Redskins re-sign McNabb (1 Viewer)

[Dexter Manley]

If the Skins had Campbell as their qb this season they would have 2 wins tops. It would actually be more likely they would be 0-9 right now.

What would be the downside to that? They would have had a 2nd round pick in 2010 and a 4th in 2011, plus could have had a higher pick in 2011. For a team that clearly needs to rebuild, what's so bad about more, and higher, draft picks?

Seriously? I'm sure Eagles fans would have loved that plan as they would have 1 more win this season. You sound like one of those guys who tanks in fantasy when they know they're not going to make the playoffs, so they have a higher draft pick the next year.Fwiw, the extension they gave McNabb means they own his rights and can trade him if they decide to get rid of him, so they should be able to recoup at least a 3rd or 4th round pick in this year's draft if they choose to go a different direction qb wise.

 

[NJJets]

If the Skins had Campbell as their qb this season they would have 2 wins tops. It would actually be more likely they would be 0-9 right now.

What would be the downside to that? They would have had a 2nd round pick in 2010 and a 4th in 2011, plus could have had a higher pick in 2011. For a team that clearly needs to rebuild, what's so bad about more, and higher, draft picks?

Exactly...What has Donovan shown the Redskins so far this year that would warrant any sort of extension? Is it the eleven interceptions? Maybe it was the 57% completion percentage? Or it could be the 18 touchdowns he is on track for? Clearly it was his ability to run the two minute offense. Lots of upside here with McNabb.

What has the rest of the team done to support McNabb ? Dropped passes week after week.McNabb has no supporting cast in Washington so he looks worse as a QB than he really is.

 

[Amused to Death]

If the Skins had Campbell as their qb this season they would have 2 wins tops. It would actually be more likely they would be 0-9 right now.

What would be the downside to that? They would have had a 2nd round pick in 2010 and a 4th in 2011, plus could have had a higher pick in 2011. For a team that clearly needs to rebuild, what's so bad about more, and higher, draft picks?

Higher draft picks don't equal to talent all the time.In this "new" NFL you can't build a team strictly through the draft you also need to sign FA's (and having a VETERAN QB IMHO is a good start towards getting the team back to respectability)

Definitely agree you also need some FA's. But I'd think younger FA's on the upside of their career would be better then one that's not. I know draft picks bust (a lot) but the Skins haven't had much luck in the aging veteran market over the last few years. Maybe that extra 2nd and a top 5 2011 pick would have been nice to help plug some holes.I'm not going to say Campbell's better, but at this point who cares if they win 4 games or 6? I'd rather see my team with the higher pick at that point. Those 2 extra wins only get you a lower pick. Just imho.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

The point the Redskin fans are not getting is that they gave McNabb an extension. They have an incredibly old team around a QB who needs a lot of pieces around him to be effective. Good move Skins, enjoy being at the bottom of the division for another 5 years.

I think most of us are capable of realizing that he was given an extension. The point you are not getting is that McNabb represents the best option at QB for the Skins this year and likely for the next 2 or 3 years. The fact that he was given an extension merely protects the return on investment for the draft picks they gave up to get him.The Skins are an old team with or without McNabb and it will take several drafts to change that. The loss of two picks is the only negative in the deal but taking a chance on a substantial upgrade at QB is worth a 2nd and a 4th rounder the following year.

If the Skins end up being at the bottom of the division it WONT be because of the McNabb trade or extension. But good luck to you and being the only team in the division without a single Super Bowl championship while everyone else has at least 3.

The point is the Redskins should have walked away. They see what they have and their QB position right now is worse than it was last year. The Redskins will not be a Superbowl contender with McNabb this year, next or the year after. So why sign a 35 year old QB to an extension for a team that is extremely old and lacks talent and depth all over the place and clearly needs to rebuild with their new GM? As for the Superbowls, you sound a lot like Cowboy fans. Well I hope you Redskin fans have enjoyed the three playoff wins since 1992. Its been good times in DC for over the past18 years, but hey those Superbowl victories must keep you warm while you watched the Eagles run for the playoffs every winter.

Can you explain how McNabb's contract inhibits any of the bolded? I'll answer for you- it doesn't. It's a flexible deal that allows for year-to-year assessment of the team and McNabb. It's not crushing from a salary cap perspective, and if it ever gets that way and the Skins aren't getting a return, they can walk away. But McNabb gives them a better chance to win more games as they rebuild, and if they happen to catch lightning in a bottle, a better chance at real success. Trust me, those of us who've watched McNabb follow Campbell, Todd Collins, Mark Brunell and Patrick Ramsey every week have a greater appreciation of his value than those of us who have only seen McNabb, a couple weeks of Kolb and a rejuvenated Michael Vick. Philly fans are very fortunate that they have absolutely no idea what average or replacement-level QB play looks like.

And yes, the Super Bowl victories do keep us warm during the winter. Those are great memories. You've got a championship baseball team now, so you should know that there's a huge difference as a fan between winning a title and making regular playoff runs. I'd trade a single championship for ten straight years of postseason failure in a heartbeat, and so would virtually everyone other sports fan, and you know that.

If you do not know how having a 35 year old QB who clearly is on the downside of is career on a team that clearly is going no where then I dont know what to tell you. Not to mention what have you seen from McNabb that has you excited about what he can do for the Redskins? If the Skins wouldnt have traded for McNabb maybe they would have traded up for Bradford, who knows. All I know (guess I should say believe) is that McNabb does not help the Redskins get to a Superbowl.

As for the Phillies...

This is a losers mentality. Sorry but I could careless about the past Phillies World Series championship as I watched them lose this year. It was great when the won, the parade was fantastic but its all just a memory and nothing more. Its sports and I care about the now, not that the Eagles won a championship in 1960 or the Flyers won back to back cups in the 70's.

 

[Amused to Death]

If the Skins had Campbell as their qb this season they would have 2 wins tops. It would actually be more likely they would be 0-9 right now.

What would be the downside to that? They would have had a 2nd round pick in 2010 and a 4th in 2011, plus could have had a higher pick in 2011. For a team that clearly needs to rebuild, what's so bad about more, and higher, draft picks?

Seriously? I'm sure Eagles fans would have loved that plan as they would have 1 more win this season. You sound like one of those guys who tanks in fantasy when they know they're not going to make the playoffs, so they have a higher draft pick the next year.Fwiw, the extension they gave McNabb means they own his rights and can trade him if they decide to get rid of him, so they should be able to recoup at least a 3rd or 4th round pick in this year's draft if they choose to go a different direction qb wise.

You don't know me, so please try to keep it from being personal.In a football discussion, I'm just weighing the benefits of a few more wins vs. the extra draft picks for a team in desperate need of rebuilding.

 

[TommyGilmore]

What has the rest of the team done to support McNabb ? Dropped passes week after week.McNabb has no supporting cast in Washington so he looks worse as a QB than he really is.

Stats for Passes DroppedThere are no Redskins players with more than 3 dropped passes. Can you provide some evidence of all the passes that have been dropped "week after week"?

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

If the Skins had Campbell as their qb this season they would have 2 wins tops. It would actually be more likely they would be 0-9 right now.

What would be the downside to that? They would have had a 2nd round pick in 2010 and a 4th in 2011, plus could have had a higher pick in 2011. For a team that clearly needs to rebuild, what's so bad about more, and higher, draft picks?

Exactly...What has Donovan shown the Redskins so far this year that would warrant any sort of extension? Is it the eleven interceptions? Maybe it was the 57% completion percentage? Or it could be the 18 touchdowns he is on track for? Clearly it was his ability to run the two minute offense. Lots of upside here with McNabb.

What has the rest of the team done to support McNabb ? Dropped passes week after week.McNabb has no supporting cast in Washington so he looks worse as a QB than he really is.

Did you say the same thing about Jason Campbell who put up comparable if not better numbers last year at this point of the season?

 

[TobiasFunke]

The point the Redskin fans are not getting is that they gave McNabb an extension. They have an incredibly old team around a QB who needs a lot of pieces around him to be effective. Good move Skins, enjoy being at the bottom of the division for another 5 years.

I think most of us are capable of realizing that he was given an extension. The point you are not getting is that McNabb represents the best option at QB for the Skins this year and likely for the next 2 or 3 years. The fact that he was given an extension merely protects the return on investment for the draft picks they gave up to get him.The Skins are an old team with or without McNabb and it will take several drafts to change that. The loss of two picks is the only negative in the deal but taking a chance on a substantial upgrade at QB is worth a 2nd and a 4th rounder the following year.

If the Skins end up being at the bottom of the division it WONT be because of the McNabb trade or extension. But good luck to you and being the only team in the division without a single Super Bowl championship while everyone else has at least 3.

The point is the Redskins should have walked away. They see what they have and their QB position right now is worse than it was last year. The Redskins will not be a Superbowl contender with McNabb this year, next or the year after. So why sign a 35 year old QB to an extension for a team that is extremely old and lacks talent and depth all over the place and clearly needs to rebuild with their new GM? As for the Superbowls, you sound a lot like Cowboy fans. Well I hope you Redskin fans have enjoyed the three playoff wins since 1992. Its been good times in DC for over the past18 years, but hey those Superbowl victories must keep you warm while you watched the Eagles run for the playoffs every winter.

Can you explain how McNabb's contract inhibits any of the bolded? I'll answer for you- it doesn't. It's a flexible deal that allows for year-to-year assessment of the team and McNabb. It's not crushing from a salary cap perspective, and if it ever gets that way and the Skins aren't getting a return, they can walk away. But McNabb gives them a better chance to win more games as they rebuild, and if they happen to catch lightning in a bottle, a better chance at real success. Trust me, those of us who've watched McNabb follow Campbell, Todd Collins, Mark Brunell and Patrick Ramsey every week have a greater appreciation of his value than those of us who have only seen McNabb, a couple weeks of Kolb and a rejuvenated Michael Vick. Philly fans are very fortunate that they have absolutely no idea what average or replacement-level QB play looks like.

And yes, the Super Bowl victories do keep us warm during the winter. Those are great memories. You've got a championship baseball team now, so you should know that there's a huge difference as a fan between winning a title and making regular playoff runs. I'd trade a single championship for ten straight years of postseason failure in a heartbeat, and so would virtually everyone other sports fan, and you know that.

If you do not know how having a 35 year old QB who clearly is on the downside of is career on a team that clearly is going no where then I dont know what to tell you. Not to mention what have you seen from McNabb that has you excited about what he can do for the Redskins? If the Skins wouldnt have traded for McNabb maybe they would have traded up for Bradford, who knows. All I know (guess I should say believe) is that McNabb does not help the Redskins get to a Superbowl.

As for the Phillies...

This is a losers mentality. Sorry but I could careless about the past Phillies World Series championship as I watched them lose this year. It was great when the won, the parade was fantastic but its all just a memory and nothing more. Its sports and I care about the now, not that the Eagles won a championship in 1960 or the Flyers won back to back cups in the 70's.

Sure, I know the bolded (he's turning 34, but whatever). So what? That doesn't change the fact that he's better than the likely alternatives. The Skins aren't planning for him long-term, unless he improves, in which case they have flexibility to retain him. If there's a young QB they like, they'll take him. Playing the "but for" game know that it looks like Bradford is a star is meaningless. They also might have traded down and taken Clausen, who looks to me like he pretty much sucks. You can't play that game as part of a rational discussion of player value. The point is, McNabb is a decent alternative who makes the next couple years a little more bearable to a long-suffering fan base at little to no cost to the team's rebuilding efforts. You are fortunate not to have any perspective on that, because you haven't had to see what a mediocre QB looks like, so you'll have to take our word for it. You act like we're thinking he's gonna lead us to the Super Bowl, but nobody's saying that.

 

[Dexter Manley]

If the Skins had Campbell as their qb this season they would have 2 wins tops. It would actually be more likely they would be 0-9 right now.

What would be the downside to that? They would have had a 2nd round pick in 2010 and a 4th in 2011, plus could have had a higher pick in 2011. For a team that clearly needs to rebuild, what's so bad about more, and higher, draft picks?

Seriously? I'm sure Eagles fans would have loved that plan as they would have 1 more win this season. You sound like one of those guys who tanks in fantasy when they know they're not going to make the playoffs, so they have a higher draft pick the next year.Fwiw, the extension they gave McNabb means they own his rights and can trade him if they decide to get rid of him, so they should be able to recoup at least a 3rd or 4th round pick in this year's draft if they choose to go a different direction qb wise.

You don't know me, so please try to keep it from being personal.In a football discussion, I'm just weighing the benefits of a few more wins vs. the extra draft picks for a team in desperate need of rebuilding.

Huh? Personal? I have no idea what you're talking about. You advocated that the Redskins "tank" this season in your previous post. The problem with this strategy, is that this is real life. This isn't a fantasy dynasty league. This isn't franchise mode on Madden. This is a real life NFL franchise. And deciding to tank a season before training camp even starts is about the worst possible strategy I can think of. (Off the top of my head the only pro sport that this strategy could possibly be +EV would have been the pre-lottery/pre-early entry nba when a guy like Wilt, Kareem, etc. was going into their senior year.)The Redskins desperately needed a qb prior to this season. Unfortunately, upgrades at qb are the hardest thing to get. If they didn't get McNabb, the only other viable option at qb, imo, would have been Bradford, and to trade up for him would have meant giving up boatloads of draft picks compared to what they gave up for McNabb (and I'm not even sure the Rams would of done the deal). Then they would of been starting a rookie qb behind an unimproved oline. And with no draft picks in 2011, the team wouldn't be getting any younger either.Finally, looking at the players that would have been available to the Skins in the 2nd round, there's really no one that stands out that would of helped this team get better at a position of need (hint: oline, qb).

 

[Amused to Death]

You advocated that the Redskins "tank" this season in your previous post. The problem with this strategy, is that this is real life. This isn't a fantasy dynasty league. This isn't franchise mode on Madden. This is a real life NFL franchise. And deciding to tank a season before training camp even starts is about the worst possible strategy I can think of. (Off the top of my head the only pro sport that this strategy could possibly be +EV would have been the pre-lottery/pre-early entry nba when a guy like Wilt, Kareem, etc. was going into their senior year.)The Redskins desperately needed a qb prior to this season. Unfortunately, upgrades at qb are the hardest thing to get. If they didn't get McNabb, the only other viable option at qb, imo, would have been Bradford, and to trade up for him would have meant giving up boatloads of draft picks compared to what they gave up for McNabb (and I'm not even sure the Rams would of done the deal). Then they would of been starting a rookie qb behind an unimproved oline. And with no draft picks in 2011, the team wouldn't be getting any younger either.Finally, looking at the players that would have been available to the Skins in the 2nd round, there's really no one that stands out that would of helped this team get better at a position of need (hint: oline, qb).

Not tank the season, just maybe not give up 2 draft picks for an aging veteran to keep the seat warm. Maybe using that high 2nd round pick and keep Campbell another year or two. Is Cleveland tanking this season because they drafted a young QB? Just saying sometimes the team has to take a step back to go 2 steps forward. Different from tanking. Just use the draft picks differently.

 

[VaTerp]

The point the Redskin fans are not getting is that they gave McNabb an extension. They have an incredibly old team around a QB who needs a lot of pieces around him to be effective. Good move Skins, enjoy being at the bottom of the division for another 5 years.

I think most of us are capable of realizing that he was given an extension. The point you are not getting is that McNabb represents the best option at QB for the Skins this year and likely for the next 2 or 3 years. The fact that he was given an extension merely protects the return on investment for the draft picks they gave up to get him.The Skins are an old team with or without McNabb and it will take several drafts to change that. The loss of two picks is the only negative in the deal but taking a chance on a substantial upgrade at QB is worth a 2nd and a 4th rounder the following year.

If the Skins end up being at the bottom of the division it WONT be because of the McNabb trade or extension. But good luck to you and being the only team in the division without a single Super Bowl championship while everyone else has at least 3.

The point is the Redskins should have walked away. They see what they have and their QB position right now is worse than it was last year. The Redskins will not be a Superbowl contender with McNabb this year, next or the year after. So why sign a 35 year old QB to an extension for a team that is extremely old and lacks talent and depth all over the place and clearly needs to rebuild with their new GM? As for the Superbowls, you sound a lot like Cowboy fans. Well I hope you Redskin fans have enjoyed the three playoff wins since 1992. Its been good times in DC for over the past18 years, but hey those Superbowl victories must keep you warm while you watched the Eagles run for the playoffs every winter.

They can still walk away if they want to at the end of the season. And I still think McNabb is a better QB than any other option they have at the moment. You can disagree on that front but you keep trying to characterize his extension as a negative based on stuff that's not there.And yes, the memories from experiencing a Super Bowl Championship as a fan last FOREVER. That's what makes them special. And I do enjoy watching the Eagles come up short year after year after year. I do pull for Vick though for a number of reasons so maybe he can get you guys over the top.

But good luck to you and being the only team in the division without a single Super Bowl championship while everyone else has at least 3.

Congrats on having a good team 25 years ago.

Well it was 19 years ago but who's counting. And not a good team but what is generally regarded as one of the top 10 teams in NFL history that led to me experiencing my 3rd Super Bowl Championship as a fan. Something you really can't relate to.

 

[Dexter Manley]

You advocated that the Redskins "tank" this season in your previous post. The problem with this strategy, is that this is real life. This isn't a fantasy dynasty league. This isn't franchise mode on Madden. This is a real life NFL franchise. And deciding to tank a season before training camp even starts is about the worst possible strategy I can think of. (Off the top of my head the only pro sport that this strategy could possibly be +EV would have been the pre-lottery/pre-early entry nba when a guy like Wilt, Kareem, etc. was going into their senior year.)The Redskins desperately needed a qb prior to this season. Unfortunately, upgrades at qb are the hardest thing to get. If they didn't get McNabb, the only other viable option at qb, imo, would have been Bradford, and to trade up for him would have meant giving up boatloads of draft picks compared to what they gave up for McNabb (and I'm not even sure the Rams would of done the deal). Then they would of been starting a rookie qb behind an unimproved oline. And with no draft picks in 2011, the team wouldn't be getting any younger either.Finally, looking at the players that would have been available to the Skins in the 2nd round, there's really no one that stands out that would of helped this team get better at a position of need (hint: oline, qb).

Not tank the season, just maybe not give up 2 draft picks for an aging veteran to keep the seat warm. Maybe using that high 2nd round pick and keep Campbell another year or two. Is Cleveland tanking this season because they drafted a young QB? Just saying sometimes the team has to take a step back to go 2 steps forward. Different from tanking. Just use the draft picks differently.

First, he's doing more than keeping the seat warm. McNabb is an upgrade over JC, and is an actual leader which is something the Redskins haven't had at the qb position seemingly forever.Second, the Skins got a 4th round pick from the Raiders for JC, so while that pick will be worse than the second pick they gave up for McNabb, they really only gave up 1 draft pick for him.Finally, I've looked at all the players drafted in the 2nd round from 2.05 on down, and there's not a single one that stands out to me that would of been a good building block for this team as compared to trading that pick for McNabb.

 

[NJJets]

You advocated that the Redskins "tank" this season in your previous post. The problem with this strategy, is that this is real life. This isn't a fantasy dynasty league. This isn't franchise mode on Madden. This is a real life NFL franchise. And deciding to tank a season before training camp even starts is about the worst possible strategy I can think of. (Off the top of my head the only pro sport that this strategy could possibly be +EV would have been the pre-lottery/pre-early entry nba when a guy like Wilt, Kareem, etc. was going into their senior year.)The Redskins desperately needed a qb prior to this season. Unfortunately, upgrades at qb are the hardest thing to get. If they didn't get McNabb, the only other viable option at qb, imo, would have been Bradford, and to trade up for him would have meant giving up boatloads of draft picks compared to what they gave up for McNabb (and I'm not even sure the Rams would of done the deal). Then they would of been starting a rookie qb behind an unimproved oline. And with no draft picks in 2011, the team wouldn't be getting any younger either.Finally, looking at the players that would have been available to the Skins in the 2nd round, there's really no one that stands out that would of helped this team get better at a position of need (hint: oline, qb).

Not tank the season, just maybe not give up 2 draft picks for an aging veteran to keep the seat warm. Maybe using that high 2nd round pick and keep Campbell another year or two. Is Cleveland tanking this season because they drafted a young QB? Just saying sometimes the team has to take a step back to go 2 steps forward. Different from tanking. Just use the draft picks differently.

You really can't compare what's going on with the Brows to what's going on with the Redskins as the Browns have BETTER TALENT at the skill positions than the Redskins.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

First, he's doing more than keeping the seat warm. McNabb is an upgrade over JC, and is an actual leader which is something the Redskins haven't had at the qb position seemingly forever.Second, the Skins got a 4th round pick from the Raiders for JC, so while that pick will be worse than the second pick they gave up for McNabb, they really only gave up 1 draft pick for him.Finally, I've looked at all the players drafted in the 2nd round from 2.05 on down, and there's not a single one that stands out to me that would of been a good building block for this team as compared to trading that pick for McNabb.

#1 - What proof do you have that McNabb is a leader in Washington? He had a split locker room in Philly and he played there for a decade and his leadership was questioned routinely. #2 - No, they gave up two picks for him. All the Redskins did is trade JC who was just as successful with this same team (actually less talent, one less win and better stats than McNabb). They could have traded up for Bradford as it was a rumor. However they decided to trade a 2nd and a 4th/3rd for McNabb and not go after a young franchise QB. It comes down to this. Do the Redskin fans in this thread feel that Donovan McNabb can get you to a Superbowl or not in the next two years? I think everyone can agree the answer is no. So what was the point of trading for him, knowing where the talent level of this team was? What is the point of extending him when your starting QB next year should be in college right now?

 

[babydemon90]

It comes down to this. Do the Redskin fans in this thread feel that Donovan McNabb can get you to a Superbowl or not in the next two years? I think everyone can agree the answer is no. So what was the point of trading for him, knowing where the talent level of this team was? What is the point of extending him when your starting QB next year should be in college right now?

maybe winning more games, even if not the Superbowl, is worth a 2nd rounder? McNabb had a pretty good year last year, I doubt the skins expected this drop off....

 

[Mr. Retukes]

maybe winning more games, even if not the Superbowl, is worth a 2nd rounder? McNabb had a pretty good year last year, I doubt the skins expected this drop off....

Apparently most of the Skins fans in here did?

 

[NJJets]

maybe winning more games, even if not the Superbowl, is worth a 2nd rounder? McNabb had a pretty good year last year, I doubt the skins expected this drop off....

Apparently most of the Skins fans in here did?

What kind of WR's does McNabb have compared to what he had in Philadelphia (Philly >>>> Was) . Where is his ground game in Washington (it's been practically non-existent).IMHO McNabbs supposed dropoff is because of the lack of talent on Washington not because his skills are deteriorating.

 

[cstu]

Can't wait to hear all the talking heads and their shock at this. The team has continually said they want him here and he has continually said he wants to be here. Yet, all we've heard for two weeks is, "No way he'll come back after being benched! These guys obviously don't like each other. The relationship is ruined!"

Kinda odd to crow about something with so much potential to become a disastrous liability. A contract extension doesn't suddenly make McNabb an $80 million quarterback or anywhere close.

Well, only half of that is guaranteed. Now if they backloaded the contract with all the guaranteed money, then I'll worry about liability. I'm guessing when the #'s come out, it will basically be a 3 year deal for McNabb.

And yes, I will crow about 98% of the football world going crazy and insane over something that wasn't a big deal (McNabb's benching).

That's my guess as well. Lots of overreaction in here.

 

[cstu]

First, he's doing more than keeping the seat warm. McNabb is an upgrade over JC, and is an actual leader which is something the Redskins haven't had at the qb position seemingly forever.

Second, the Skins got a 4th round pick from the Raiders for JC, so while that pick will be worse than the second pick they gave up for McNabb, they really only gave up 1 draft pick for him.

Finally, I've looked at all the players drafted in the 2nd round from 2.05 on down, and there's not a single one that stands out to me that would of been a good building block for this team as compared to trading that pick for McNabb.

#1 - What proof do you have that McNabb is a leader in Washington? He had a split locker room in Philly and he played there for a decade and his leadership was questioned routinely. #2 - No, they gave up two picks for him. All the Redskins did is trade JC who was just as successful with this same team (actually less talent, one less win and better stats than McNabb). They could have traded up for Bradford as it was a rumor. However they decided to trade a 2nd and a 4th/3rd for McNabb and not go after a young franchise QB.

It comes down to this. Do the Redskin fans in this thread feel that Donovan McNabb can get you to a Superbowl or not in the next two years? I think everyone can agree the answer is no. So what was the point of trading for him, knowing where the talent level of this team was? What is the point of extending him when your starting QB next year should be in college right now?

Why not? He's no Peyton, but he is one of the few active QB's who have actually played in a SB.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

maybe winning more games, even if not the Superbowl, is worth a 2nd rounder? McNabb had a pretty good year last year, I doubt the skins expected this drop off....

Apparently most of the Skins fans in here did?

What kind of WR's does McNabb have compared to what he had in Philadelphia (Philly >>>> Was) . Where is his ground game in Washington (it's been practically non-existent).IMHO McNabbs supposed dropoff is because of the lack of talent on Washington not because his skills are deteriorating.

Then why bother trading for McNabb when you knew the running game was non-existent and the receivers were inferior? Aren't you just wasting McNabb's talents and hindering the development of a young player who could have become your Quarterback Of The Future™? And where do you think the team is going to be in 2011 when they have the SAME RBs and the SAME RECEIVERS that they have right now (zero RBs or WRs drafted in Rounds 1-6 the last 2 years)??And if the plan was to tread water for 3 years while McNabb mentored a young QB, don't you think it's a little concerning that they didn't bother to get a QB for McNabb to tutor this year?? What't the advantage of having McNabb serve as a tutor for 2 years instead of 3 years?

And getting back to the point of this thread: What's the advantage of giving McNabb a $3.75 million dollar bonus this month? Does anyone think he could command a bigger bonus at the end of the season?

 

[NJJets]

maybe winning more games, even if not the Superbowl, is worth a 2nd rounder? McNabb had a pretty good year last year, I doubt the skins expected this drop off....

Apparently most of the Skins fans in here did?

What kind of WR's does McNabb have compared to what he had in Philadelphia (Philly >>>> Was) . Where is his ground game in Washington (it's been practically non-existent).IMHO McNabbs supposed dropoff is because of the lack of talent on Washington not because his skills are deteriorating.

Then why bother trading for McNabb when you knew the running game was non-existent and the receivers were inferior? Aren't you just wasting McNabb's talents and hindering the development of a young player who could have become your Quarterback Of The Future™? And where do you think the team is going to be in 2011 when they have the SAME RBs and the SAME RECEIVERS that they have right now (zero RBs or WRs drafted in Rounds 1-6 the last 2 years)??And if the plan was to tread water for 3 years while McNabb mentored a young QB, don't you think it's a little concerning that they didn't bother to get a QB for McNabb to tutor this year?? What't the advantage of having McNabb serve as a tutor for 2 years instead of 3 years?

And getting back to the point of this thread: What's the advantage of giving McNabb a $3.75 million dollar bonus this month? Does anyone think he could command a bigger bonus at the end of the season?

Firstly the main reason that the Ground game in Washington has been non-existent is that Portis has been hurt Coupled with the fact that their OL stinks.Secondly while it might be a "waste" of McNabb's talen this year they have a clearer picture of what needs upgrading (OL/Skill positions).I don't think that the plan was for them to tread water for three years but the lack of talent in Washington makes it seem that way.Of the 13 QB's Drafted this year ONLY 5 made NFL rosters (Bradford for STL (And if the Redskins had a chance to get him I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have dealt for McNabb) Tebow for Denver (I'm not sold on him as a QB in the NFL yet) Clausen And Tony Pike In Carolina And McCoy in Cleveland (He looks good but the Browns have more talent around him than is in Washington) So McNabb seems to have been the best option for them to upgrade the QB position this year.As far as the $$$ who cares why Dan Snyder gave him a bonus (although they are a slightly better team this year than they were last year) .Could he have gotten a bigger bonus after the season Maybe yes Maybe no.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Of the 13 QB's Drafted this year ONLY 5 made NFL rosters

What are you talking about, dude? First off, there were 14 QBs drafted this year (15 if you count Armanti Edwards). Second, 12 of them made NFL active rosters, and 2 more were signed to practice squads. That's all of them. And not a single rookie was brought in by the Redskins.Please, please, PLEASE do a little more research before dipping your toes in the shark pool next time. Thanks.

 

[fatness]

And if the plan was to tread water for 3 years while McNabb mentored a young QB, don't you think it's a little concerning that they didn't bother to get a QB for McNabb to tutor this year??

You mean John Beck, who they traded for?

 

[fatness]

#1 - What proof do you have that McNabb is a leader in Washington?

You haven't followed the Redskins one bit, have you? The players on the roster consider him a leader and those of us who follow the Redskins and their beat reporters have read that every week from different players and writers.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

#1 - What proof do you have that McNabb is a leader in Washington?

You haven't followed the Redskins one bit, have you? The players on the roster consider him a leader and those of us who follow the Redskins and their beat reporters have read that every week from different players and writers.

Ohhh so the players say that he is a leader, so it must be true. Your eyes dont lie my friend and I have watched every single one of the Redskins games so far this year and he has shown exactly what type of leader he is.

 

[Dexter Manley]

#1 - What proof do you have that McNabb is a leader in Washington?

You haven't followed the Redskins one bit, have you? The players on the roster consider him a leader and those of us who follow the Redskins and their beat reporters have read that every week from different players and writers.

Ohhh so the players say that he is a leader, so it must be true. Your eyes dont lie my friend and I have watched every single one of the Redskins games so far this year and he has shown exactly what type of leader he is.

You're obviously not informed on this particular topic. For anyone who has followed the Redskins this season, it's common knowledge that the players look up to McNabb as their leader. This is something that was sorely lacking with JC, who had poor leadership skills.

 

[Dexter Manley]

And for all the people saying it was so terrible to give up a 2nd round pick this year, who exactly should the team have drafted in the 2nd round, had the Skins not done the McNabb deal, that would of been such a great building block for this team? I'll hang up and listen.

 

[TommyGilmore]

And if the plan was to tread water for 3 years while McNabb mentored a young QB, don't you think it's a little concerning that they didn't bother to get a QB for McNabb to tutor this year??

You mean John Beck, who they traded for?

Not that I care about this debate, but Beck is 29 years old and on his 3rd team in less than 2 years. I'd be surprised if the Redskins brought him in so he could be tutored/groomed by McNabb.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

And for all the people saying it was so terrible to give up a 2nd round pick this year, who exactly should the team have drafted in the 2nd round, had the Skins not done the McNabb deal, that would of been such a great building block for this team? I'll hang up and listen.

How about we just go with the 3rd round pick (if they had one)? They could have drafted Colt McCoy who currently has better win loss record than McNabb, has a better QB rating, better completion percentage, and has not thrown a single INT. Oh and he has only played the Super Bowl champs, NE and the Jets. They then could have used their 2nd round pick to get some more youth on a team that clearly needs it by trading down and amassing more picks. But why do that when you already have a Super Bowl contender and the final missing piece is a 35 year old QB.

 

[NJJets]

And for all the people saying it was so terrible to give up a 2nd round pick this year, who exactly should the team have drafted in the 2nd round, had the Skins not done the McNabb deal, that would of been such a great building block for this team? I'll hang up and listen.

How about we just go with the 3rd round pick (if they had one)? They could have drafted Colt McCoy who currently has better win loss record than McNabb, has a better QB rating, better completion percentage, and has not thrown a single INT. Oh and he has only played the Super Bowl champs, NE and the Jets. They then could have used their 2nd round pick to get some more youth on a team that clearly needs it by trading down and amassing more picks. But why do that when you already have a Super Bowl contender and the final missing piece is a 35 year old QB.

Do you really think Colt McCoy would be doing as good as he is if he was on a Washington team with a CLEARLY inferior OL , NO ground game , and mediocre at best WR's.And FYI Colt was picked twice by Pitt in his debut.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Do you really think Colt McCoy would be doing as good as he is if he was on a Washington team with a CLEARLY inferior OL , NO ground game , and mediocre at best WR's.

I'm pretty sure you just described the Cleveland Browns.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Do you really think Colt McCoy would be doing as good as he is if he was on a Washington team with a CLEARLY inferior OL , NO ground game , and mediocre at best WR's.

I'm pretty sure you just described the Cleveland Browns.

The Browns have one of the best olines in the league and a stud rb in Hillis. Their wr's are comparable to the Skins and their te's aren't as good as Cooley and davis.

Putting any rookie qb behind Washington's current oline (Sam Bradford included) would of been a disaster.

 

[scoobygang]

Do you really think Colt McCoy would be doing as good as he is if he was on a Washington team with a CLEARLY inferior OL , NO ground game , and mediocre at best WR's.

I'm pretty sure you just described the Cleveland Browns.

Hasn't Joe Thomas made a bunch of Pro Bowls? And Cleveland is averaging 20 more yds/game on the ground (in fairness Wash has a generically bad running game, but not an exceptionally bad one).I'm not discounting the possibility that 3 years from now everyone will look at the McNabb trade and say "and they could have had Colt McCoy!" That may be true. But Colt McCoy is only playing because it's painfully obvious thatCleveland's Plan A and Plan B at QB sucked too.

 

[Dexter Manley]

And for all the people saying it was so terrible to give up a 2nd round pick this year, who exactly should the team have drafted in the 2nd round, had the Skins not done the McNabb deal, that would of been such a great building block for this team? I'll hang up and listen.

How about we just go with the 3rd round pick (if they had one)? They could have drafted Colt McCoy who currently has better win loss record than McNabb, has a better QB rating, better completion percentage, and has not thrown a single INT. Oh and he has only played the Super Bowl champs, NE and the Jets. They then could have used their 2nd round pick to get some more youth on a team that clearly needs it by trading down and amassing more picks. But why do that when you already have a Super Bowl contender and the final missing piece is a 35 year old QB.

Sorry, but they didn't have a 3rd round pick as they used it in the supplemental draft the previous summer, so that's not an option.So would you have reached on McCoy with their 2nd round pick? If not, what other player available would of been a solid building block for this team?

 

[Dexter Manley]

More info regarding the contract. Regardless of whether or not you think trading for and signing McNabb to an extension is a good deal, this is one of the best structured contracts I've ever seen.

Per PFT:

McNabb’s option bonus doesn’t come due until Week One of 2011 season

Posted by Mike Florio on November 17, 2010, 10:25 PM EST

Though the Redskins have the ability to trade or cut quarterback Donovan McNabb before he earns a $10 million option bonus in 2011, the precise deadline for exercising the option bonus was not previously known.

It now is.

Like many other option bonuses to be paid out in 2011, the window for exercising the bonus opens on the first day of the next league year (which will be March 1, if there’s a new labor deal by then) and closes on the day after the first regular-season game. While the device as applied to other players was aimed at ensuring that the option bonuses will be paid once the labor situation is resolved, the device as applied to McNabb gives the Redskins the ability to squat on McNabb’s rights for the entire offseason, exploring their options via free agency, trade, or the draft before trading or cutting McNabb.

As a practical matter, a final decision likely will be made on or before the Friday before Week One of the 2011 season, due to the rules regarding termination pay. As one league source observed, “They can really stick it to him.” The source also pointed out that it’s hard to believe such a deal ever would be contained in a quarterback contract, especially in a contract for an older quarterback.

For those of you who have made it this far, here’s another interesting tidbit. If McNabb ever wakes up and realizes that the Redskins have now blocked him from the open market and placed him in a position where they can trade him wherever they choose, he has an option for taking matters back into his own hands. For the modest sum of $30 million, McNabb can buy out the final five years of the contract.We’ve got a feeling that the Redskins call this “the Haynesworth Clause.”

 

[thayman]

And for all the people saying it was so terrible to give up a 2nd round pick this year, who exactly should the team have drafted in the 2nd round, had the Skins not done the McNabb deal, that would of been such a great building block for this team? I'll hang up and listen.

How about we just go with the 3rd round pick (if they had one)? They could have drafted Colt McCoy who currently has better win loss record than McNabb, has a better QB rating, better completion percentage, and has not thrown a single INT. Oh and he has only played the Super Bowl champs, NE and the Jets. They then could have used their 2nd round pick to get some more youth on a team that clearly needs it by trading down and amassing more picks. But why do that when you already have a Super Bowl contender and the final missing piece is a 35 year old QB.

McCoy has two INTs on the year.Also McNabb is much better for the team than any rookie. The Redskins are clearly rebuilding and nothing is gained by picking a Bradford/McCoy and letting him get destroyed by the sorry excuse for an Oline.

 

[thayman]

First, he's doing more than keeping the seat warm. McNabb is an upgrade over JC, and is an actual leader which is something the Redskins haven't had at the qb position seemingly forever.Second, the Skins got a 4th round pick from the Raiders for JC, so while that pick will be worse than the second pick they gave up for McNabb, they really only gave up 1 draft pick for him.Finally, I've looked at all the players drafted in the 2nd round from 2.05 on down, and there's not a single one that stands out to me that would of been a good building block for this team as compared to trading that pick for McNabb.

#1 - What proof do you have that McNabb is a leader in Washington? He had a split locker room in Philly and he played there for a decade and his leadership was questioned routinely. #2 - No, they gave up two picks for him. All the Redskins did is trade JC who was just as successful with this same team (actually less talent, one less win and better stats than McNabb). They could have traded up for Bradford as it was a rumor. However they decided to trade a 2nd and a 4th/3rd for McNabb and not go after a young franchise QB. It comes down to this. Do the Redskin fans in this thread feel that Donovan McNabb can get you to a Superbowl or not in the next two years? I think everyone can agree the answer is no. So what was the point of trading for him, knowing where the talent level of this team was? What is the point of extending him when your starting QB next year should be in college right now?

#1- Most of the coaches/players/local media have described and reported him as a leader. Now you could argue that he isn't much of a leader but you have to understand that our recent QBs haven't offered anything resembling leadership for quite some time.#2- Bradford/McCoy or whoever you want would be getting destroyed behind that line. Think David Carr.I don't think any rational Skins fan will tell you that McNabb will take us to a Superbowl in the next two years. We are rebuilding right now and McNabb is an excellent transitional QB while the O-Line and skill positions recover from years of Cerrato's inept drafting.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

You were saying?

 

[Amused to Death]

And for all the people saying it was so terrible to give up a 2nd round pick this year, who exactly should the team have drafted in the 2nd round, had the Skins not done the McNabb deal, that would of been such a great building block for this team? I'll hang up and listen.

I'll ask again, McNabb or that 2nd & 4th? Which is more valuable to your team?

 

[delusional]

First, he's doing more than keeping the seat warm. McNabb is an upgrade over JC, and is an actual leader which is something the Redskins haven't had at the qb position seemingly forever.Second, the Skins got a 4th round pick from the Raiders for JC, so while that pick will be worse than the second pick they gave up for McNabb, they really only gave up 1 draft pick for him.Finally, I've looked at all the players drafted in the 2nd round from 2.05 on down, and there's not a single one that stands out to me that would of been a good building block for this team as compared to trading that pick for McNabb.

#1 - What proof do you have that McNabb is a leader in Washington? He had a split locker room in Philly and he played there for a decade and his leadership was questioned routinely. #2 - No, they gave up two picks for him. All the Redskins did is trade JC who was just as successful with this same team (actually less talent, one less win and better stats than McNabb). They could have traded up for Bradford as it was a rumor. However they decided to trade a 2nd and a 4th/3rd for McNabb and not go after a young franchise QB. It comes down to this. Do the Redskin fans in this thread feel that Donovan McNabb can get you to a Superbowl or not in the next two years? I think everyone can agree the answer is no. So what was the point of trading for him, knowing where the talent level of this team was? What is the point of extending him when your starting QB next year should be in college right now?

#1- Most of the coaches/players/local media have described and reported him as a leader. Now you could argue that he isn't much of a leader but you have to understand that our recent QBs haven't offered anything resembling leadership for quite some time.#2- Bradford/McCoy or whoever you want would be getting destroyed behind that line. Think David Carr.I don't think any rational Skins fan will tell you that McNabb will take us to a Superbowl in the next two years. We are rebuilding right now and McNabb is an excellent transitional QB while the O-Line and skill positions recover from years of Cerrato's inept drafting.

Only flaw in this is you have Shanny as a coach. Who seems to act as if he is bigger then the organization itself.