How far can Beck take us?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

that said, he doesn't have a QB, so what can you expect? mike's definitely been able to do more with less, but i'm just not seeing him ready to go... if things really fall apart and it looks like last season where we're playing the wrong defense, don't have the right personnel and can't stop anyone, then yeah, i can see it.

I don't really see that happening though. they put 4 new bodies in the front 7, and at least 3 are going to help a lot (kerrigan still needs to get up to speed a bit), and the teams hasn't really gotten worse anywhere. OL is improved - rabach is gone, we've got a 6th starter for depth, and its a very fast line overall. helu torrain and hightower are better than our RBs last year, and jabar/donte beats the crap out of galloway/that other crappy guy from last year, even if hankerson doesn't blow it up.

anyways, i'm saying, with drew brees, this is a playoff team if only... but i don't see us being much worse, the team is younger, we've got next year's picks, and andrew luck may be a possibility. so we're not set up to be awful going into next year.

QB is awful, and if this year was super important, they would had overpaid for orton and gauranteed average, but acceptable QB play for the next 3-4 years... obviously that's not the way to a superbowl though, so i'm assuming they're waiting to get their guy next year, and that mike's on board with that.

gibbs wasn't an nfl lifer, he was out for a decade, and the 2nd time around he had casserly replaced with a moron committee that didn't really do him a lot of favors. after his 2nd year, the team wasn't any better, younger, or draft pick rich then when he came.

if we go 8-8, 7-9, whatever and qb play is killing us, that's a one stop problem. I just don't see it being that dismal in 4 months, but i guess we'll see soon enough.

Well I think the Orton thing is that Shanahan thinks he probably has at least one QB better in Rex/Beck/Clemens, and bringing in Orton would have cluttered things up more than solved them. Which is the only reason I can imagine he's not here.

I'm still not seeing Shanahan as fundamentally different to other recent NFL re-hires; I think you're stretching a bit there.

If he's right on the QB position, there's probably enough else useful, interesting talent here in it's prime to make the NFC East race interesting, if nothing else. 8 or 9 wins is do-able with strong QB/WR play. I think he'll come back if this team can get to that level.

[skinster]

I just want to ask, hypothetically, that if our future qb is not determined to be on our roster by seasons end, and we get the 17th pick in the draft, how much are you willing to trade up to get a Franchise qb, and what level of qb do you expect that trade up to be (landry jones/ andrew luck). I'd personally never trade up to get luck, the cost is too high, but If we are able to give up the 17th, our second, and fifth to trade up to the 9th spot or so to get jones (assuming he is about as good as Freeman-who he reminds me of), I would do that.

I've said this too many times on this site, but I would prefer us to do terrible this year than mediocre (unless we miraculously find a franchise qb on our roster or through other means than the draft...but I'm not banking on that). Of course I would love the Redskins to surprise me and win it all, or at least a lot, with Beck, who I hope is our guy (but I'm not holding my breath on that).

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by skinster

I just want to ask, hypothetically, that if our future qb is not determined to be on our roster by seasons end, and we get the 17th pick in the draft, how much are you willing to trade up to get a Franchise qb, and what level of qb do you expect that trade up to be (landry jones/ andrew luck). I'd personally never trade up to get luck, the cost is too high, but If we are able to give up the 17th, our second, and fifth to trade up to the 9th spot or so to get jones (assuming he is about as good as Freeman-who he reminds me of), I would do that.

I've said this too many times on this site, but I would prefer us to do terrible this year than mediocre (unless we miraculously find a franchise qb on our roster or through other means than the draft...but I'm not banking on that). Of course I would love the Redskins to surprise me and win it all, or at least a lot, with Beck, who I hope is our guy (but I'm not holding my breath on that).

For Andrew Luck, I'd be all in a la Ditka w/Ricky Williams. I know that's too extreme, but it would take a bunch of picks & would be worth the risk. Plus, I trust Allen to make such a deal; he'd do everything to reduce the team's exposure to risk.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinster

I just want to ask, hypothetically, that if our future qb is not determined to be on our roster by seasons end, and we get the 17th pick in the draft, how much are you willing to trade up to get a Franchise qb, and what level of qb do you expect that trade up to be (landry jones/ andrew luck). I'd personally never trade up to get luck, the cost is too high, but If we are able to give up the 17th, our second, and fifth to trade up to the 9th spot or so to get jones (assuming he is about as good as Freeman-who he reminds me of), I would do that.

I've said this too many times on this site, but I would prefer us to do terrible this year than mediocre (unless we miraculously find a franchise qb on our roster or through other means than the draft...but I'm not banking on that). Of course I would love the Redskins to surprise me and win it all, or at least a lot, with Beck, who I hope is our guy (but I'm not holding my breath on that).

I don't think that price would be too exorbitant to get Landry Jones, assuming that Matt Barkley stays at USC.

I mean, I kind of think that good young quarterbacks aren't that hard to get if you are willing to take a chance on a guy who isn't accomplished. I mean, Kevin Kolb cost a second round pick and a crap ton of money, but any team could have had Mike Kafka for a fourth rounder. 85+ players were picked before the most accurate passer in the 2010 draft (Colt McCoy). System QBs with good tools sometimes aren't selected at all.

No doubt that the Redskins could have added any number of potential QBs of the future to the team this year if Shanny had been willing to give up the roster spot of Beck or Grossman. Heck, the team could have just drafted Blaine Gabbert at the cost of not having Ryan Kerrigan and Jarvis Jenkins.

Point is, if we want to improve our quarterback situation without giving up high picks, we can. I also think they should explore trading up in the draft if the opportunity presents itself.

[freddyg12]

Not to mention, the Danny would love the buzz it would create w/the fans. On sites, such as, say... the Warpath!

[MTK]

He's not ancient at 59 either. He could coach another 5-7 years no problem. He doesn't seem like the type that wants to hang things up early and go play golf all day.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

He's not ancient at 59 either. He could coach another 5-7 years no problem. He doesn't seem like the type that wants to hang things up early and go play golf all day.

Ugh. Didn't we just go through this last year with McNabb?

Matty, I just don't think we can reconcile consistently failing with consistently wanting to prove that failure must of been a fluke. I think I COULD see Mike Shanahan coaching 5+ years here, but doing so while losing every season would be completely unprecedented. I'll repeat that: completely unprecedented. It hasn't happened. It won't ever happen. He needs to be winning.

Expecting Shanahan back in 2012 or 2013 is logical only if you believe that this team is on the right track, and really should win as much as it loses. The idea that he'd be completely okay with sustained losing so that he can rebuild the team before handing the reigns over to Kyle (or whoever) doesn't have any basis in reality.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Ugh. Didn't we just go through this last year with McNabb?

Matty, I just don't think we can reconcile consistently failing with consistently wanting to prove that failure must of been a fluke. I think I COULD see Mike Shanahan coaching 5+ years here, but doing so while losing every season would be completely unprecedented. I'll repeat that: completely unprecedented. It hasn't happened. It won't ever happen. He needs to be winning.

Expecting Shanahan back in 2012 or 2013 is logical only if you believe that this team is on the right track, and really should win as much as it loses. The idea that he'd be completely okay with sustained losing so that he can rebuild the team before handing the reigns over to Kyle (or whoever) doesn't have any basis in reality.

Let's see how this year goes. He's had one year for crying out loud.

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Let's see how this year goes. He's had one year for crying out loud.

My words exactly.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Let's see how this year goes. He's had one year for crying out loud.

...........get a rope...

[NLC1054]

It's funny how this fanbase is only capable of looking at two things---looking at the past, and looking at the future.

The Redskins haven't even put on the pads for their first preseason game, and we're already talking about Mike quitting, or resigning, or getting fired, or what kind of coach we need in the future? Can we at least let the kicker kick off before we start talking about who's quitting?

I see two things more than anything---"well in the past..." and "we need to do this in the future." Barely anything is about NOW.

And I think any shift in coaching now would completely negate what this team desperately needs; continuity.

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Please explain how "a faster tempo gives the offense more time to adjust". Seems to me that a faster tempo give neither side as much time to adjust.

Also, can someone demonstrate to me that the teams who made the Super Bowl in the last 3 or 4 years all played "uptempo on offense"? Frankly, I don't care nearly as much about offensive tempo as I do about offensive success. Are there really stats out there that demonstrate that "faster offense" is equal to "more succssful offense"?

A faster tempo means you're getting to the line of scrimmage with 15-20 seconds on the play clock and the defense is still moving around trying to get set. When you break the huddle and you have 5 seconds on the clock, you gotta snap the ball, no time to scan the defense, no time to figure who who's blitzing, no time for anything. The later you get out of the huddle, the harder it is. Getting into better plays, audibles, adjustments, hot routes. Those are all easier when you have time on the clock.

I'd say the Packers and the Saints both have that high energy, fast tempo offense. The Colts, naturally, the Giants can play that style of offense too. And even though the Steelers can be old school, you won't see Big Ben taking his time to get under center too often. Package that with the fact that McNabb struggled with the terminology at times and it makes things a LOT harder.

[sportscurmudgeon]

A faster tempo means you're getting to the line of scrimmage with 15-20 seconds on the play clock and the defense is still moving around trying to get set. When you break the huddle and you have 5 seconds on the clock, you gotta snap the ball, no time to scan the defense, no time to figure who who's blitzing, no time for anything. The later you get out of the huddle, the harder it is. Getting into better plays, audibles, adjustments, hot routes. Those are all easier when you have time on the clock.

I'd say the Packers and the Saints both have that high energy, fast tempo offense. The Colts, naturally, the Giants can play that style of offense too. And even though the Steelers can be old school, you won't see Big Ben taking his time to get under center too often. Package that with the fact that McNabb struggled with the terminology at times and it makes things a LOT harder.[/QUOTE]


Using your example, if the offense breaks the huddle with 15-20 seconds on the play clock AND ALSO snaps the ball quickly, they MIGHT have an advantage over a defense that is still adjusting. However, if the offense breaks the huddle with 15 seconds on the clock and comes to the line of scrimmage and fiddle-dicks around with a bunch of shifts and fake audibles and finger-pointing at one of the defensive safeties, any tempo advantage would be lost.

I'd like to see stats on the Saints and Packers in terms of the number of plays they run per minute of offensive possession to agree they play significantly faster than anyone else.

The Colts get to the line fast and then spend a LOT of time with Peyton Manning pointing and changing calls. That works for the Colts because it is Peyton Manning executing the plays once the ball is snapped. Until I see it with my own two eyes, I am nowhere near ready to put John Beck or Rex Grossman in the same paragraph with Peyton Manning if the paragraph is about "great QBs".

The Giants play "uptempo offense". Really? I must have watched different Giants' games than you watched for the last several years.

[NC_Skins]

The more I read some of the idiotic replies lately, the more I wished the lockout was still in tact. At least we had decent discussions back then (and hope) for the future of this franchise. Right now, it seems many of the fans have our Redskins Bus sitting at the cliff with the engine revving high and the brake release off. All this, before the the first snap has even been played and they're already writing it off as a loss or a entry into the "Luck Sweepstakes.

My suggestion to you guys is to take the year off and relieve us of your misery. You know, since you KNOW it's going to be a disaster and complete failure, why bother watching. Just come back next off-season, or when you think the roster is up to your liking and get back to discussing Redskins football.


Until then....enjoy your trip..

[Landry44]

I can answer that question right now. Beck isn't taking this team anywhere but the first pick in the 2012 draft.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Landry44

I can answer that question right now. Beck isn't taking this team anywhere but the first pick in the 2012 draft.

Quoted for truth.

Originally Posted by SOUL-SKINS

not far...............4 and 12

Originally Posted by celts32

Maybe he will take us all the way to Andrew Luck.

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

On what do you base these opinions? The guy hasn't thrown a pass in an NFL game since 2007! He has thrown exactly one TD in his entire four-year NFL career. I cannot see a single reason, other than blind faith in Shanny, for you to conclude that Beck can stabilize our QB position.

Originally Posted by huntz in response to celts' post

DITTO!!! Remember Spurrier? He had faith in Matthews and Danny Awful! Poor QB in the NFL = Poor season.

Originally Posted by irish

I read the question as its stated, how far can Beck take us, I didnt see where it said or implied if lots of holes are filled how far can Beck take us. You are correct, every team does have holes but the Skins have as many holes as a piece of Swiss cheese. This team isnt going anywhere. This is a 8-8 team at best.

Originally Posted by skinsfan69 in regards to how far Beck can take us

Not very far.

Originally Posted by saden1

He certainly will when he recks the train full of his bandwagoners in the preseason while Rex flys Redskin One into a 500 season.

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

To think we ditched probably better QB prospects over the past few seasons(Brennan, Daniel) to end up with Beck and Clemens is rather sobering.

Originally Posted by skinsnut

how far can Beck take us?
Probably at least to the McDonalds drive thru.
Anything else is gravy.
Expecting any more than a 6-10 season with this squad and him leading is crazy.

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

John Beck can take us onto the field, thats about it.

Originally Posted by saden1

Beck is a disaster waiting to unfolding. It's not going to be pretty trainwreck so you guys best have hardened stomach. I can't wait for this clown to go away.

I can stop quoting Saden now, his perspective is established.

Originally Posted by Eriwar

Beck can take us to the Number 1 over all pick in the draft. I say trade for Ryan Mallett before his value goes up even more. 6'6, canon arm, can read defenses......l'll take that guy. MS should not be so locked into the AL draft....looks like Dallas may have that pick and by the looks of it there going to have to tear that thing out the frame. What are the chances that guys is going to pan out.