Rex Grossman Named Starting QB

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

I Beck to Dilfer. I just don't see it that way.

You should be hit with a Mallet and stuffed in a Locker for that pun.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Beck's reaction

John Beck's natural reaction? He's pissed, of course - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

At least this time he didn't come out and say what he really feels. If he felt this way about McNabb John Beck thinks he’s a starter, glad McNabb is on the way out | ProFootballTalk can't imagine his mindset having changed because his competitions name is Grossman.

Comparing Quarterbacks...The WashPost displayed this graphic Quarterback instability for the Washington Redskins - 2011-2012 Washington Redskins/NFL Preview - The Washington Post on the instability of Redskin QB's over the past twenty five years. As horrible as we thought JC to be, his ranking is interesting in comparison.

[hooskins]

What Matt Bowen thinks the gameplan for Rex should be. I tend to agree:

My game plan for Rex | National Football Post

[MTK]

Originally Posted by hooskins

What Matt Bowen thinks the gameplan for Rex should be. I tend to agree:

My game plan for Rex | National Football Post

Totally agree. Especially on the point about spreading them out with 3-4 wides.

[polywog]

Originally Posted by hooskins

What Matt Bowen thinks the gameplan for Rex should be. I tend to agree:

My game plan for Rex | National Football Post

I don't like this plan. I think throwing deep early in the game is unnecessary. I think the Skins can move the ball on the ground and will....early and often. The G-men are going to be beat by the play-action and by handling the Gnats at the line, straight up. Gross is not going to have to win this game, he has but only to not lose it.

[diehard]

He'll attack the middle of the field like he has done so well thus far. And they should be confident with Hightower and Helu to run for close if not over 200 yards.

[diehard]

Originally Posted by hooskins

What Matt Bowen thinks the gameplan for Rex should be. I tend to agree:

My game plan for Rex | National Football Post

I agree with this too. Deep outs and fades aren't the strengths of Grossman (or Beck).

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by polywog

I don't like this plan. I think throwing deep early in the game is unnecessary. I think the Skins can move the ball on the ground and will....early and often. The G-men are going to be beat by the play-action and by handling the Gnats at the line, straight up. Gross is not going to have to win this game, he has but only to not lose it.

I'll never understand why some folks consider throwing deep and pounding the rock to be mutually exclusive opposites. Taking occasional deep shots helps the running game; running the ball helps to open up deep routes. A nine route and an off-tackle run are buddies and partners, not opposites.

[polywog]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I'll never understand why some folks consider throwing deep and pounding the rock to be mutually exclusive opposites. Taking occasional deep shots helps the running game; running the ball helps to open up deep routes. A nine route and an off-tackle run are buddies and partners, not opposites.

I was speaking exclusively about the suggestion that we go deep three times in a row to start the game....you only do that if your safeties are cheating up. They tend not to do that right away. "Eff it I'm going deep" is a funny email, it is also not how you do things in the NFL. You take what's there.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by polywog

I was speaking exclusively about the suggestion that we go deep three times in a row to start the game....you only do that if your safeties are cheating up. They tend not to do that right away. "Eff it I'm going deep" is a funny email, it is also not how you do things in the NFL. You take what's there.

He suggested taking a "deep shot in the first three plays of the game".

Not 3 in a row.

[Redskin Jim]

Originally Posted by polywog

I was speaking exclusively about the suggestion that we go deep three times in a row to start the game....you only do that if your safeties are cheating up. They tend not to do that right away. "Eff it I'm going deep" is a funny email, it is also not how you do things in the NFL. You take what's there.

You misread what was written. He says a deep shot within the first 3 plays. Not go deep three times in a row to start the game.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by polywog

I was speaking exclusively about the suggestion that we go deep three times in a row to start the game....you only do that if your safeties are cheating up. They tend not to do that right away. "Eff it I'm going deep" is a funny email, it is also not how you do things in the NFL. You take what's there.

I'm pretty sure Bowen wasn't suggesting we go deep three straight times.

He was saying we need to test them deep on one of the first three plays.

[polywog]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

I'm pretty sure Bowen wasn't suggesting we go deep three straight times.

He was saying we need to test them deep on one of the first three plays.

Correct, I re-read that and I misunderstood. It could work - if you watch the film, the Giants seem to be vulnerable in the secondary. Testing them early would be a good idea....it would cause panic in the back-field that would translate into moving players out of the box. That would cost them the game.

Hightower will just kill them.

- Deep shot in the first three plays of the game.

Not necessarily worded correctly, but thanks guys! I get it, already.

[wilsowilso]

It wasn't worded correctly. IMO

[hooskins]

Twas a bit misleading but in context, and using common sense, it makes sense what Bowen was trying to say.