Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: RedskinsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS
Posted at 6:08 AM ET, 12/30/2010

Statistical analysis: Donovan McNabb wasn't responsible for Redskins' offensive woes

By Brian Burke
Statistical analysis

Donovan McNabb had the third best season of his career in 2009 with the Eagles. Needless to say, the results weren't so great as a Redskin in 2010, and he was unceremoniously benched at the end of the season by Mike Shanahan and his son Kyle in favor of Rex Grossman. All the petty drama aside, was McNabb the problem with the Redskins, or are the rest of the Redskins themselves the problem?

Here's a breakout of McNabb's five most recent seasons in terms of Expected Points Added (EPA) and EPA per play.

Donovan McNabb's recent seasons

And here is a year-by-year breakout of the Redskins' passing offense, which includes sacks and turnovers, over the same time period. I used the same scale on the axis as the first graph so you can compare.

Redskins' passing offense

It's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison because McNabb's numbers also include things like scrambles and QB sneaks. Still, it should be apparent that McNabb was not holding the Redskins' offense back. McNabb actually brought a modest improvement to the passing offense. All the talk about a lackadaisical attitude coming out of huddles may or may not have merit, but that's not the problem. McNabb played as well as could have been expected given the surrounding team, and to hold him accountable for the offense's disappointing season is a mistake.


Brian Burke is the creator of Advanced NFL Stats, a Web site about football, statistics and game theory.

By Brian Burke  | December 30, 2010; 6:08 AM ET
Categories:  Donovan McNabb, Statistical analysis  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Graham Gano named NFC special teams player of the week
Next: Ex-tight ends coach surprised by criticism of Chris Cooley

Comments

First...to say that I wake up in the morning. I fix my cereal and coffee, then I check the local news. I happen to stumble on RI and THIS is what I see.

I'm glad I got a piece this morning or Brian Burke could have ruined my day.

Posted by: iH8dallas | December 30, 2010 6:15 AM | Report abuse

Forget Cam Newton. And Flounder 21 whats wrong lose at pocket pool again punk!

Posted by: sheepherder | December 29, 2010 7:10 PM |

Who are you never seen you on here, and why the f-ck are you even posting to me.
I will anwser your question though, yes your wife beat me at pocket pool it's so nice to lose to her.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 6:24 AM | Report abuse

I'm not getting into another Mcnabb debate today, this dude actually wasted his time with this crap.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 6:28 AM | Report abuse

Kind of early for a blog fight.

Posted by: iH8dallas | December 30, 2010 6:29 AM | Report abuse

... he was unceremoniously benched....

By Brian Burke | December 30, 2010; 6:08 AM ET

Three quick thoughts:

1. Is there supposed to be a "ceremony" involved in benching that the Redskins ignored? Has anyone ever been benched with a "ceremony?"

2. The ceremony that I would like to have seen Donovan lead is called a Victory Celebration, and in terms of his VC/Game ratio he stunk up Redskins Park, with his VC/Game ratio about equal to Jim Zorn's. And as a leader, he was a loser, hiding behind his agent and pouting.

3. I predict that Brian Burke will be unceremoniously eliminated from Redskins Insider after the season. His Insights per column ratio has turned negative.

Posted by: beep-beep | December 30, 2010 6:46 AM | Report abuse

"I consider myself a bit of an overachiever," Lichtensteiger said. "I don't have the biggest frame. I'm not the prototypical offensive guard in the NFL, so I'm going to try probably harder than most people will, and when I climb to the second level, I'm going to try to cut somebody's legs out from under them. I'm going to try to hurt somebody. That's what I do."

In a football sense, that is music to my ears. It reminds me of the attitude that characterized Shanahan's o-line in Denver. The only guy I really remember by name on that line was Schlereth, (because I was wishing he was still a Skin) but they had a lot of success by reveling in this identity and attitude.

Posted by: MColeman51 | December 30, 2010 7:14 AM | Report abuse

This cat makes my head hurt and I don't get head aches.

Posted by: wireman65 | December 30, 2010 7:38 AM | Report abuse

Flounder21 - pull the panties out of your azz bro . . . way too early for this crap!

Posted by: SJK_This_Blog | December 30, 2010 7:41 AM | Report abuse

Flounder21 - pull the panties out of your azz bro . . . way too early for this crap!

Posted by: SJK_This_Blog | December 30, 2010 7:41 AM

Was the post directed at you, I don't think so. sheepherder directed a post at me when I have never said anything to him, so I have the right to defend myself.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse


Was the post directed at you, I don't think so. sheepherder directed a post at me when I have never said anything to him, so I have the right to defend myself.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 7:46 AM |
--------------

beat that dead horse

Posted by: hessone | December 30, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

beat that dead horse

Posted by: hessone | December 30, 2010 7:57 AM |

Another idiot getting involved in something that has nothing to do with him.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 8:03 AM | Report abuse

Im sure the next time Shanahan makes a roster decision he'll be sure to ask for this guys opinion.

Posted by: wewbank1 | December 30, 2010 8:03 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if there's a way to statistically analyze a coach's play-calling.

For example, Kyle won't call deep throws for Grossman because he knows the QB can't keep a play alive long enough for it to pan out, and besides, Grossman just can't throw it that far with any zip or accuracy.

But he regularly dialed up deep patterns for McNabb -- who demonstrated he could to do it -- albeit not as regularly as some might hope -- even when the team may have only really needed a few yards to get the first down, gain some momentum, and keep a drive going.

My working hypothesis is that Kyle intentionally sets McNabb up to fail by calling lots more low percentage long passes -- and helps Grossman to succeed by calling lots more dinks and dumps when "his boy" is in the game –- even if it means hitting the receiver well short of the downs marker.

Posted by: Vic1 | December 30, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse


Another idiot getting involved in something that has nothing to do with him.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 8:03 AM |
-----------------

dictator

Posted by: hessone | December 30, 2010 8:10 AM | Report abuse

BLOG FIGHT! a test of wills!!

...please excuse the utub ad. totally SFW.

Posted by: DikShuttle | December 30, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

My working hypothesis is that Kyle intentionally sets McNabb up to fail by calling lots more low percentage long passes -- and helps Grossman to succeed by calling lots more dinks and dumps when "his boy" is in the game –- even if it means hitting the receiver well short of the downs marker.


Posted by: Vic1 | December 30, 2010 8:05 AM |

vic,

Not sure what you are talking about every play has a deep pass a mid range pass and a dump-off. In kyles offense the QB reads long the mid then short, could it be that Grossman knows the offesne better and is able to make his reads quicker. I'm not saying Grossman is a better QB then McNabb I just think he runs this offesne better even though he has less game experience in it then Mcnabb does.

Why are you so hell bent on giving Mcnabb all this credit and bashing kyle all the time. What has Mcnabb done in DC that gives him your undying support?

I know kyles offense can produce when run properly I saw it in Houston for the last two years, Mcnabb wont be here next year so not much sense in talking about him.

Damn I was just sucked back into this debate.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Ok, so I just read the article. The conclusions this guy jumps to are amazing.

Let me see if I can describe his logic accurately. A=C and B=D. D looks like a backwards C with a line down the end, so A must equal 8.

THE ENTIRE OFFENSIVE SCHEME IS DIFFERENT. To attribute success or failure to ANY one component is a fallacy.

The question on McNabb isn't more or less production... or even production. It's "are you doing the things you're supposed to be doing in this offense". That's it. He wasn't. He's done.

NEXT.

Posted by: DikShuttle | December 30, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse


Damn I was just sucked back into this debate.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 8:19 AM |
--------------

anger management ?

Posted by: hessone | December 30, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Damn I was just sucked back into this debate.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 8:19 AM |
--------------

anger management ?

Posted by: hessone | December 30, 2010 8:24 AM |

Is there a reason you keep responding to my post with this dumb statements?

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

These stats have merit only if there's been no change in personnel or offensive system.

In other words, these stats are meaningless.

Posted by: DannyH8r | December 30, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse


Is there a reason you keep responding to my post with this dumb statements?

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 8:29 AM |
------------

just having some fun flound. peeps are sooo serious on RI. have a great day and happy new year

Posted by: hessone | December 30, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

just having some fun flound. peeps are sooo serious on RI. have a great day and happy new year

Posted by: hessone | December 30, 2010 8:32 AM |

No problem have a happy new year wish you and yours all the best.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

"My working hypothesis is that Kyle intentionally sets McNabb up to fail"

you just can't make this kind of stuff/blatant idiocy up....yes, the offensive coordinator set the qb/team up to fail because he wanted to have someone else in at qb...

my hypothesis is that he hypnotized Mcnabb to miss WIDE OPEN passes, and that you're an idiot if you truly believe what you've written....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 30, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: DikShuttle | December 30, 2010 8:23 AM

QED

Posted by: wireman65 | December 30, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

"My working hypothesis is that Kyle intentionally sets McNabb up to fail"

you just can't make this kind of stuff/blatant idiocy up....yes, the offensive coordinator set the qb/team up to fail because he wanted to have someone else in at qb...

my hypothesis is that he hypnotized Mcnabb to miss WIDE OPEN passes, and that you're an idiot if you truly believe what you've written....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 30, 2010 8:34 AM |

Good job Greg I was trying to go the more subtle rout but I like your response better.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

flound, I mean, people cannot be that stupid can they?? Yeah, the offensive coordinator undermined the starting qb...yup..that makes PERFECT sense...each time I think someone can't get more STUPID...the bar gets lowered...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 30, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

My working hypothesis is that Kyle intentionally sets McNabb up to fail by calling lots more low percentage long passes -- and helps Grossman to succeed by calling lots more dinks and dumps when "his boy" is in the game –- even if it means hitting the receiver well short of the downs marker.


Posted by: Vic1 | December 30, 2010 8:05 AM |

You need to keep working on that hypothesis because it's currently kind of silly. "Intentionally sets him up to fail"? Why would he do this? If you're going to subscribe to this conspiracy theory, it takes you to some strange places. The Shanahan's, in order to destroy McNabb's career, traded for him in a move that risked their reputations and the success path they had mapped out here and then called plays to sabotage him and kill their offense? What, did Donovan sleep with a Shanahan and never call her back or something?
Occam's razor would suggest that McNabb, knowing that the deep ball is a strength of his game, looked for and threw to his deep option more than Grossman does. In fact, success on long passes was one of the few bright spots of the offense during the first 13 weeks.

Posted by: MColeman51 | December 30, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

My working hypothesis is that Kyle intentionally sets McNabb up to fail by calling lots more low percentage long passes -- and helps Grossman to succeed by calling lots more dinks and dumps when "his boy" is in the game –- even if it means hitting the receiver well short of the downs marker.


Posted by: Vic1 | December 30, 2010 8:05 AM |

You need to keep working on that hypothesis because it's currently kind of silly. "Intentionally sets him up to fail"? Why would he do this? If you're going to subscribe to this conspiracy theory, it takes you to some strange places. The Shanahan's, in order to destroy McNabb's career, traded for him in a move that risked their reputations and the success path they had mapped out here and then called plays to sabotage him and kill their offense? What, did Donovan sleep with a Shanahan and never call her back or something?
Occam's razor would suggest that McNabb, knowing that the deep ball is a strength of his game, looked for and threw to his deep option more than Grossman does. In fact, success on long passes was one of the few bright spots of the offense during the first 13 weeks.

Posted by: MColeman51 | December 30, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Mc Chunky Soup sucked this year so why are they stuck on him? I wouldn't mind seeing him get another chance because of how much we gave up to get him and Rex just doesn't impress me. If Rex could be consistent then I would say start him and save some cash and build the o line and get a big WR. Chunky Soup looks stubborn when he goes to the bench and Kyle tries to tell him what he saw.Just my opinion,but Chunky Soup failed to listen and check down so he got checked down to the bench.

Posted by: t_bobbitt27284 | December 30, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

My new working theory is that Mike Shanahan purposefully undermined himself this season.

That way he could go into next season with nowhere to go but up.

Posted by: p1funk | December 30, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Greg,

Yes some people actually believe that the OC would make himself and his father look terrible because he hates Mcnabb and wanted Grossman to start the entire time.

When you read it it sounds like the dumbest idea you would ever hear but some people actually believe it.

It can't be that the wonderful DM5 was having trouble scoring td's in the red zone, or that he had more Int's then Td's. It's all about this hate that KS has for him and he was so mistreated because he was told on Thursday that he wouldn't start.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

My new working theory is that Mike Shanahan purposefully undermined himself this season.

That way he could go into next season with nowhere to go but up.

Posted by: p1funk | December 30, 2010 8:48 AM |

I would almost believe this before I would that KS undermined his QB.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Please stop saying that chunky soup was set up to fail. He was the one making bad reads like missing a wide open Fred Davis and throwing a stupid pick because he loves the deep ball. Chunky soup doesn't read the field he will throw a deep ball into double coverage instead of checking down to the back or the open receiver who ran a short route.

Posted by: t_bobbitt27284 | December 30, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Re: McNabb Trade

Someone was saying on the other threads (I think it was beep) that McNabb is done as a starter and no one would trade for him.

Begging to differ in a big way.

McNabb was in the top 10 for passing yards this season and on his way to breaking the Skins single-season passing mark - not exactly a hallmark of someone who is "done" as a starter in this league.

What McNabb needs is an offense with plays/schemes built around what he does. Here the strategy was "see if he fits our scheme" which didn't work. If the strategy is "let's fit the scheme around him" he's still going to have fruitful starter years ahead of him.

Kurt Warner, Kerry Collins, Vinny Testaverde - all examples of veteran QBs that were labeled "done" but resurrected their careers in the right situation.

Posted by: p1funk | December 30, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Mike: Hey son glad to have you as my OC.

Kyle: Thanks dad I want you to help me.

Mike: With what?

Kyle: I hate DM5 I want to make his life hell this year.

Mike: OK son how about we trade for him.

Kyle: That would be awesome then I can call plays all year that would make him look bad.

Mike: Great idea then I can bench him and we can live happily ever after.

Kyle: That is so great I can't wait to get started, now can you please buy me lunch this playing the villian makes me hungry.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

my hypothesis is that Mike S, and Jim Zorn are best buds, and Shanny is tanking it to make Zorn not look that bad.....how'd I do??

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 30, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 8:19 AM |

Just have a hard time seeing how any 10-year pro quarterback should have to lobby some 30 year-old punk who never played the game for an occasional screen or quick out -- if only to slow the pass rush and give the defense something else to think about.

While I realize McNabb has some history of throwing balls into the turf -- I also wonder how much of his difficulty in adjusting to "the system" could be attributed to reading the short patterns last -- against all of his prior training and experience -- and usually just when he is facing the most pressure from the pass rushers.

I realize we're only talking microseconds here -- but Kyle's "system" seems to work against taking the short and easy yards, converting the first downs, and keeping drives going.

Am also concerned about Kyle's inability to call the right mix of plays in the red zone -- but that's another subject.

Posted by: Vic1 | December 30, 2010 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Mc Chunky Soup sucked this year so why are they stuck on him? I wouldn't mind seeing him get another chance because of how much we gave up to get him and Rex just doesn't impress me.

Posted by: t_bobbitt27284 | December 30, 2010 8:48 AM

I don't think Rex impresses anybody, but he's running the offense a little better. The steep price paid for McNabb is a sunk cost. It's done. Sticking with him strictly because of the hight cost is a loser's mentality. If they've decided it's not going to work, moving on minimizes the self-inflicted damage. "Another chance" would be awfully costly at this point.

Posted by: MColeman51 | December 30, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse


my hypothesis is that Mike S, and Jim Zorn are best buds, and Shanny is tanking it to make Zorn not look that bad.....how'd I do??

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 30, 2010 8:59 AM |
---------------

my hypothesis is that you eat beans

Posted by: hessone | December 30, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

I would like to know from all the people that say Kyle should have changed his offesne to fit Mcnabb's strengths, to first tell me what are Mcnabb's strengths and then tell me how the offesne wasn't setup to do that.

I think most of you just say this because you heard it on TV but I would really like to know what you think.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse


my hypothesis is that Mike S, and Jim Zorn are best buds, and Shanny is tanking it to make Zorn not look that bad.....how'd I do??

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 30, 2010 8:59 AM |
---------------

my hypothesis is that you eat beans

Posted by: hessone | December 30, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Of course this lunacy about K. Shanny calling plays to sabotage McNubb really forgets REALITY.

Shanny isn't the one making McNubb toss the ball into the dirt so often. Regardless of the play called, it is McNubb executing the play, not Shanny.

If any of you watched the last two games, it is obvious that we are getting execution out of plays that we weren't. We are still getting middle length completions, but more importantly, we are getting short yardage completions that MATTER.

The tempo of the game has also changed. McNubb is a giant sloth compared to Grossman when it comes to getting back to pass. Certainly McNubb can scramble more than Grossman, but I think that is a product of McNubb's inability to complete short passes.

I think the true test of Grossman will be this week against the Gants. If the Gants have any pride, they'll really come after us. And if Grossman passes that test, we will at least know that part of the problem is McNubb. If Grossman disappears and leaves the Dallas game as his shining achievement, then we are back to square one and we'll be searching for several new quarterbacks.

But, we cannot ignore that McNubb was part of the problem with his inability to execute plays that were called. And from what I've seen, that wasn't sabotage by Shanny - it was simply a stupid quarterback unable to meet the minimum requirements of his position in this system. Perhaps McNubb should have been digging fence post holes this year. A quarter of his plays were poorly executed or had poor decision-making. He had quite a few pick sixs on his 2010 resume, let's not forget!

Posted by: laserwizard | December 30, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Am also concerned about Kyle's inability to call the right mix of plays in the red zone -- but that's another subject.


Posted by: Vic1 | December 30, 2010 9:00 AM

You should be much less concerned about this over the last two weeks then because they've been having good red-zone success.

Posted by: MColeman51 | December 30, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

The problem is this assumes the Redskins offensive talent around McNabb is the same as it was last year around Campbell as well as completely takes away any benefit of an upgrade from Zorn to Shanahan. Our receivers may still suck, but Armstrong is a small improvement over Randle El, Cooley is back this year, Torain and Williams are far better than Mason and the other backs who replaced Portis/Betts last year. Our offensive line might still be a joke, but Trent Williams and to a lesser extent Jammal Brown are superior to what we trotted out last season.

Now the Redskins are still a bad team and i'm not arguing that, just making a point they improved in a number of areas that could help explain the increase in numbers.

Also, in reality none of it should matter. If McNabb is one of the highest paid players in the NFL, and we gave up two draft picks for him he should preform at least at an average level regardless of the 'talent' around him. Otherwise how can you say he is an 'elite' quarterback. P. Manning has a weak offensive line, has had almost all of his recievers and running backs injured and he is still getting the job done. Same with Rivers, Eli, etc. Why is the Cowboys offense so much better than the Redskins despite having a bad O-line, injuries to multiple receivers, and losing their quarterback? In reality there are no excuses McNabb can make.

Posted by: Steveo11 | December 30, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

All subtrefuge buffoonery aside, On some level those aspects must have played out. Big Shan is definitely going to look out for his own. Lil Shan is going to protect his system. And McLovin' is going to try to get his numbers up & win the game.

I don't think you have to throw in an aspect of villainy to see these scenarios. The question is whether that's what the owner wants to deal with... oh... that villain.

Posted by: DikShuttle | December 30, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Up til now I'd thought Burke was fairly readable. His STATISTICAL analyses were frequently informative. but it's one thing to do the numbers; it's quite another for him to analyze them from a football perspective (versus a numerical one). Actual football people should probably do that. Though I'm NOT a football person by any stretch -- just a regular fan -- even I can see that just because McNabb completes a pass or extends a play doesn't mean it was the RIGHT play. Or the desired outcome of the play as designed. My sense was that Kyle Shanahan became frustrated because McNabb often missed the intended target of the play (often because, as someone mentioned earlier, McNabb works short-to-long and the offense is built to work ling-to-short). It seems if that happens enough it defeats the strategy of scripting plays early in the game to elicit a particular response from the defense later. And comparing McNabb's numbers in Philly's offense to his numbers here is as pointless as comparing the Skins offenses under Gibbs and Zorn to Shanny's. All in all, a pretty useless post by Burke, I think. He should stick to presenting the numbers and avoid analyzing them as they pertain to the use of personnel. He's clearly unqualified.

Posted by: outsider6 | December 30, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

You should be much less concerned about this over the last two weeks then because they've been having good red-zone success.

Posted by: MColeman51 | December 30, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

O yeah we've really been tearing up those defensive powerhouses the Cowboys and Jaguars...

Rex is going to get embarassed this week. All you have to do is get in his face and he turns back into the human turnover machine.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | December 30, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

I

Posted by: PlayAction | December 30, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Your post violates one of the central rules of statistical analysis: correlation does not equal causation. All we can tell from these numbers is that DC is worse than Philly, and that the Redskins improved from 2009 to 2010 under their new system. We lack a baseline to say whether that improvement was because of -- or in spite of -- McNabb. For all we know Shanahan would have led the Skins to a playoff spot with Jason Campbell this year, but McNabb's bounce passes kept him from doing it. Your statistics shed no light on this question.

Posted by: wahoo2x | December 30, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

"Just have a hard time seeing how any 10-year pro quarterback should have to lobby some 30 year-old punk"

just wanted to point out how its not really about performance with you, its that you just don't like Kyle...I mean, its as plain as day in the above statement...yeah, Kyle sure is a punk all right......

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 30, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Stop whining, WTF do you mean, "Stop Whining??" We crawl outta the fallout shelter from these record-setting obliterations to a shambles of a team, and some poseur hard-a** starts screeching, "Stop whining"..."Stop whining", yeah, that's what Hitler said to the Jews...

Posted by: frak | December 30, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Math and McNabb suck.

Posted by: CheyenneWY | December 30, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Okay, here's the dilema --

You have a receiver opening long, but it's Roydell Williams.

You have a receiver coming open in the flats, but it's Joey Galloway.

And you have a tight end set up to take the dump off, but it's Fred Davis.

So who do you throw the incompletion to?

Posted by: Vic1 | December 30, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Just have a hard time seeing how any 10-year pro quarterback should have to lobby some 30 year-old punk who never played the game for an occasional screen or quick out -- if only to slow the pass rush and give the defense something else to think about.

Kyle actually played WR as a longhorn, a lot of coaches played small roles in college and never made it as a pro player but bacame good coaches never the less

Posted by: hcic55 | December 30, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

became

Posted by: hcic55 | December 30, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Okay, here's the dilema --

You have a receiver opening long, but it's Roydell Williams.

You have a receiver coming open in the flats, but it's Joey Galloway.

And you have a tight end set up to take the dump off, but it's Fred Davis.

So who do you throw the incompletion to?

Posted by: Vic1 | December 30, 2010 9:36 AM |

When you throw it in the dirt 5 yards in front of them it doesn't matter.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: frak | December 30, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

just wanted to point out how its not really about performance with you, its that you just don't like Kyle...I mean, its as plain as day in the above statement...yeah, Kyle sure is a punk all right....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | December 30, 2010 9:31 AM

--

Yep. Guilty as charged. Don't like Kyle. And especially don't like that he is being groomed to replace the old man in another season or two.

If you drew up a list of the top offensive coordinators in the league -- and others who might be so qualified -- and then ranked them based on performance, win-loss records, championships, or any other criteria (besides bloodlines and nepotism) that you might want to use -- where exactly would he fall?

Posted by: Vic1 | December 30, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

You have to be able to handle pressure in this league, and Rex seems to be able to handle it better than McNabb in this offense, showing more effectiveness on short passes..

Posted by: frak | December 30, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

The Giants could do McNabb a favor, blowing the Skins out 55-3, again...

Posted by: frak | December 30, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

"strapping on my paddd helmet"

What about giving JaMarcus Russell a look...he is still young and generally untouched. we could get him for dirt cheap and we wouldnt have to waste a pick on a QB. Could be another Vick (lots of talent but zero focus). Maybe the time off has matured him just a bit.

Posted by: CheyenneWY | December 30, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

I like Lil' Shanny's playcalling.

Watch it blow up next year.

Early Prediction- Skins- 27 Vaginal Cream-20

Posted by: iH8dallas | December 30, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Maybe its just a nuance thing, but I never saw McNabb look excited either on the sideline or the field. At least Grossman (although an average QB at best) seems to have a little bit of a spark to him.

McNabb seems to just go through the motions out there.

Posted by: CheyenneWY | December 30, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

I read the paper on-line every morning and check the latest on the 'Skins from the "Insider." I'm getting pretty sick of reading the juvenile rantings of Flounder21 and his crew who have taken over this site with what I find to be useless chatter.

Get a room, guys!

Posted by: lacy41 | December 30, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Yep. Guilty as charged. Don't like Kyle. And especially don't like that he is being groomed to replace the old man in another season or two.

If you drew up a list of the top offensive coordinators in the league -- and others who might be so qualified -- and then ranked them based on performance, win-loss records, championships, or any other criteria (besides bloodlines and nepotism) that you might want to use -- where exactly would he fall?

Posted by: Vic1 | December 30, 2010 9:52 AM |

Considering all the good OC already had jobs in the NFL including Kyke at the time Shanny was looking. Most of them are not going to move for the same position, as a matter of fact the team can block you from even talking to them for a move unless it is as a head coach.

Kubiak agreed because he knew thats were Kyle wanted to go.

Kyle had a top 5 rated offense for two years in Houston, have we had an offensive cordinator with a top 5 offense in the last 18 years, probably not.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Wow I was on the fence about if McNabb was the problem or not but seeing something like this shows me how far you have to reach to say he did a good job. I think that took me to the other side of the fence on how bad he has played this season. McNabb was not the ONLY problem but he no doubt did not help things.

Using stats from a season with a different Coach is beyond silly. Considering the Redskins pass a lot more under this coaching staff.

Might as well show the passing stats from Houston compared to McNabb under the same system. Would be FAR less but that still is useless spin.

Posted by: Mike4169 | December 30, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

First, all passing plays have deep, middle, and short options. If I remember correctly, it's the QB's job to read short to deep in this offense. McNabb was in the habit of doing it the opposite way, hence more deeper low percentage passes and longer pocket time.

Second, McNabb was insanely inaccrurate on short passes to wide open receivers that literally my girlfriend could make. You have to care enough to make those passes. He didn't.

Third, with nepotism in full effect at Redskins' Park, did McNabb really think that senior bubba was going to fire junior bubba if things went south on offense? Negative. Further, if were a quarterback looking for a job in the NFL next year, rookie or veteran, I'd stay far away from the 'skins unless senior bubba made it clear that jr bubba came after and not before the team; hence, he could be fired.

That said, McNabb should've seen this coming.

Posted by: alocowboy | December 30, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

I read the paper on-line every morning and check the latest on the 'Skins from the "Insider." I'm getting pretty sick of reading the juvenile rantings of Flounder21 and his crew who have taken over this site with what I find to be useless chatter.

Get a room, guys!

Posted by: lacy41 | December 30, 2010 10:02 AM |

If it wasn't for us up here everyday chatting as you say this blog would have disappeared years ago.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

What about giving JaMarcus Russell a look...he is still young and generally untouched. we could get him for dirt cheap and we wouldnt have to waste a pick on a QB. Could be another Vick (lots of talent but zero focus). Maybe the time off has matured him just a bit.

Posted by: CheyenneWY | December 30, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

I've actually watched Jamarcus play and I don't know if he'll ever be good enough to start. He's just way too slow. He has to hold the ball for almost 6 seconds before throwing it. The ball should be gone in 2.7 seconds. I don't know if any amount of film study can fix his slow thought proessing. In other words he's too dumb to play QB in the NFL but we'd love to have him come in a tryout for guard.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | December 30, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

MistaMoe was drinking last night...

"And every playoff bound team but KC/Jags is led by a high drafted q-back."

I wonder which is true: NE is not playoff bound, or Brady -- the league MVP -- was a high draft pick?

Posted by: dpc2003 | December 30, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Beep Beep

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

I'm not judging a redskin quarterback again until we get a consistent O-line.

Posted by: dc202jp | December 30, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Kyle had a top 5 rated offense for two years in Houston, have we had an offensive cordinator with a top 5 offense in the last 18 years, probably not.

Posted by: Flounder21 | December 30, 2010 10:03 AM

Fair enough, thanks.

However, I still think Kyle gets a free pass from the old man -- whereas someone else might actually be held accountable.

Would Daddy ever fire his son? Probably not.

Even if his son really wasn't the world-class genius that he is purported to be? Or would that be admitting to some sort of genetic fault?

Especially given the massive egos involved here, and their common propensity to shade even the simplest of truths -- we'll probably never know.

Posted by: Vic1 | December 30, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

If you are really a stats guy, you should realize the fallacy or this analysis because comparing 2010 to pre-2010, the coaches and a large percentage of the players on offense did not remain constant. Now if you generally compare McNabb's numbers pre-Redskins to 2010, you can come to the conclusion "Redskins offense sucks compares to the Eagles and McNabb did not help much".
A better comparison would be all this EPA stuff between McNabb and Grossman (a guy with less physical talent but knows the Offense better).

Now if you look at this purely from a football perspective, you can disagree but you really can't fault Shanahan from starting Grossman in the last 3 games - once the team was out of playoff contention. McNabb is under contract for next year. Grossman is not. From a football executive standpoint, you have to see what Grossman can do. These last 3 games to me are like an early pre-season for 2011 (if it happens).

And the bottom line in football is, if you have coaches who want a system run a certain way, and a QB who prefers it another way, well it's hard for them to coexist and fault lays on both sides (media theatrics aside).

Posted by: daddy00 | December 30, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Burke, you are an idiot, but at least you have no pride.

Wonder how fat the Fletcher Smith gift envelope was to get him to parade out this clap trap. It laughable to anyone who knows anything about statistical comparison or game theory. Laughable!

Mcnabb is and has been living on a past rep bought with his legs.

Redskins don't need an innaccurate bounce passer running the offense, and they don't need the qb to throw 95 mph fastballs off the wide open TE's breast plate from the 3 yard line either.

What they need is a smart, quick thinking guy who can make all the throws, and throw balls that put RBs and short route runners in a position to succeed after the catch. Rexy, thanks for trying, if anything all you have done is prove how s h itty Mcnabb has actually been.

Lets hope Shanny gets a good one in the draft that hopefully happens in April.

Posted by: SkinsfaninKaneohe | December 30, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

If I may, let me help Vic1 with his hypothesis: Kyle unknowingly set DM up for failure because:

Kyle's progression reads call for look deep, then mid-range, then short. Different from most NFL teams who go in the reverse order. After early success with the deep ball throws, they got locked on to that aspect of the progression - with a suspect line - that was doomed for failure. Insert Grossman. Kyle knows that Grossman does not have the arm strength to throw deep with continued success, so Grossman read progressions are just the opposite - short, mid, then long. Look at film, Grossman is not looking long first, he is not looking long at all. He goes straight to mid, then short. That is why it appears that he is making his reads quicker, he has reduced his reads. I don't think Kyle intentionally made this change, he did it because he knows Grossman's limited abilities. I would even guess that Grossman just makes the short reads first and only. Given that Grossman looks short first, knows the offense better, and DM has not gotten the offense down, it is understandable that he looks more fluid in this offense than DM. Vic1's hypothesis has merit.

Posted by: SPUD2 | December 30, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: SPUD2 | December 30, 2010 10:41 AM

Thanks. You may be right there. Noted that several people took offense to my assertion that Kyle intentionally set McNabb up to fail -- while you've softened it to say it's probably nothing more an unintended consequence of his so-called "system." I can accept that.


Posted by: Vic1 | December 30, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

I just want to know who was in 06-07?

Conversation btwn Brian Burke and Jason Reid: What can we do Brian to instigate this benching of DM5? Oh i say let's come up with stats.

F them both
F dallas
Skins will reiagn again, we are headed in the right direction.

Posted by: rodskin | December 30, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I LOVE THIS BELOW -YOU MADE ME SMILE!!

"""""Okay, here's the dilema --

You have a receiver opening long, but it's Roydell Williams.

You have a receiver coming open in the flats, but it's Joey Galloway.

And you have a tight end set up to take the dump off, but it's Fred Davis.

So who do you throw the dropped pass to?

Posted by: Vic1""""""

SO DM THINKS WHO?? Best to throw it into the turf-as not to embarass my team mate.
I can take the heat.Theres always another play.:))

Posted by: GEARAUTO1 | December 30, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the latest release from Wikileaks explains a lot:


***** TOP-SECRET *****


June 23, 2010

Redskins Park
Ashburn, VA

Eyes only: Belt-buckle (aka you, big guy, Danny Boy, the DS'ter, the little giant [sorry--I know that riles you up, grin grin])

From: VC (who loves ya, babe--gone but not forgotten)

Since you asked, here's the plan, my man Dan. Right now I'm toast in DC. I can't come back no matter how much you miss me. The riggo-head flippin' fan base blames me for everything. Stupid ingrates.

But here's how we turn this pile of horse doo-doo into an action-jackson plan that'll have me back and you hoisting, the Lombardi before you can say Six Flags.

1. You promise Mr. orangeskin (what a blowhard control-freak--doesn't he make you angry, boss?) $25 mill on the downlow to tank this year. Do it double-deep, with a long-term promise to take care of his son.

2. Offer his son $10 mill to tank the offense, pick a fight with DM-5, get arrested for DUI, whatever.

3. Offer Donovan $20 mill to do his own part. He's gonna hate playing to lose, but make it worth his while. Promise him a coaching position, a mentor relationship--hell, tell him you'll get a DC high school named after him.

4. Make sure we lose to Dallas the second go-round. If you gotta pay the holder to drop the critical point after, hey, that's a cheap hundred grand as the going rate, I hear.

All of this sets up he-who-must-not-be-named (initials BA, hee hee) as the fall guy. And when he falls, guess who rises up?

Yep, me, boss and dearest of friends! I'll come back and I'll make sure you get all the credit when we put the pieces back together the next year.

So, anyway, here's nod and a wink that it all comes out like we plan it too, boss. Happy 2010 season!

Posted by: farstriker | December 30, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Stats sometimes are very misleading. The facts are that Nabb could never pick up the offense and it drove Kyle nuts. Reading Kyle's lips on one play a few weeks ago said it all....." what the f... was that??" is what Kyle said. Meaning that once again, Nabb was either lost, or doing his own thing, or both. Grossman came in and moved the team much better. We haven't scored 3 TD's in successive drives in years. Grossman's not great, but he's solid enough while we groom a stud draft pick QB. Nabb's got to go......

Posted by: Riggo2 | December 30, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Brian. The one point you failed to mention in all your STATS is that prior to that 5 year stretch of McFive's EPA, he was in the same OFF for 6 years. McFive's success in Phili was mostly due to the fact that his legs gave him escapability and he had time to master the system. To expect that type of performance right out ot the gate in Wash, was to be blind. So, to answer your question...McFive played a part in this season's enability to put up points. He not only missed wide open receivers, but he didn't use any touch on the short passes to open receivers. He isn't a bad QB, but he isn't in a very comfortable zone with a new OFF. We could have gotten the same productivity our of JC.

Posted by: mradams921 | December 30, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I am of the opinion that a good QB can make an average Oline look great and a great Oline can improve the output of an average QB, Mcnabb was not good enough period. I couldnt care less if he was the most upstanding man in town or the most respected man alive, we need a good QB, not some card carrying member of YMCA am so sick of people bringing up his character, good for his family and kids am just a football fan.

Posted by: zimife1999 | December 30, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Out of Mike, Kyle and McNabb, there are two who are almost locks for the Hall of Fame. I think it could have worked with all three of these guys if they had embraced the concept of delayed gratification, but since they became impulsive and now things are at a boiling point; I say, let’s keep the two Hall of Famers and get rid of Kyle.

Posted by: jones10 | December 30, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Mark Schlereth just said in Hog Haven that Nabb always had accuracy problems his whole career. He said Shanny's ego thought he could change his footwork, or his set up. But when the heat is on, Schlereth said Nabb reverts back to throwing the ball in the dirt. He indirectly said Nabb sucked his whole career. Nabb covered his shortcomings with his legs in Philly. He can't do that anymore...his legs are shot. Schlereth also said Shanny made horrible draft picks in Denver and followed that with horrible FA signings, which got him fired. Soooooo, we've got that to look forward to. Somebody help us.........

Posted by: Riggo2 | December 30, 2010 10:42 PM | 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