Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: RedskinsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Poll: Redskins' MVP on special teams

By Washington Post sports editors

After eight games, The Post's Rick Maese says the Redskins' most valuable player on special teams is Brandon Banks. Do you agree? Vote in the poll below:

By Washington Post sports editors  | November 5, 2010; 12:31 PM ET
Categories:  Brandon Banks, Polls, Special teams  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Redskins at the bye week: special teams
Next: Brandon Banks underwent surgery during bye

Comments

B A M !

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | November 5, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Banks is fantastic this year and this early in his career but calling him the MVP is straight retarded.

There have been substantially more impressive ST plays by the unit as a whole (LoZo and Sellers especially) providing big, tone-setting hits while simultaneously contributing to the field position game and our defense respectively.

If anyone is a ST MVP it's LoZo 100 out of 100 times.

I say that while also being more than thrilled with/for Brandon "take it to the" Banks!

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | November 5, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Washington Post sports editors.

MVP of the Special Teams

A. Banks
B. Gano
C. Lo-A
D. Sellers
E. Wilson
F. Doughty

I'll go with Banks followed by Lo-A then Sellers.

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 4, 2010 9:30 PM

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 5, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

I think we all know this question is right up my alley.

Kill Pelosi...she's halfway there anyway.

F Palin...I'm already used to uttering that phrase, she's a totally bangable MILF, and she looks like she knows her way around a cock.

Mary Clinton...she's shown she can turn the other cheek for cheating, plus she's probably the richest of the 3.

Child's play, Diesel. Child's play, my man...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 5, 2010 12:31 PM

For some reason I thought you would circumvent the rules and try to F and M Pelosi.

There could only be on answer here and you and Flound are right.

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 5, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

BTW, shouldn't Williams go first? I mean, I am with you that Galloway should be gone, but Galloway is just pathetic and Williams is pathetic minus.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 5, 2010 12:54 PM

Halfway through the season, Galloway & Williams have combined for 5 more catches (receptions) than DHall (INTs).

Also, DHall has scored exactly 1 TD less than Moss, Armstrong, Galloway, Williams & Fred Davis combined... halfway through the season.

Posted by: Alan4 | November 5, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

BTW, shouldn't Williams go first? I mean, I am with you that Galloway should be gone, but Galloway is just pathetic and Williams is pathetic minus.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 5, 2010 12:54 PM

Halfway through the season, Galloway & Williams have combined for 5 more catches (receptions) than DHall (INTs).

Also, DHall has scored exactly 1 TD less than Moss, Armstrong, Galloway, Williams & Fred Davis combined... halfway through the season.

Posted by: Alan4 | November 5, 2010 1:16 PM
------------------------------------------
Fred Davis is probably the biggest disappointment of the guys you just mentioned. I wasn't expecting much from Williams or Galloway, but Davis looked pretty good at the end of last season and I was expecting that to just carry over into this season. Granted, they really haven't called his number that much, but he hasn't made the most of his opportunities, either. Two guys the team should lean on more in the second half are Davis and Sellers. Sellers, to my surprise, has turned into a pretty good receiver out of the backfield and Davis is athletic enough to be used as a wide receiver in some situations. There's nothing wrong with getting the ball in the hands of the big guys in space.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 5, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I'm going with Keith Griffin, followed closely by Kenny Jenkins...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | November 5, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Mary Clinton...she's shown she can turn the other cheek for cheating, plus she's probably the richest of the 3.

Child's play, Diesel. Child's play, my man...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 5, 2010 12:31 PM

Pelosi and the unfortunate, castrated flying monkey she's married to are worth $60 million. I don't think the Clintons can sell enough crappy books and self-aggrandizing speeches to ever move on up to that neighborhood.

Posted by: MColeman51 | November 5, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

No one beeped!

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | November 5, 2010 12:57 PM

Sorry NP...I was at lunch...or I would have beeped.

I would vote for Banks if I could. Maybe even for Team MVP if he played all 8 games so far. The kid could easily have 6 to 8 scores by now if he started from day one.

Posted by: PlayAction | November 5, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

changing that to Otis Wonsley....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | November 5, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

RI is really putting in the extra time during the bye week. They must be exhausted from all that insider investigative research and writing for the first 8 games of the season.

U deserve the break J Reid.

Posted by: Devo2 | November 5, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | November 5, 2010 12:57 PM

Sorry NP...I was at lunch...or I would have beeped.

Posted by: PlayAction | November 5, 2010 1:47 PM

Whoops...I mean PF.

Posted by: PlayAction | November 5, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

The rationale was good, but this prediction has been way off:

From Rick Maese, July 27:

Prediction: One of Mike Shanahan's best attributes as a head coach is that he's consistently adapted to his personnel, and it's a safe guess that he doesn't view two good pass-catching tight ends as a burden. In fact, look for him and offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan to use their tight ends in ways that no teams have even attempted before.

There's a couple of reasons to anticipate this. First, most teams don't carry a pair of tight ends with such similar skill sets. But perhaps more pertinent is the Redskins' lack of depth at the wide receiver position. With only Santana Moss as a consistent, proven
threat, the offense will likely rely more on tight ends coming off play-action or bootlegs than it has in years past. Plus, quarterback Donovan McNabb has had great success targeting tight ends in the past, and for whatever criticisms he takes for his accuracy, McNabb has never struggled to find an open tight end.

Posted by: Alan4 | November 5, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

At the 1/2 way point, went with Lo as the teams MVP. He's been in all the games and plays on most of the teams. Unless the fumbles return, it will be Banks by the time the season is done.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | November 5, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Plus, quarterback Donovan McNabb has had great success targeting tight ends in the past, and for whatever criticisms he takes for his accuracy, McNabb has never struggled to find an open tight end.

Posted by: Alan4 | November 5, 2010 2:02 PM

Well this part is accurate as far as Cooley goes...always fun stuff pulling peeps past predictions haha

Posted by: PlayAction | November 5, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Plus, quarterback Donovan McNabb has had great success targeting tight ends in the past, and for whatever criticisms he takes for his accuracy, McNabb has never struggled to find an open tight end.

Posted by: Alan4 | November 5, 2010 2:02 PM

Well this part is accurate as far as Cooley goes...always fun stuff pulling peeps past predictions haha

Posted by: PlayAction | November 5, 2010 2:10 PM
------------------------------------------
Well, we're only halfway through the season so maybe they will put more focus on tightends in the second half. They've really taken a lot of deep shots which is surprising with the lack of talent at wide receiver and maybe waiting for a guy to get open deep has contributed to more than a few sacks. I don't think it would be a bad thing if they kind of reeled things in a little and went to more of a ball control passing attack, dumping the ball off to the tightends and backs a little more often.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 5, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Pathetic Bye Week coverage.

Online Media Polls are the refuge of the Lazy Journalist (Reid)

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | November 5, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Mary Clinton...she's shown she can turn the other cheek for cheating, plus she's probably the richest of the 3.

Child's play, Diesel. Child's play, my man...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 5, 2010 12:31 PM

I've been out of circulation. Who is Mary Clinton?

Posted by: frediefritz | November 5, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I don't think it would be a bad thing if they kind of reeled things in a little and went to more of a ball control passing attack, dumping the ball off to the tightends and backs a little more often.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 5, 2010 2:17 PM

I LOVE the skins finally taking shots downfield...but the bombs away on third and long when we REALLY REALLY REALLY need a first down is starting to get to me...pick your spots fellas!

Posted by: PlayAction | November 5, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

I don't think it would be a bad thing if they kind of reeled things in a little and went to more of a ball control passing attack, dumping the ball off to the tightends and backs a little more often.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 5, 2010 2:17 PM

I agree given the current results, but this sounds a lot like the old "check down" offense that fans rebelled against last year. Unfortunately, that's what a bad O-line buys you.

How much patience will Snyder have with an offense that's purposely schemed to resemble last year's offense? He's paying big bucks for more fireworks.

Posted by: Alan4 | November 5, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I've been out of circulation. Who is Mary Clinton?

Posted by: frediefritz | November 5, 2010 2:22 PM

Best I can tell is she played field hockey for the New Zealand Olympic Team.

Posted by: PlayAction | November 5, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I don't think it would be a bad thing if they kind of reeled things in a little and went to more of a ball control passing attack, dumping the ball off to the tightends and backs a little more often.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 5, 2010 2:17 PM

I agree given the current results, but this sounds a lot like the old "check down" offense that fans rebelled against last year. Unfortunately, that's what a bad O-line buys you.

How much patience will Snyder have with an offense that's purposely schemed to resemble last year's offense? He's paying big bucks for more fireworks.

Posted by: Alan4 | November 5, 2010 2:25 PM
------------------------------------------
Hey, if it works, use it. It might help the defense a little more if they spend less time on the field. To make it work, guys have to catch the ball when it is thrown to them - if it's thrown TO them. Fred Davis can't decide to drop every other one.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 5, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

even I voted for Banks

Posted by: pabrian2003 | November 5, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Banks looks to be legit, he's got to be the special teams MVP

Posted by: coparker5 | November 5, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

It might help the defense a little more if they spend less time on the field.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 5, 2010 2:32 PM

Wait...I thought yesterday we all agreed that we wanted the defense and special teams on the field the whole game...and scrap the offense. I'm confused.

Posted by: PlayAction | November 5, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

fred davis seems to be suffering from devin thomas disease... or... shanny does not realize that fred davis is the 3rd best receiver on the roster and does not know what to do w/ 2 very good te's on the roster!!!

Posted by: jimmy_the_crickett | November 5, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

fred davis seems to be suffering from devin thomas disease... or... shanny does not realize that fred davis is the 3rd best receiver on the roster and does not know what to do w/ 2 very good te's on the roster!!!

Posted by: jimmy_the_crickett | November 5, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

fred davis seems to be suffering from devin thomas disease... or... shanny does not realize that fred davis is the 3rd best receiver on the roster and does not know what to do w/ 2 very good te's on the roster!!!

Posted by: jimmy_the_crickett | November 5, 2010 2:59 PM

I was among the most skeptical about having Davis + Cooley on the field a lot together. But even I expected more of that than we've seen.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | November 5, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

fred davis seems to be suffering from devin thomas disease... or... shanny does not realize that fred davis is the 3rd best receiver on the roster and does not know what to do w/ 2 very good te's on the roster!!!

Posted by: jimmy_the_crickett | November 5, 2010 2:59 PM

Fred Davis suffers from not being able to catch. I've seen him drop at least three balls that him him right in the hands. 2 last game alone for 2 pt. conversions.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | November 5, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Banks looks to be legit, he's got to be the special teams MVP

Posted by: coparker5 | November 5, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I also think they should consider him in some offensive packages. Hey, it can't hurt considering the way our offense has been performing. Hit him with a few hitches to keep the defense honest, we need a spark!

Posted by: joeboggs | November 5, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

It might help the defense a little more if they spend less time on the field.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 5, 2010 2:32 PM

Wait...I thought yesterday we all agreed that we wanted the defense and special teams on the field the whole game...and scrap the offense. I'm confused.

Posted by: PlayAction | November 5, 2010 2:38 PM
-----------------------------------------
Yeah, right. We don't need no stinkin' offense.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 5, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

One vote for the "hittin stick" as special teams MVP.

Posted by: Vic1 | November 5, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I think we all know this question is right up my alley.

Kill Pelosi...she's halfway there anyway.

F Palin...I'm already used to uttering that phrase, she's a totally bangable MILF, and she looks like she knows her way around a cock.

Mary Clinton...she's shown she can turn the other cheek for cheating, plus she's probably the richest of the 3.

Child's play, Diesel. Child's play, my man...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 5, 2010 12:31 PM

For some reason I thought you would circumvent the rules and try to F and M Pelosi.

There could only be on answer here and you and Flound are right.

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 5, 2010 1:10 PM


You guys better hope the Secret Service--notorious for their lack of a sense of humor about death threats to public officials--aren't Redskins fans.

You are beyond scum.

Now go answer your doorbell--couple of guy in suits there for you--or are you too dumb to think the SS can't figure out who you really are?

And screw this blog for allowing this crap to be posted. And stay posted.

I'm out.

Posted by: TheCork | November 5, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

scamp, those 2 throws were on Mcnabb...1st one needed not be thrown at 104mph from 5 feet away, 2nd one wasn't accurate at all, davis was going to the right, and the throw was to the left/behind him....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | November 5, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Quit your cryin' Libby Cork. Just cuz you got your socialist ass handed to you doesn't mean you need to come up here and air your sandy vag out. What a little b!tch.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | November 5, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

scamp, those 'drops' were more about the throws than the person catching them....

1st one was thrown way, way too hard...

2nd one was thrown behind davis...

accurate throws gets a different result...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | November 5, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Cork you are a Dork. Do you really think the feds should show up at everybody's door who exercises there freedom of speech in a hypothetical situation. You are whats wrong with this country, move to China or something.

Posted by: augustiswest | November 5, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

You guys better hope the Secret Service--notorious for their lack of a sense of humor about death threats to public officials--aren't Redskins fans.

You are beyond scum.

Now go answer your doorbell--couple of guy in suits there for you--or are you too dumb to think the SS can't figure out who you really are?

And screw this blog for allowing this crap to be posted. And stay posted.

I'm out.

Posted by: TheCork | November 5, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

and the wah-wah-wah police r after u! what a cry baby

Posted by: pabrian2003 | November 5, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Cork you are a Dork. Do you really think the feds should show up at everybody's door who exercises there freedom of speech in a hypothetical situation. You are whats wrong with this country, move to China or something.

Posted by: augustiswest | November 5, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse


scamp, those 2 throws were on Mcnabb...1st one needed not be thrown at 104mph from 5 feet away, 2nd one wasn't accurate at all, davis was going to the right, and the throw was to the left/behind him....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | November 5, 2010 3:59 PM |

scamp, those 'drops' were more about the throws than the person catching them....

1st one was thrown way, way too hard...

2nd one was thrown behind davis...

accurate throws gets a different result...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | November 5, 2010 3:59 PM |


the first double double post in RI history.
lightning fast

Posted by: hessone | November 5, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Cork you are a Dork. Do you really think the feds should show up at everybody's door who exercises there freedom of speech in a hypothetical situation. You are whats wrong with this country, move to China or something.

Posted by: augustiswest | November 5, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Cork. Do you really think the feds should show up at everybody's door who exercises there freedom of speech in a hypothetical situation. You are whats wrong with this country, move to China or something.

Posted by: augustiswest | November 5, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

You are beyond scum.

Now go answer your doorbell--couple of guy in suits there for you--or are you too dumb to think the SS can't figure out who you really are?

And screw this blog for allowing this crap to be posted. And stay posted.

I'm out.

Posted by: TheCork | November 5, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Loosen your tin foil hay and Lighten up Corky baby..

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 5, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Okay I'm a dork too. Sorry for all the identical posts.

Posted by: augustiswest | November 5, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

You are beyond scum.

Now go answer your doorbell--couple of guy in suits there for you--or are you too dumb to think the SS can't figure out who you really are?

And screw this blog for allowing this crap to be posted. And stay posted.

I'm out.

Posted by: TheCork | November 5, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Loosen your tin foil hat and Lighten up Corky baby.

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 5, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

augustiswest with the rare 4-bagger

Posted by: iH8dallas | November 5, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Cork,

I hope you were kidding or you earn idiot poster of the year award.

Posted by: Flounder21 | November 5, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Cork,

I hope you were kidding or you earn idiot poster of the year award.

Posted by: Flounder21 | November 5, 2010 4:46 PM

That would be his 4th consecutive year walking away with the title.

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 5, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Cork,

I hope you were kidding or you earn idiot poster of the year award.

Posted by: Flounder21 | November 5, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Okay, I'm a dork too. Sorry for all the identical posts.

Posted by: augustiswest | November 5, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Best games this bye-weekend:

a. Colts @ Iggles
b. KC Chiefs @ Rayduhs


Both should be intersting! (But they're at the same time)

Posted by: Alan4 | November 5, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Most of us in this area will get the Eagles game.

Posted by: Flounder21 | November 5, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

You are beyond scum.

Now go answer your doorbell--couple of guy in suits there for you--or are you too dumb to think the SS can't figure out who you really are?

And screw this blog for allowing this crap to be posted. And stay posted.

I'm out.

Posted by: TheCork | November 5, 2010 3:37 PM


Seems to me you missed the entire premise of the post. And I'm too tired and you're too lame for me to take the next 3 paragraphs to explain it to you. So go soak your dentures and come back once you've had your afternoon nap...you'll feel better about yourself, gramps...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 5, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Lighten up cork. It's a stupid joke.
Why the politics scamp? Why always?
Bean, you've got a heart the size of Boston for these non-catching 2nd round busts of Vinny's. Why?

Posted by: mack1 | November 5, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse


Lighten up cork. It's a stupid joke.
Why the politics scamp? Why always?
Bean, you've got a heart the size of Boston for these non-catching 2nd round busts of Vinny's. Why?

Posted by: mack1 | November 5, 2010 5:51 PM |

it's a vicious cycle mack

Posted by: hessone | November 5, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm out.

Posted by: TheCork | November 5, 2010 3:37 PM
------------------------------------------
And stay out!

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 5, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

scamp, those 2 throws were on Mcnabb...1st one needed not be thrown at 104mph from 5 feet away, 2nd one wasn't accurate at all, davis was going to the right, and the throw was to the left/behind him....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | November 5, 2010 3:59 PM

Aaaaaah, incorrect answer...the answer we were looking for is that he is a professional football player who was drafted for his pass catching abilities. If the ball hits you in your sjking hands than sjking catch it.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | November 5, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse


Lighten up cork. It's a stupid joke.
Why the politics scamp? Why always?
Bean, you've got a heart the size of Boston for these non-catching 2nd round busts of Vinny's. Why?

Posted by: mack1 | November 5, 2010 5:51 PM |

It's very simple really...at least with Cork. He's easily the most communist poster up here that never hesitates to take shots at Conservatives so I give it back. Notice he was only offended because someone made a joke about offing that retard Pelosi. If they would have said Palin he would have been cleaning their taint with his tongue.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | November 5, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse


Poll: Redskins' MVP on the practice squad


After eight games, The Post's Rick Maese says the Redskins' most valuable player on the practice squad is Terrence Austin. Do you agree? Vote in the poll below:


Terrence Austin
Selvish Capers
Erik Cook
James Davis
Rob Jackson
William Robinson
Anderson Russell
Ray Small


Posted by: hessone | November 5, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Notice he was only offended because someone made a joke about offing that retard Pelosi. If they would have said Palin he would have been cleaning their taint with his tongue.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | November 5, 2010 7:00 PM

A couple of days ago bw26 said he would "employ" Pelosi since she will be unemployed soon. I came up with a F, Marry, Kill...with Pelosi, Palin, and Clinton.

Given the rules you'd have to F Palin, Marry Clinton and Kill Pelosi. It's possible you could go in another direction, but I doubt it.

Cork is just an old curmudgeon that can't follow along.

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 5, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Banks is the sexy pick for MVP, but Alexander is what Teams is all about - the dirty, grinding work of running 100 mph and consistently breaking down the other team's return game. Not flashy, just hard working and hard hitting.

LAlexander for Teams MVP!

Posted by: hithere1 | November 5, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

If they would have said Palin he would have been cleaning their taint with his tongue.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | November 5, 2010 7:00 PM


Now how is this scenario not a far worse eyesore than my veiled reference to nailing Pelosi? Yuckums...

On an equally disturbing yet football related note, I heard a pretty Jake Plummer make some comments about Shanahan--said that Shanny basically is on an endless search for the next Elway and than anyone who doesn't measure up is totally expendable to him. Might explain why he soured so quickly on McNabb...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 5, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

I heard a pretty Jake Plummer make some comments about Shanahan--

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 5, 2010 7:32 PM

PRETTY sure you meant petty. But you did say you would like to give Pelosi a good rodgering.

To each is own bw26...

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 5, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Here's the link on the Plummer comments:

http://www.huliq.com/10061/mike-shanahans-treatment-mcnabb-explained-jake-snake-plummer

Key exerpt:

Here is his assessment of what makes Shanahan a tough guy to work for. "...it was never good enough for him." "...Shanahan wanted perfection and he wore a lot of us down there. I think Shanahan is still searching for John Elway. He coached a team to almost perfect so he wanted that again. He wanted that every time we went out there. It's just not realistic."

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 5, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Haha, Diesel...I did mean petty. Although it might've been a Freudian slip since I envy his beard so much...

There might be an ounce of truth to what Plummer's saying...it just loses credibility coming from a guy with an axe to grind against Shanahan.

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 5, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Here is his assessment of what makes Shanahan a tough guy to work for. "...it was never good enough for him." "...Shanahan wanted perfection and he wore a lot of us down there. I think Shanahan is still searching for John Elway. He coached a team to almost perfect so he wanted that again. He wanted that every time we went out there. It's just not realistic."

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 5, 2010 7:42 PM

Ohhhhh oh oh. That statement really shows why Jake Plummer could never make it in a league of rarified professionals. The successful ones demand perfection from themselves and are disappointed in themselves when they don't deliver it. Ask Ray Lewis, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, or Andre Johnson if their performances are ever good enough.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | November 5, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

There might be an ounce of truth to what Plummer's saying...it just loses credibility coming from a guy with an axe to grind against Shanahan.

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 5, 2010 7:48 PM

From wiki..

Plummer helped the Broncos compile a 13–3 record, making the Broncos the #2 team in the AFC (behind the Colts), earning the Broncos a first-round bye. The Broncos' first game was against the New England Patriots in the AFC Divisional Game at Invesco Field. Plummer's performance (15-26 for 197 yards, 1 touchdown, 1 interception) helped the Broncos to become the first team to defeat the Patriots in the past 11 postseason games. In the AFC Championship, Plummer and the Broncos were defeated 34–17 by the eventual Super Bowl champions, the Pittsburgh Steelers, with PLUMMER THE CAUSE OF THE FOUR DENVER TURNOVERS.

On November 27, 2006, after a lackluster performance throughout the first eleven games of the regular season, and directly following back to back losses to the San Diego Chargers and Kansas City Chiefs, Broncos head coach Mike Shanahan announced that Plummer would be replaced as starting quarterback by rookie Jay Cutler.

Bottomline: He was a talented guy that would rather have been more talented at something else. He didn't like football and QUIT at the age of 31. I don't put any stock in anything he has to say about Shanahan.

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 5, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

And stay out!

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 5, 2010 6:56 PM

Not Cork. Maybe this version of Cork, but the Old Cork (or younger Cork) used to be one of the best reads up here.

His greatest work was Skippy which he gave up after registration. His Skippy posts were amazingly clever and invariably hilarious and based on malapropisms -- the complete opposite of his Cork persona. No one knew it was Cork. Everyone guessed dcsween, nate, or Redcoat since they seemed to be the only ones clever enough to pull it off. He finally outed himself after registration and then gave it up.

The Old Cork was also jarringly aggressive -- like RedDMV, but without the vulgarity. He fought with everyone and was almost erudite with a thesaurus at hand to expand our vocabularies. His content was not much, but his style was a marvel. Now it seems like his heart is just not in it anymore.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 5, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Cork and I used to fight all the time, it was good fun.

Posted by: Flounder21 | November 5, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Cork has become the NY Met's version of Willie Mays. Except that even in his prime he was more like Mario Mendoza.

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 5, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

The Poll is defective! I just voted, and the results said Banks 71%, Alexander 25%, and each of the four other choices said 0%. That only adds up to 96%. Where is the missing 4%? If there is 4% missing and only 4 other choices, how can none of them not have at least 1%?

Posted by: kaasmaster | November 5, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

The Poll is defective! I just voted, and the results said Banks 71%, Alexander 25%, and each of the four other choices said 0%. That only adds up to 96%. Where is the missing 4%? If there is 4% missing and only 4 other choices, how can none of them not have at least 1%?

Posted by: kaasmaster |

Someone who is adding up poll numbers on a Friday night to see if the equal 100% ... someone with even less of a life than me ...

Posted by: zcezcest1 | November 5, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Someone who is adding up poll numbers on a Friday night to see if the equal 100% ... someone with even less of a life than me ...

Posted by: zcezcest1 | November 5, 2010 8:40 PM

I'm not sure about that. You're reading and commenting on the post of someone who adds up poll numbers. He may have more of a life. Ooops. I just slipped behind both of you.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 5, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Not having read any comments after 8:19pm today, let me add my co-signage to beep @8:05pm. Skippy was hilarious!!

Too bad corky had the metal plate removed. He has never been the same since.

Posted by: kerzon417 | November 5, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Skippy was hilarious!!

Too bad corky had the metal plate removed. He has never been the same since.

Posted by: kerzon417 | November 5, 2010 8:57 PM

I think that finding out Cork was Skippy was the second most amazing RI experience I had. #1 was the shabingus that Nate sponsored where we all got together for beer and got to see what everyone looked like. Except for me, of course. I was in disguise.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 5, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Someone who is adding up poll numbers on a Friday night to see if the equal 100% ... someone with even less of a life than me ...

Posted by: zcezcest1 | November 5, 2010 8:40 PM

I couldn't help myself. I just got done with being an election judge, and I guess they trained me too well. Besides, it was only two numbers to add up. Even that statistical analysis, fighter pilot guy that they keep letting write RI articles could do that.

Posted by: kaasmaster | November 5, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Even that statistical analysis, fighter pilot guy that they keep letting write RI articles could do that.

Posted by: kaasmaster | November 5, 2010 9:18 PM |

95% probability that he gets the right answer.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 5, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

I heard a pretty Jake Plummer make some comments about Shanahan--

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 5, 2010 7:32 PM

PRETTY sure you meant petty. But you did say you would like to give Pelosi a good rodgering.

To each is own bw26...

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 5, 2010 7:38 PM
==========================================
Ugh. There it is again. Brown has tried to back off those earlier statements, but it is pretty evident to me - and from the sounds of it, most of the RI bloggers - that Brownwood would like to make a Pelosi sandwich out of he, Pelosi and a few sofa cushions. I had no idea the guy was a necrophiliac. No idea.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 5, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

The benching was the best thing to happen to McNabb. Shanahan has essentially taken the heat off of how terrible McNabb has been and has put it on his shoulders...
\
Namath nails the McNabb situation

Posted by Mike Florio on November 5, 2010 9:52 PM ET

Despite an awkward on-air performance during his Hard Knocks visit to Jets training camp, Hall of Fame quarterback Joe Namath can still bring the heat.

Especially when we agree with what he's saying.

Broadway Joe thinks that Redskins coach Mike Shanahan benched quarterback Donovan McNabb on Sunday for one simple reason -- McNabb isn't getting it done.

"Here we are going into our seventh, eighth game, whatever, you're telling me your quarterback doesn't have a handle on the 2-minute offense yet, mentally?" Namath told Adam Schein during Sirius NFL Radio's The Broadway Blitz. "OK, I can't buy that. Secondly, the physical part of it, that's used as an excuse. I'll tell you what it is, Adam, they look at every snap of the season. Every snap, every play. They're not happy with the way McNabb's been playing. It's that simple but they have nowhere else to go at this point."

So what does Shanahan do with McNabb?

"I don't think he's the type quarterback at this stage that Shanahan wants to move forward with," Namath said. "He'd like someone that is a little more accurate passer as well as not carrying as many injuries from over the years, the extra baggage. You get beaten up over a period of time and McNabb today certainly doesn't move around as well as he used to and his accuracy hasn't improved as a passer."

Though Namath doesn't think McNabb will be benched, Namath thinks McNabb has a chance to improve his performance.

"I would think Donovan would analyze this situation and not settle with, 'Hey, this is the way I've been doing it. I'm gonna keep on doing it.' No, you've got to change [to] the way the coach wants it done, a guy that has been a winner, your head coach, your boss," Namath said. "You've got to do it his way or you can fight the rest of the season [and] be uncomfortable. I would think McNabb would take every bit of this and turn it into a major positive, turn around and just physically show us that he has some spring in his step. Show us that he is a vocal leader out there. Let us see some of this. . . . He's going to have a time to think this over with this bye week and then he's gonna have a chance to go back to work. I would see McNabb doing the right thing and going in there with the most enthusiasm he's had since maybe he can remember."

If it happens, it'll be a coup for Shanahan, who has opted for tough love over kid gloves. If it doesn't work, it's not as if McNabb was playing all that well, anyway.

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 5, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

Gee, that sounds amazingly similar to waht I've been saying. Not that we're necessarily right, but it is the most logical explanation.

RE Spec tm MVP - I gotta go Banks. LA is my D-MVP.

Posted by: DikShuttle | November 5, 2010 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: DikShuttle | November 5, 2010 11:49 PM

Did you catch my apology to you for misinterpreting your sfjk post?

My bad bro..

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 5, 2010 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Now it seems like his heart is just not in it anymore.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 5, 2010 8:05 PM

-----------

This blog is heartless, beep, largely because of jerks like you.

Posted by: Chia_Pet | November 6, 2010 12:45 AM | Report abuse

Indians scattered on Dawn's Highway bleeding. Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind...

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 6, 2010 1:05 AM | Report abuse

Indians scattered on Dawn's Highway bleeding. Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind...

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 6, 2010 1:05 AM

It's a little late in the evening to be quoting some Mad Man Morrison isn't it? On second thought, it's never too late for The Doors.

Posted by: scampbell1975 | November 6, 2010 1:31 AM | Report abuse

Scamp- you are one of a few I could drink a non-alcoholic beverage with. The others I would need mas tequila.

Hail to the f u c k i n g Redskins.

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 6, 2010 1:39 AM | Report abuse

Scamp- you are one of a few I could drink a non-alcoholic beverage with. The others I would need mas tequila.

Hail to the f u c k i n g Redskins.

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 6, 2010 1:39 AM |

Cheers to ya bro. HAIL!!!

Posted by: scampbell1975 | November 6, 2010 1:57 AM | Report abuse

Banks will have 2 more special teams TDs, McNabb will show up in the 2nd half, the interior line will keep us from the playoffs. 9-7. Something to build on for next year. Draft/sign some guards, please.

Signed,

Drunk Russ Grimm, Original Hog

Posted by: Notorious_LMG | November 6, 2010 4:00 AM | Report abuse

Scamp- you are one of a few I could drink a non-alcoholic beverage with. The others I would need mas tequila.

Hail to the f u c k i n g Redskins.

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 6, 2010 1:39 AM |

Cheers to ya bro. HAIL!!!

Posted by: scampbell1975 | November 6, 2010 1:57 AM | Report abuse

Double sunshines!

Posted by: iH8dallas | November 6, 2010 5:05 AM | Report abuse

From PFT:

Namath nails the McNabb situation
Posted by Mike Florio on November 5, 2010 9:52 PM ET
Despite an awkward on-air performance during his Hard Knocks visit to Jets training camp, Hall of Fame quarterback Joe Namath can still bring the heat.

Especially when we agree with what he's saying.

Broadway Joe thinks that Redskins coach Mike Shanahan benched quarterback Donovan McNabb on Sunday for one simple reason -- McNabb isn't getting it done.

"Here we are going into our seventh, eighth game, whatever, you're telling me your quarterback doesn't have a handle on the 2-minute offense yet, mentally?" Namath told Adam Schein during Sirius NFL Radio's The Broadway Blitz. "OK, I can't buy that. Secondly, the physical part of it, that's used as an excuse. I'll tell you what it is, Adam, they look at every snap of the season. Every snap, every play. They're not happy with the way McNabb's been playing. It's that simple but they have nowhere else to go at this point."

So what does Shanahan do with McNabb?

"I don't think he's the type quarterback at this stage that Shanahan wants to move forward with," Namath said. "He'd like someone that is a little more accurate passer as well as not carrying as many injuries from over the years, the extra baggage. You get beaten up over a period of time and McNabb today certainly doesn't move around as well as he used to and his accuracy hasn't improved as a passer."

Though Namath doesn't think McNabb will be benched, Namath thinks McNabb has a chance to improve his performance.

"I would think Donovan would analyze this situation and not settle with, 'Hey, this is the way I've been doing it. I'm gonna keep on doing it.' No, you've got to change [to] the way the coach wants it done, a guy that has been a winner, your head coach, your boss," Namath said. "You've got to do it his way or you can fight the rest of the season [and] be uncomfortable. I would think McNabb would take every bit of this and turn it into a major positive, turn around and just physically show us that he has some spring in his step. Show us that he is a vocal leader out there. Let us see some of this. . . . He's going to have a time to think this over with this bye week and then he's gonna have a chance to go back to work. I would see McNabb doing the right thing and going in there with the most enthusiasm he's had since maybe he can remember."

If it happens, it'll be a coup for Shanahan, who has opted for tough love over kid gloves. If it doesn't work, it's not as if McNabb was playing all that well, anyway.


Posted by: 1965skinsfan | November 6, 2010 6:43 AM | Report abuse

Brown has tried to back off those earlier statements, but it is pretty evident to me - and from the sounds of it, most of the RI bloggers - that Brownwood would like to make a Pelosi sandwich out of he, Pelosi and a few sofa cushions. I had no idea the guy was a necrophiliac. No idea.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 5, 2010 9:46 PM


I backed off the statement because I was joking...great use of a punchline I wouldn't be able to use otherwise. As much as I love MILFs, I DO have a cut off age...

I sure hope McNabb turns this whole controversy on its head by playing lights out against the Eagles. I'm anxious to the Redskins go back to being a damn good football team instead of a compelling soap opera...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 6, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Interesting stuff...hope it's wrong, but interesting nonetheless:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-fridayofferings110510

"The bottom line, however, is that this is a terrible fit. Shanahan’s offense is based on precision, detail and meticulous preparation; McNabb is a breezy, seat-of-the-pants playmaker who believes he can overcame any obstacle by dropping back and making something happen. Neither approach is necessarily wrong, but Shanahan has decided that McNabb’s way won’t work in his system, and the franchise will almost certainly move on at season’s end and find another quarterback."

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 6, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Interesting stuff...hope it's wrong, but interesting nonetheless:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-fridayofferings110510

"The bottom line, however, is that this is a terrible fit. Shanahan’s offense is based on precision, detail and meticulous preparation; McNabb is a breezy, seat-of-the-pants playmaker who believes he can overcame any obstacle by dropping back and making something happen. Neither approach is necessarily wrong, but Shanahan has decided that McNabb’s way won’t work in his system, and the franchise will almost certainly move on at season’s end and find another quarterback."

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 6, 2010 9:32 AM
-----------------------------------------
You know, Shanahan had to know what he was getting when he traded for McNabb. Heck, there are miles of tape that should show McNabb is a great improvisor, but his performance declines the more you try to put him in a box. My thought this morning after two cups of coffee in my Spiderman mug, is Shanahan should loosen the strings with McNabb. He should back off this mess with changing McNabb's mechanics and give him more plays where McNabb can free lance. McNabb might not be here next year, but Shanahan needs to play to win this year and that means changing the game plan to leverage McNabb's strengths.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 6, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Now it seems like his heart is just not in it anymore.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 5, 2010 8:05 PM
-----------
This blog is heartless, beep, largely because of jerks like you.

Posted by: Chia_Pet | November 6, 2010 12:45 AM
------------------------------------------
Gosh, Chiz, lighten up man. You sound like some jilted lover.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 6, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Good point, RSH...thing is, Shanahan will probably continue to do what he's doing and force McNabb to do things his way. He knows that it strengthens his "my way or the highway" rep in the locker room and if McNabb can't make it happen, he gets a higher draft pick to get the QB he wants. Unless the team REALLY tanks, Shanahan is gonna be here for awhile and he's got all the leverage here.

They've gotta be full belly laughing at us in Philly right now...makes me sick.

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 6, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

So where is this morning's mid-season progress report on the practice squad, followed by the poll on who is the practice squad MVP?

Posted by: kaasmaster | November 6, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

They've gotta be full belly laughing at us in Philly right now...makes me sick.

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 6, 2010 10:02 AM

The Skins are looking squarely in the face of Grossman being the #1 QB next year, with the likes of Alex Smith, Shaun Hill, Drew Stanton, Matt Moore as the #2. It's looking more likely than not that the trade for McNabb has set the Skins back at least 2 years.

Posted by: TWISI | November 6, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

It's looking more likely than not that the trade for McNabb has set the Skins back at least 2 years.

Posted by: TWISI | November 6, 2010 10:23 AM |

Can you explain your thinking? A second and a third does not equate to two years. Not even half a year.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 6, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

beep-beep I thinking more the par of two picks gone, with needs at starting qb, 4 olmen, nt, pass rushing olb, fs, cb. Too many holes on this team to fill without adding the need to address the most important position on next year's offseason. Once the starting qb is addressed then truly can the offense progress.

Posted by: TWISI | November 6, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

The Skins are looking squarely in the face of Grossman being the #1 QB next year, with the likes of Alex Smith, Shaun Hill, Drew Stanton, Matt Moore as the #2. It's looking more likely than not that the trade for McNabb has set the Skins back at least 2 years.

Posted by: TWISI | November 6, 2010 10:23 AM


Right...that's why I'm hoping there can be some kind of compromise. Giving up two picks for a one year rental is insane considering the holes we have to fill. That bounty could have helped us trade up to get Bradford...or load up on OL help in 2010 so we could get our QB in 2011. Shanahan's gonna be fighting an uphill battle to restore his credibility if he screws the pooch on this...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 6, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Right...that's why I'm hoping there can be some kind of compromise. Giving up two picks for a one year rental is insane considering the holes we have to fill. That bounty could have helped us trade up to get Bradford...or load up on OL help in 2010 so we could get our QB in 2011. Shanahan's gonna be fighting an uphill battle to restore his credibility if he screws the pooch on this...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 6, 2010 11:02 AM

First off, I doubt it's really two picks. The Redskins will franchise McNabb and trade him for something -- maybe a third.

Second, it's not about "compromise." It's about McNabb playing better.

Third, taking a risk and being wrong about a player is not the same thing as "screwing the pooch." Shanahan thought he could make McNabb into a QB who would work in his system. Maybe he can't. You roll the dice in this league and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. When the dice come up losers you haven't "screwed the pooch." You have bad luck.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 6, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

beep-beep I thinking more the par of two picks gone, with needs at starting qb, 4 olmen, nt, pass rushing olb, fs, cb. Too many holes on this team to fill without adding the need to address the most important position on next year's offseason. Once the starting qb is addressed then truly can the offense progress.

Posted by: TWISI | November 6, 2010 11:01 AM

All this means is that you will have to find two free agents next year to replace two draft picks. That sounds like a half-year setback, not a two-year setback. Replacing McNabb is a one-year setback unless you think that Campbell would have started and flourished under Shanahan.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 6, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

ahh, redskins can't f-up my sunday

hate football season

Posted by: BrooklynSkins | November 6, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

First off, I doubt it's really two picks. The Redskins will franchise McNabb and trade him for something -- maybe a third.

Second, it's not about "compromise." It's about McNabb playing better.

Third, taking a risk and being wrong about a player is not the same thing as "screwing the pooch." Shanahan thought he could make McNabb into a QB who would work in his system. Maybe he can't. You roll the dice in this league and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. When the dice come up losers you haven't "screwed the pooch." You have bad luck.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 6, 2010 11:10 AM


Beep, it's wildly speculative to say that "they'll franchise and trade McNabb". If he continues to put up mediocre numbers, you'd be lucky to get back the 4th round pick--if anything. Plus you have NO idea if the new CBA will still give teams the ability to use the franchise tag--and that's IF there's a new CBA at all by the time the Skins need to make that call. That's why the "trade McNabb" crowd are about as misguided as any up here--there's literally NO guarantee that's even an option.

To your second point, McNabb has no OL, no reliable WR not named Moss. Asking him to turn water into wine with only 8 games experience in this offense is pretty unfair. There are certainly ways he could be playing better and he definitely bears much of the responsiblity there, but Shanahan should be thanking his lucky stars he's got a playmaker back there keeping us in games instead of benching and bashing the guy.

To your third point, trading for a proven commodity that doesn't fit your system is the definition of "screwing the pooch". Drafting a guy that doesn't work out is "taking a risk and being wrong about a player". Especially when the same price we paid for McNabb could have been turned around and used to trade up for Sam Bradford. The mistake is exacerbated exponentially when you're talking about a team like the Skins that routinely shed picks for failed experiments...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 6, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

First off, I doubt it's really two picks. The Redskins will franchise McNabb and trade him for something -- maybe a third.

Second, it's not about "compromise." It's about McNabb playing better.

Third, taking a risk and being wrong about a player is not the same thing as "screwing the pooch." Shanahan thought he could make McNabb into a QB who would work in his system. Maybe he can't. You roll the dice in this league and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. When the dice come up losers you haven't "screwed the pooch." You have bad luck.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 6, 2010 11:10 AM


Beep, it's wildly speculative to say that "they'll franchise and trade McNabb". If he continues to put up mediocre numbers, you'd be lucky to get back the 4th round pick--if anything. Plus you have NO idea if the new CBA will still give teams the ability to use the franchise tag--and that's IF there's a new CBA at all by the time the Skins need to make that call. That's why the "trade McNabb" crowd are about as misguided as any up here--there's literally NO guarantee that's even an option.

To your second point, McNabb has no OL, no reliable WR not named Moss. Asking him to turn water into wine with only 8 games experience in this offense is pretty unfair. There are certainly ways he could be playing better and he definitely bears much of the responsiblity there, but Shanahan should be thanking his lucky stars he's got a playmaker back there keeping us in games instead of benching and bashing the guy.

To your third point, trading for a proven commodity that doesn't fit your system is the definition of "screwing the pooch". Drafting a guy that doesn't work out is "taking a risk and being wrong about a player". Especially when the same price we paid for McNabb could have been turned around and used to trade up for Sam Bradford. The mistake is exacerbated exponentially when you're talking about a team like the Skins that routinely shed picks for failed experiments...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 6, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

If McNabb continues to struggle for the rest of the season to the point that there is no reason to proceed with him, here are my thoughts for next year. These go against my normal thinking, but due to a high chance of a lockout, next year will probably not be normal anyway.

First, trade Fat Albert for whatever pick we can get for him. Since the daft is expected to be deep with quality QB's, use the 1st round pick to get our QB of the future. Use whatever remaining picks we have to fill other holes as best as we can.

Use Grossman to help mentor the new QB. I'm sure the Shanahans would prefer this because Rex already "knows the system" and he is "their guy". I could live with having Rex starting behind a O-line that is still a work in progress. It may be ugly, but it least it wouldn't be for a full 16 games of ugly.

Then use the 2012 draft to comlete the rebuilding of the O-line and to fill any remaining holes. I believe that this plan would give us the chance for a winning team in 2012 and long beyond.

Posted by: kaasmaster | November 6, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Beep, it's wildly speculative to say that "they'll franchise and trade McNabb". If he continues to put up mediocre numbers, you'd be lucky to get back the 4th round pick--if anything. Plus you have NO idea if the new CBA will still give teams the ability to use the franchise tag--and that's IF there's a new CBA at all by the time the Skins need to make that call. That's why the "trade McNabb" crowd are about as misguided as any up here--there's literally NO guarantee that's even an option.

To your second point, McNabb has no OL, no reliable WR not named Moss. Asking him to turn water into wine with only 8 games experience in this offense is pretty unfair. There are certainly ways he could be playing better and he definitely bears much of the responsiblity there, but Shanahan should be thanking his lucky stars he's got a playmaker back there keeping us in games instead of benching and bashing the guy.

To your third point, trading for a proven commodity that doesn't fit your system is the definition of "screwing the pooch". Drafting a guy that doesn't work out is "taking a risk and being wrong about a player". Especially when the same price we paid for McNabb could have been turned around and used to trade up for Sam Bradford. The mistake is exacerbated exponentially when you're talking about a team like the Skins that routinely shed picks for failed experiments...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 6, 2010 11:28 AM

Wildly speculative? No guarantee? Then it's wildly speculative to say that McNabb won't turn it around in the next 8 games. And, can you tell me what player in the NFL comes with a guarantee?

Shanahan knows he has no line. That's not what he's ragging on him about. He's ragging on him about poor footwork, throwing to the wrong receivers. He knows what's in McNabb's control and what's not.

Agree to disagree on your "screwing the pooch." There's no guarantee on whether we can trade him, but there is a guarantee that he won't work in Shanahan's offense? We're doing exactly what you always want -- "kicking the tires."

Posted by: beep-beep | November 6, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

That sounds like a half-year setback, not a two-year setback. Replacing McNabb is a one-year setback unless you think that Campbell would have started and flourished under Shanahan.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 6, 2010 11:14 AM


Considering we could have used that 2nd round pick on some more OL help, and that Campbell has perfected the art of learning an offense on the fly (and playing fairly well in the process), it sounds like a 2 year setback to me. If you have to address needs in 2011 you could have addressed in 2010, you can surely do the math on that...

I get that you're working in the possibility of getting guys like Mankins and/or Vincent Jackson in free agency...I'm just saying that's presumptive if they have a choice of going somewhere with an established QB or coming here where there's more questions than answers. Remember--we're not in the business of overbidding for other people's stars anymore...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 6, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

I get that you're working in the possibility of getting guys like Mankins and/or Vincent Jackson in free agency...I'm just saying that's presumptive if they have a choice of going somewhere with an established QB or coming here where there's more questions than answers. Remember--we're not in the business of overbidding for other people's stars anymore...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 6, 2010 11:45 AM

And you're banking that the draft picks are sure-fire starters guaranteed. 2010 to 2011 still looks like one-year to me.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 6, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Wildly speculative? No guarantee? Then it's wildly speculative to say that McNabb won't turn it around in the next 8 games. And, can you tell me what player in the NFL comes with a guarantee?

Posted by: beep-beep | November 6, 2010 11:43 AM


We're in agreement there...I think McNabb can take this kick in the tail and turn it around for the better. I think he's too good not to. But in that instance, it's in our best interest to keep him around another 2-3 years at least. But right now there's more questions than answers so we'll see in the next 8 weeks how it all plays out...

And to answer your question, NO player comes with a guarantee...as evidenced by the majority of the Redskins' acquisitions over the last decade. Which is why most teams don't deal multiple picks for a guy over 30 when they barely have any draft picks to begin with...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 6, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

We're in agreement there...I think McNabb can take this kick in the tail and turn it around for the better. I think he's too good not to. But in that instance, it's in our best interest to keep him around another 2-3 years at least. But right now there's more questions than answers so we'll see in the next 8 weeks how it all plays out...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 6, 2010 11:55 AM

OKAY!! Agree to agree!! Now get out and enjoy that sunshine. I'll be there too once I finish editing this report that's on my other screen. Family wants me to earn money for a Christmas vacation in a warm place.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 6, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Double sunshines!

Posted by: iH8dallas | November 6, 2010 5:05 AM

5:05 am. That's a late night OR an early morning..

enjoy the day sunshine!

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 6, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

If you haven't read this already it is fcuking priceless: http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-taking-no-joy-in-cowboys-pathetic-collapse,18405/

Posted by: wireman65 | November 6, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Um, anybody that doesn't think Brandon Banks is the ST MVP should have a pencil jabbed straight into their ear canal.

As for everything I've missed the last 2 weeks:

- Shanahan made a huge mistake in benching McNabb, but it doesn't nearly warrant the reaction I've heard on talk radio shows. Sometimes I'm embarrassed to listen to other Redskins fans. People calling for Shanahan to be fired because McNabb is playing like Patrick Ramsey? Ugh...

- On to McNabb; god he has been awful since Houston. I thought it would be short funk, but he really does look washed up. I wouldn't touch his supposed contract extension with a 10-foot pole right now. Jason Campbell is outplaying him in Oakland with a worse o-line, WRs, TEs, defense, special teams, and supporting cast in general (McFadden notwithstanding, who is an absolute monster).

That said, I still believe he has it in him to turn it around. He's burned away his benefit of the doubt, now he has to go out and earn the trust we want to have in him (at least with me, speaking as a fan).

- The defense is looking fierce. DHall is playing with more confidence than I've ever seen him with before (and that's saying something). AH is more motivated, in better shape, and playing better than at any other point in his Redskins tenure. He looks like a $100 million asset out there. Orakpo is clearly turning into an elite force off the edge. He will be one of two cornerstones for this generation. And the other cornerstone has finally earned his draft status in Laron Landry. Absolutely phenomenal.

- I told you the fumbles were pennies compared to what Banks gives you in field position and big returns. He'll be a pro-bowler this year after another TD or two.

- The o-line is feast or famine. Some games they plow the road and give McNabb more than enough time to complete throws, other times they look like they're trying to match last year's pathetic unit. I'm hoping it's just a growing pain type of thing with all players being unfamiliar with each other. KS needs to do a better job of calling screens and misdirection in order to take pressure off the line when the defense is gearing up to attack all-out.

- I think we wasted a gift in not picking up Moss. One-year, incentive-laden deal (in that it's a contract year for him) when we have an awful receiving corp? I get the hatred for headaches given our history, but that almost seemed too good to pass up. My guess is Shanahan seriously considered it, but given his penchant for 100% effort players, Moss simply wouldn't have fit.

- One game at a time. We've got the Eagles next. Win that game and we're 5-4 overall, 5-2 in the conference, 3-0 in the division, and 2-0 against the Eagles (who will likely be fighting for a WC spot with us). That would be HUGE for us. No need to slit our metaphorical wrists on the season just yet.

Posted by: psps23 | November 6, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: wireman65 | November 6, 2010 1:42 PM

Great stuff! Anyone have 10Peterbilt or MrIrivin88's e-mail so we could forward the article to them?

Posted by: kaasmaster | November 6, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Great stuff! Anyone have 10Peterbilt or MrIrivin88's e-mail so we could forward the article to them?

Posted by: kaasmaster | November 6, 2010 2:06 PM

That would be Rachel. She's got their e/m, cel phone numbers, street addresses. She's not posting today because she's taking them out to brunch at the Tabard Inn. They're huddled together at a table by the fireplace.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 6, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

That would be Rachel...

Posted by: beep-beep | November 6, 2010 2:11 PM

I often get the impression that Rachel IS 10Peterbilt and/or MrIrvin88. She always seems to be right there to insult them the minute they appear.

Kinda the way Chia_pet is always right there with a denial whenever someone calls out one of his sock puppets for being him/her.

Posted by: kaasmaster | November 6, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: psps23 | November 6, 2010 2:04 PM

Agree with everything except this, "He looks like a $100 million asset out there."

No way he could ever live up to that contract and although he's playing well he's relegated to the nickel and goal line packages. And once again that's on him, not Shanahan.

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 6, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Agree with everything except this, "He looks like a $100 million asset out there."

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 6, 2010 2:24 PM

Almost ditto. Moss has nothing to offer us but problems. Shanahan's trying to build a team -- don't need this guy breezing through for eight games.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 6, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I think we stomp the Eagles next weekend.

5-4 5-2 NFC 3-0 NFC East

We've been in worse shape and made the playoffs.

10-6 Wildcard Book It

Posted by: whess8 | November 6, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

RE: Bombs away on 3rd down.

I'm thinking SHANNY THE YOUNGER thinks ARMSTRONG and MOSS are only good deep, while COOLEY's hurt and DAVIS can't catch a cold, leaving GALLOWAY over the middle as the only short option other than who? out of the backfield. Where's CP when you need him?

Posted by: glawrence007 | November 6, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

psps23, you're usually one of the more level-headed posters up here, but I gotta challenge you on this:

"Jason Campbell is outplaying (McNabb) in Oakland with a worse o-line, WRs, TEs, defense, special teams, and supporting cast in general (McFadden notwithstanding, who is an absolute monster)."

First of all, if you think JC has an inferior supporting cast, think again. They've put up a shade under 100 points the last two weeks. I don't care who they're playing either--the Skins aren't scoring 100 points unless you give them 4 games to do it. It's obvious that the Raiders O-line plays better as a unit then ours does, their RBs are better, and I'm pretty sure they have at least 3 WRs that could start ahead of AA and be better immediately. And that's not even mentioning Zach Miller (who I'd call a push if we're comparing him to Cooley right now).

What's being proven right now is that 1) JC can actually play if you give him some help and 2) McNabb can win you games without putting up gaudy numbers. It's about making plays...which is why JC had decent QB ratings the last two years and lost--and why guys like McNabb, VY, and Vick can win without being fantasy football studs.

Hopefully, McNabb's numbers improve from here on out so we don't have to keep testing these kind of theories...

Posted by: brownwood26 | November 6, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

psps23 | November 6, 2010 2:04 PM
brownwood26 | November 6, 2010 4:31 PM

Oaklands line is clearly more cohesive, even if probably not a lot more talented,and there running backs are pretty good as a combination (McFadden, Bush, Reece) but I got to agree with psps regarding the receiving corps.

Zach Miller is a good pass catching TE with a lot of upside and the backs are good out of the backfield, but their wide-outs are rancid. Darrius Heyward-Bey has a lot of athletic ability but though improved is still responsible for more dropped balls than puberty.

Posted by: craig81 | November 6, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Except for me, of course. I was in disguise.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 5, 2010 9:04 PM |

Too bad your posts aren't in disguise. That way we wouldn't recognize them for the crap that they are.

Posted by: BlackBagOps | November 6, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Darrius Heyward-Bey has a lot of athletic ability but though improved is still responsible for more dropped balls than puberty.

Posted by: craig81 | November 6, 2010 5:53 PM |

Good wan dude.

Posted by: BlackBagOps | November 6, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

The NT for LSU is a beast someone I would look at in the draft.

Posted by: Flounder21 | November 6, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Good wan dude.

Posted by: BlackBagOps | November 6, 2010 6:44 PM

I can see you're lost. This is a football blog. You're looking for the baby talk blog, aren't you? Click here:

http://boosbabytalk.blogspot.com/

No need to say thanks. My pleasure is helping lost pre-teens like you. Have a good day, young sprout! ;)

Posted by: beep-beep | November 6, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

I think we stomp the Eagles next weekend.

5-4 5-2 NFC 3-0 NFC East

We've been in worse shape and made the playoffs.

10-6 Wildcard Book It

Posted by: whess8 | November 6, 2010 3:06 PM

Do you still hate dallas, sunshine?

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 6, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

The talent Campbell has in Oak is probably similar to what is here for McNabb.

By position, the TEs are both very good. We've got better WRs by a good bit -- Santana is easily the best. They've got better RBs, though both starters have missed games. Our OL, as hard as it is to believe, is probably more talented than Oak's, but not by much.

Oak does play a softer schedule.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | November 6, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse


Oak does play a softer schedule.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | November 6, 2010 7:35 PM |

not sure that softer schedules exist in the nfl anymore

Posted by: hessone | November 6, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

5 hours and 30 minutes without a comment.

RIP RI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHFK1yKfiGo

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 7, 2010 1:37 AM | Report abuse

anyone else watching the WSOP main event final table on ESPN3? Pretty exciting, even without the pocket cams. Helmuth is in the booth right now, always entertaining.

HTTR. Get rested and ready for Philly men.

Posted by: Notorious_LMG | November 7, 2010 2:34 AM | Report abuse

The NT for LSU is a beast someone I would look at in the draft.

Posted by: Flounder21 | November 6, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

co-sign. was thinking the same thing today. manchild, might be worth a first round pick...you know where he's projected?

wishlist for 2011 draft: NT, OG, C, WR

Posted by: Notorious_LMG | November 7, 2010 2:37 AM | Report abuse

So, no Redskins on TV this Sunday, but we will get to see the Cobwoys against the Packers and with someone other than Troy Aikman in the booth. Packers favored by 7-1/2, so there will probably be lots of pained expressions on Jerry Jones face and confused expressions on Wade's face. Now that's something to look forward to.

And, oh yeah, Mighty Duke Blue Devils humble the Virginia Woohoos in Durham, NC.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 7, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

For those of you Campbell backers, I've just got one thing to ask of you: let's talk tomorrow after the Raiders play the Chiefs. Remember, Campbell had his good games with the Redskins, too. He just couldn't string together enough good performances to be considered high on anyone's list. You have to look no farther than Cable agonizing over playing Campbell or Gradkowksi to realize even the coaching staff for the Raiders realizes that the last two games have been an anomaly for Campbell.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 7, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

For those of you Campbell backers, I've just got one thing to ask of you: let's talk tomorrow after the Raiders play the Chiefs.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 7, 2010 8:55 AM

Let's talk? Let's not.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 7, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse


For those of you Campbell backers, I've just got one thing to ask of you: let's talk tomorrow after the Raiders play the Chiefs.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 7, 2010 8:55 AM

Let's talk? Let's not.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 7, 2010 9:04 AM
------------------------------------------
I realize Campbell is a dead subject, but I just can't break out of the old habit of Campbell bashing. It's really kind of silly anyhow, because if he does play well, it only benefits the Redskins in the compensation they get for him. It's kind of like rooting for the Eagles when they next play the Giants - you know the standings would be better if Philly won, but it is, after all, Philly...

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 7, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Why bash Campbell when you can just bash McNabb?

Posted by: RomoLongballs | November 7, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

One week later and we are still hearing about the boneheaded decision to bench McNabb. I think that fans would have respected Shanahan more if he had just said that he pulled McNabb because he made too many bad throwing decisions ( when he had time to throw) and it really pissed him off when the QB threw into triple coverage. Don't use BS excuses

Posted by: kingpenn1 | November 7, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Why bash Campbell when you can just bash McNabb?

Posted by: RomoLongballs | November 7, 2010 10:05 AM
------------------------------------------
Because I'm not with the "lynch McNabb" crowd. I see a guy who is a leader and makes plays when there is nothing there. Yes, he's not executed the game plan very well, but I still see leadership qualities that most quarterbacks don't have. When people compare Campbell to McNabb, they choose to ignore that kind of thing. Last year, the more vocal players made it known they really didn't have Campbell's back. When Shanahan benched McNabb, I saw the players rally around him. That's the difference and I think that difference wins games for a team.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 7, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

I realize Campbell is a dead subject, but I just can't break out of the old habit of Campbell bashing. It's really kind of silly anyhow, because if he does play well, it only benefits the Redskins in the compensation they get for him. It's kind of like rooting for the Eagles when they next play the Giants - you know the standings would be better if Philly won, but it is, after all, Philly...

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 7, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Sorry man, I think you're off on this one. I'm pretty sure we get a 4th in 2012 for JC17 no matter if he wins the Super Bowl or gets cut Monday.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | November 7, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

At this point, my only emotional connection to Campbell relates to the conditional draft pick we will receive as compensation for him. I'm rooting for him to do well in Oakland, because that way he's helping the Redskins get a higher pick. Other than that, I couldn't care less. To continue to bash him makes no sense to me.

Posted by: kaasmaster | November 7, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

If our playoffs chances were 50/50, with Banks, we are 70/30. If properly used, Banks is the type of player that can score 3 touch downs a game. His effect on special teams already started and will to force opponents kickers or punters to try and avoid him which had and should continue to greatly increase Washington's field position.

Posted by: abxinc | November 7, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

If our playoffs chances were 50/50, with Banks, we are 70/30. If properly used, Banks is the type of player that can score 3 touch downs a game. His effect on special teams already started and will continue to force opponents kickers or punters to try and avoid him which had and should continue to greatly increase Washington's field position.

Posted by: abxinc | November 7, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Didn't really think about it when it happened, but it makes a lot of sense that maybe MS was trying to take some of the heat off DMac with the benching. Kind of goofy logic, but he is a strange coach. He also has shown that he is not as inflexible as a lot of people say, bringing up Banks and AA, etc.

I hope he and Jr. will realize that DMac is still their best option for the next two years. Just look at that list someone posted earlier of available qb's. Ugh.

Posted by: NYPDee | November 7, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Banks has surgery BEEPS--->

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 7, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Why bash Campbell when you can just bash McNabb?

Posted by: RomoLongballs | November 7, 2010 10:05 AM
------------------------------------------
Because I'm not with the "lynch McNabb" crowd. I see a guy who is a leader and makes plays when there is nothing there. Yes, he's not executed the game plan very well, but I still see leadership qualities that most quarterbacks don't have. When people compare Campbell to McNabb, they choose to ignore that kind of thing. Last year, the more vocal players made it known they really didn't have Campbell's back. When Shanahan benched McNabb, I saw the players rally around him. That's the difference and I think that difference wins games for a team.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 7, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

In this we most def agree, and I supported JC when he was here. I'm hoping for a similar outcome to the AH struggle; Shanny eases up on the footwork hangup and starts calling plays to take the pressure off the line a bit more effectively.

Posted by: RomoLongballs | November 7, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Alexander. Banks has shown great flash and is exciting every time he touches the ball but Alexander is more consistent. What a great find this guy was as a UFA a few years back.

Posted by: SkinsFanNYC | November 8, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company