107 yards. Your team has played eight games since. In those eight, McNabb has rushed 40 times for 276 yards. Averaged out, that means in each four game stretch, McNabb has had 20 carries for 138 yards. In fact, he's been MORE effective as a runner since the bye week, as displayed here. Further, in the first four games, McNabb had four fumbles and the Eagles were 2-2. Since, he's had 1 fumble and the Eagles are 6-2. So, if his play has been altered in the slightest, it would appear it has been altered for the better as he's made fewer mistakes and your team has won more efficiently. You'll have to try another path to make a point, as your initial try was blocked by the pesky nature of factual information. "You'd be the first to take credit on the Skins' behalf for 'containing McNabb', but according to post-game accounts even the Redskins were surprised he didn't take the open running lanes he had." I've heard the speculation that McNabb is being turned into more of a pocket passer this year. I don't know that I disagree that it is so. It just happens to be so for the whole year, starting on day one, and not just for a week or two. And, while you seem to be against such quarterback play, I'll let you in on a secret. Pocket passers win Super Bowls. Randall Cunninghams do not. "Andy Reid felt it was important for his development to remain in the pocket and not run." Reid probably is aware of the success pocket passers enjoy. Might be a better coach than I thought. "This has been the way of things for McNabb during your selective set of 7 games in which you wish to compare the two." Biting commentary and very devestating to my argument, if only it were true. As it is false, my argument remains solid, and yours reaching. But don't just take the numbers I've already presented to refute your point and give up. Add to those facts the additional information that in the first four games, McNabb was sacked 14 times. While I've already proven to you that his carries and yardage have improved since the time you selected and his mistakes have diminished, I also find it funny that this suddenly immobile pocket passer, forced to stand still and deliver the ball, has JUST been sacked 18 times the rest of the year, when that mobile, dynamic, dancing, untouchable player who has been taken away by Reid was 14 times in four fewer games. Yes, weigh all of that when you try a different angle as all of it harms your point, and worse, sends it off into the ether as mindless, uninformed opinion. I think you'll agree with the assessment as supported by the facts. "He went from consistently good to peaks and valleys and being wholly uncomfortable resisting his urge to move outside the pocket." I see. And when he wasn't resisting this urge, he was being sacked at a higher rate, was turning over the ball at an alarming frequency with fumbles, and was motoring for fewer yards than when he was chained to the pocket. Actually, when put that way, I don't see, and as that way is the way it is, I'm not certain you'll still see it the same. "So if the end-all and be-all of your point is that Banks, during the period following the BYE week where McNabb has been forced into throwing from the pocket despite his instincts, has been a better NFL QB, you're right." That wasn't my point at all. It was my conclusion, and, yes, I know I was correct . Now that you have more data to process in formulating your thoughts, perhaps you'll have a new and better explanation as to the struggles of McNabb. "McNabb has been less than efficient at it. The major factor here being that during these games Tony Banks has been put into situation where he is most likely to succeed (i.e. not screw up), and conversely McNabb as a sophomore starter has been coached into a style where he is most likely to fail (i.e. not win games). And for that I feel it is not a fair comparison of their overall season performance." Again, during the time frame you seemingly approved of the play of McNabb and Reid's allowance for him to play that way, McNabb's Eagles were 2-2. Since the time has come about that he's been chained down to a spot in the pocket, unallowed to create and forced to stand still, your team has been 6-2. In fact, perhaps Reid has put McNabb and your team in position where he and the Eagles are likely to succeed, not fail, and given the facts of your record and team production, you'll have a hard time stating anything contrary. Trust me, it's very fair to take seven and eight game stretches and compare players. I think you'll see that once you realize how fatally damaged your entire premise is. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyskinsfan Posted December 13, 2001 Share Posted December 13, 2001 Art you just showed why Quincy Carter was so deceptive. Many thought it would be bombs away, constantly, instead he was short, short, short passing, then, when things got desperate did he uncork one or two. Banks is in the scheme of things with Marty's overall picture, which at the end of the season shows up quite well in the stat department on offense, defense and special teams. Marty's forte is focus and participation. Initiative and review. agression and control. That makes for some good production. Art that is a very good, no excellent graphic illustration, in the tale of the tape. MWDrexel though you make the point for ALL the games as of now, it wouldn't make sense to include Jeff George's debut as the starting QB, then the transition period. Otherwise, look at Banks toe to toe with his WHOLE career so far vs. McNabb and Banks has some numbers that are above McNabb. It is the most important stretch for the Skins, in the 7 game period, but also IT IS SIGNIFCANT that during that same time, McNabb has shown something that can be compared tangibly, with all due respect to the players. One is more of a runner and another is more of a pocket passer, yet the runner has been given billing for his "overall" game, but the world is still waiting, like the "downplayed (even by me ) pocket passer's tenures, yet I see neither above the other. Sort of like how Dallas made the case for Quincy Carter, only because it's Banks. I really think a Kent Graham would have negated the "passing" argument with Dallas, had he started, but that's just my opinion. It's all academic now, but, the duel between McNabb and the Eagles vs. Banks and the Skins continues. [ by indyskinsfan on December 13, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.