Okay, so I have been a big anti Rexy guy for years. Now I find myself in the strange predicament of him being the starting QB for the Skins. I have long maintained that my problem with Rexy is not that he isn't talented. It's that he makes BAD mistakes. He is not consistent. If he eliminated the bad mistakes and played with more consistency, he could/would be a legitimate NFL starter.
Anyways, yesterday he got the nod to be the starter. I do feel bad for D. McNabb because he has had a very good (not great) career but barring some strange occurence, he will find himself on a new team next year. It's tough for a guy that was a mainstay and perennial Pro Bowl player with the Eagles to find himself jettisoned from his team by the coach that drafted him to a divisional rival. There were not a lot of suitors for the guy when he left the Eagles. Then he comes to D.C. where he has had difficulty picking up the offense and despite all the changes and arguably the lack of talent around him, he still hasn't played as well as he should/could have. He has been benched for the rest of the season and we get the opportunity to see what Rexy can do.
In his first game, Rexy had a very good game. The guy threw for a career tying best 4 TDs and over 320 yards. He looked liked he had good command of the offense and his accuracy for the most part was excellent. I did say prior to the game that he will fumble at least once and the fumble he had wasn't the best. Also, his first INT was not the smartest throw. He basically lofted one up there and I know he thought Sellers was going to stop but still it would have been better for him to eat the ball and take a sack or throw it out of bounds instead of trying to make that throw that results in a Cowboy INT in our territory. The second INT was not that bad given that time was running out and he had to make a play and if that throw had been just a little bit higher, it could have been potentially caught setting up a long FG (that Gano would have probably missed).
All in all, I was pleased with his play. I would rate it a B+. Lets keep in mind that it is only one game so it will be interesting to see what he does in the final two. But he has an opportunity to show everyone (fans, league, peers, coaches, etc.) that he is capable of being a starter in this league.
What was also interesting was that several players upon hearing that Rexy was going to be the starter accepted the news (there were some that seemed disappointed with the move) and that afterwards, there did seem to be some excitement among some players with how the offense was clicking. Moss, who had two TDs, seemed pretty pumped with the performance. Shanny also looked and sounded less frustrated when talking about the offense.
I admit that it was good to see the offense click and how the ball was spread around. Six players caught balls and three different players caught TDs. Armstrong had 100 yards in receptions. It was a solid offensive performance.
Going back to McNabb. It's tough because again the guy was jettisoned by the Eagles, now looks like he will leave the Redskins and will find himself on his third team in three years. The guy didn't have a whole lot of suitors previously so I imagine there will be less suitors now. There's no question he will find a place to play (best options are Minnesota or Arizona). However, it looks more and more like his final years will be spent as a journeyman QB and I'm not sure what kind of success he will find.
As far as the Redskins are concerned, Rexy has an opportunity in the final two games to make a case that he should be the starter next year. I think Kyle loves this thought. Kyle is the reason Rexy is here. Maybe it is a good match between those two guys. Grossman is in the final year of his contract so we could sign him for not too much and then draft a QB to learn the ropes.
The toughest part of this whole thing is thinking that we had found a franchise QB in McNabb and that not panning out and giving up 2 higher level draft picks for the guy. Still, it is better to find out now rather than later if he is our guy.
Will be interesting to see if Rexy can replicate his performance next week against the Jags. I like his confidence. Again, it has been an issue of consistency with that guy so hopefully he can string together a couple more good performances.
As my son says, "PEACE OUT, BRO!!!"
28 comments:
The dude can play. I've said it all along. There is a mythology about Rex that exists for some reason. He had far more great and solid games for the Bears than bad games.
That said, he torched a really bad Cowboys D. He won't be anywhere as effective against the Jags and Giants. It won't be because he cannot play - it will be because the Deadskins don't have the talent to compete against these better teams.
It's no mythology. You are just in love with the guy. There is no question that he can play but there is also no question that he is not consistent and makes bad mistakes. If he could get consistent and eliminate some of the bad mistakes, he would be a legitimate starter in the league.
Robs, you think the Skins are so inept on offense but it's not nearly as bad as you think. If you compare us with the Pears, we are better in most categories. Here are the rankings.
Yards/game:
Skins - 17
Pears - 30
Pass yards/game:
Skins - 9
Pears - 26
Rush yards/attempt:
Skins - 13
Pears - 27
Sacks given up:
Skins - 29
Pears - 32
The facts are that our offense has been able to move the ball. Our red zone offense has not been good.
Again, it's not as bad as you think but being as "objective" as you are, you will give full credit to your lover Rexy but blame everything else on Snyderatto.
10-4 vs. 5-9
It's not the schemes or the coaching. You can pull out whatever stats you want.
The Deadskins lack basic talent across their roster. That is why they have had only 2 winning seasons since 1999.
Putting Rex in won't make a whole lot of difference in the end. Just watch.
Robs, you claim to be knowledgeable at football; however, you seriously make me (and others) question how much you really know.
What is the one major change that has happened to the defense this year? It's the system. Going from a 4-3 to a 3-4. We went from a yearly top 10 defense to the worst D in the league. You claim age and poor tackling but the D is not that old (excluding Fletcher who is still one of the best at his position). If the defense had played half as well as they did last year, we would have won a few more games this year. It's clear that the biggest difference in this year's D is the scheme. We don't have the right players to run this scheme. Now either we go back to a 4-3 or we stay with a 3-4 and try and get the right guys to fit the scheme. Either way, Haslett has to dramatically improve the D next year or he should be fired.
There was a lot of change in the offseason with coaches and schemes and you are being the typical fan and expecting immediate results. I thought you would be knowledgeable enough to recognize it takes a little while to install the systems and bring the right guys to fit the system.
I just gave you hard evidence that our offense in many ways is better than the Pears. The Pears have lived with solid defense and again Devin Hester on PR/KR. The Pears have plenty of shortage of talent on the offensive side of the ball.
I love though that you think Rexy is still the greatest thing and any mistake or shortcoming he has is not his fault. It's amazing how blind you are.
The 2010 bears are like the 2001 bears. they will be one and done in the playoffs. I hope the Jets win this weekend, the Packers win and then a showdown at Lambeau for the division title. I do hope then the bears somehow limp into the playoffs and have to take on the Packers in wild card weekend at Lambeau with a chance for the Packers to end this improbable season for the bears.
Since 99 only two winning seasons... wow that is bad. common denominator = snyder. only thing I have to say about the skins at this point is that until the owner stops going after "PROVEN" players /coaches, and starts going after players and personel that want to PROVE, keep expecting the same crap.
Maybe this team and owner will move to LA and Washington can get snyderless a new team without a racist name.
JSR - the Bears clinched the North already. They could lose their last two and still would be the champs.
As for the Deadskins. JKSD, for years I've told you that there is an organizational problem with Snyder. They continue to lose because they have no commitment to the draft.
They are an old, weak, non-talented team - like they have been for years.
If they had a 4-3 D, they still would have been worse than last year because of age and lack of depth, and too many guys who cannot talent.
Offensively, you have a few games where you put up a lot of yards, but so what if you lose? The Eagles game is a perfect example. They put up a lot of points and yards but they got blown away.
I would not trade the Bears O for the Deadskin O - but you seem to be arguing that that would be a good trade for the Bears. The weird thing is then you think I don't know football.
Until you accept the fact that the Deadskins lack talent, you will hold out hope that with the right scheme they will become champs. That is wishful thinking my friend.
First, I feel compelled to debunk a misconception that JSR has obviously bought in to. The name "Redskins" has become a controversial topic, but not because of a derogatory meaning. The controversy comes from ignorance and society's overwhelming need to be be PC about everything. Read this article and you'll understand.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2314877/is_the_redskins_name_offensive_to_native_pg2.html?cat=37
Regarding Rexy...The only thing that makes me upset about benching McNubbs is the fact that we've lost two draft picks because of this experiment. If Rexy can handle the offense better than McNubbs, so be it. Give him the opportunity to play. We're going to have to get a QB in the draft now instead of going after an O or D-lineman, which are our biggest needs. That's what sucks.
As far as Robs is concerned, I'm happy for your Care Bears. They made the most of a season where the O-line has been a mess and where the team is transitioning to Mike Martz's schemes. Teams like the Patriots and even the Redskins proved that the Care Bears have serious flaws, but 10-4 is no joke. Unfortunately, it won't mean much in the playoffs because teams like the Falcons, Saints, and Giants are more complete and balanced...which is what will cause the Care Bears problems.
Regarding the Skins lack of depth and talent, we know. That's not news to anybody. We've gone into each of the past few seasons hoping that our starters could remain healthy. We were 6-2 two seasons ago, 2-2 last season, and 4-3 this season. Obviously the starting teams have been good enough to win. The lack of depth has been an issue and I can assure you that Shanallenhan's plan is to address the depth issue. It'll take a couple seasons but it's going to improve.
Robs, there is no question that Snyderatto was a HUGE problem so I understand the organizational issues. Much of that was corrected with the hiring of Shanallen. At least give them a chance. I am surprised at you because you seem to want to write them off as well without giving them any opportunity. You seem to think they should be able to turn years of organizational irresponsibility around overnight.
You also say that the defense is old. That is not the case. The secondary is all in their twenties. Out of their LBs (Orakpo, McIntosh, Fletcher, Alexander) only Fletcher is in his thirties and he is arguably their best player on defense. Their D line (Gholston, Carriker, Kemoeatu) the oldest is 31.
Robs, the defense has consistently been a top 10 defense in the previous three years. You don't just drop from there to dead last without reason. What has been the big change this season? I'll remind you, going from a 4-3 to a 3-4. It seems that you would be smart enough to recognize that. The problem is that we switched to a new scheme without having the right players to fit that system.
If we had a defense even half as good as we had last year, we would have won a few more games this year.
Our offense has issues but I am less worried about that as I think those issues are more easily resolved. I have given you stats that clearly prove that our offense is better than the Pears. You can turn your back to that if you want but it's true.
Again, you should be smart enough to recognize that there were big organizational changes made and that the new regime should be allowed time to institute their change. Your problem is that you are so biased and unobjective that even if the likes of Lombardi, Walsh, Ditka, Cowher, Belichik were somehow combined and coached the Skins you would still bitch and moan about them.
You need to increase the fiber in your diet and take a good dumper.
"Redskins" is offensive. I don't need to read any excuses.
Tell me JKSD - who has changed on the Deadskins D from last year to this year? No one - and they lost FA. They have an aging team that is losing its ability to tackle. That is not just a scheme problem - that is a problem with talent.
There is naturally a drop off when you change schemes as you have to learn, but I'd say they were going to drop off anyway given their lack of any personnel changes outside of the loss of FA.
There is no question that the Bears O-line is much, much better than the beginning of the year. Cutler is playing much, much better. Forte is running the ball better. This is a good young offense that could use another lineman or two - but it is certainly more than capable of putting points on the board.
The losses have been the anomolies this year. So, I won't put a lot of stock in the idea that they have fundamental flaws. They just need to do what they have been doing all year.
"'Redskins' is offensive. I don't need to read any excuses."
That's the problem with discussing issues with you. You have your opinions and you're not open to accepting facts presented by others. You just dismissed the FACT that the term "Redskins" comes from the color of the war paint traditionally used by Native Americans and the FACT that over 80% of Native Americans don't find the term "Redskins" offensive.
This is why I take your criticism of the Redskins and your praise of the Pears with a grain of salt. It's your opinion, which is based mostly on preconceived notions of those teams rather than true analyzation of facts.
Deeps, your "facts" are just plain wrong. I can show you a link where 80 percent find the term offensive. Historically and culturally the term has been used as a derogatory term.
George Preston Marshall likely had no qualms about offending native Americans. He most certainly was not celebrating their rich history.
Finding one apologist's excuse-making on the Internet does not make it a fact.
You need to spend 10 minutes studying American history and "Redskin" etymology before castigating me for having an informed opinion.
One other thing - you need to read your excuse more closely. Native Americans are not offended by Indian nicknames in general (i.e. Seminoles, Illini, etc.). That was what the poll showed. It was not linked in any way to "Redskins".
OK...how about this article. Seems virtually irrefutable to me.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/25/20040925-121238-9407r/
Or...How about this from Wiki...
Following the 1992 Super Bowl protests, the Washington Post posted a survey in which “89 percent of those surveyed said that the name should stay.” 5 In a study performed by the National Annenberg Survey, Native Americans from the 48 continental U.S. states where asked “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or does it not bother you?”6 In response, ninety percent replied that the name is acceptable, while nine percent said that it was offensive, and one percent would not answer.6
I'm not making this stuff up. I'd be all for changing the name if Native Americans found it offensive, but there is no evidence to prove that it is a universally detested description of the Native American race.
Keep telling yourself that Deeps.
Please don't use wiki as a source. But if you look up "Redskin" in wiki and you find that it is considered offensive.
I don't know the methodology or the samples that were used for the Annenberg study. I'd love to see the details of the study. But at the end of the article you reference it explains the possible confusion and addresses the issue.
There is no positive connotation to the "Redskins" for native Americans.
I doubt most native Americans want to waste their time fighting to have the lowly Deadskins change their name. But that doesn't mean that it is not offensive.
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/redskin
***"REDSKINS" is a word refering to a group of people by another group of people***
By definition it is a racist word. I highly doubt Native Americans gave themselves that name. They DO NOT refer to themselves as Redskins, and black people do not refer to themselves as "N_____S" in a designated way as it was originally intended. Its on the same lines as the word describing blacks (the N word) by whites. They themselves did not designate either one of those names upon themselves. They are words that refer to a specific group of people. That is RACIST.
It is exactly the same as a team being called Washington N_____S, or Washington Yellowskins, or Washington Blacks, or even Washington Hicks.
The new name of the Deadskins is the Washington Chinks.
They are paying homage to the brave Chinese folks who now own the country.
It's as good as Redskins - and just as non-offensive.
First, I don't know how the discussion devolved to the topic of the team name Redskins. I think that in and of itself is silly.
Second, JSR, it is not like calling the team Washington N______S or any of the other names you suggested. That is downright blatant derogatory. Why would someone name their team/product that? What sense would that make?
I do believe that the term "Redskin" taken by itself is not an appropriate term. I also understand that George Preston Marshall was a racist. HOWEVER, it makes NO sense to name your product with an intentionally racist name. It seems that the intention was that Indians were brave and tough and he used the term Redskin to depict that. Again, I cannot believe for a minute that he was intentionally trying to offend Native Americans. It was more to say that his football team was comprised of tough, brave, warriors similar to Indians.
Hopefully that provided some rationale and clarity on the subject. Yet, somehow I have a feeling this will not be the end of the discussion.
I don't think he tried to be racist - he just was.
Deeps made two main points.
1. "Redskins" is not derogatory, it is complimentary.
2. Native Americans don't view the term as derogatory.
Here are my comments. It is derogatory (clearly). I don't have any doubt about that but if you guys want to believe otherwise that's fine with me.
Second, this is largely irrelevant. If the term is in fact racist, then it doesn't matter, it should not be used. If 10 percent of Native Americans are offended or 50 percent are offended or 100 percent are offended, wrong is wrong.
Aside from that, I don't think we really know what percentage are offended. There is one Annenberg survey that people point to that Native Americans don't care, but I have no idea of the methodology or their survey design. I teach research methodology to Ph.D. students and we talk about questionnaire and data validity and reliability. We cannot assess that without details, but I find their results unbelievable.
In one of the links that Deeps provided there was a Native American dude who explained why he thought the survey was wrong.
I will say this - within our lifetime the Deadskins will change their name. Other colleges and high schools have been doing this for years - the Deadskins are just being slow.
Again, the term in and of itself is derogatory. That I can agree with.
I don't believe the intention of naming the Washington football team "Redskins" was meant to be derogatory to Native Americans. Again, it seems to me that the intention was to say that the Indians were brave warriors and hence that is why the team was named "Redskins." To think that an owner would purposely name his product to insult a group of people or make fun of them or do it because he hated that group is absolutely ridiculous.
In the end, I don't really care if they change the name or not. It doesn't have a whole lot of bearing to me. I like "Redskins" because I am used to it but the D.C. team is still my team regardless of the name so if they change it so be it.
Since you agree that "Redskins" is derogatory, then you agree with most of what I said.
I said that I agree that Marshall did not purposely seek out a way to be derogatory to Native Americans - but that is not really relevant to the discussion or to Deeps points that have been discussed.
If we agree it is derogatory then there is good reason to change it.
Robs,
As far back as I can remember, you have disagreed with every survey result that we've discussed on these blogs that didn't support your presumptions. You're entitled to your opinion, but there's no point in discussing this, or any other topic, if you are going to be too stubborn to consider the possibility that you're preconceived notions are misguided.
When you say, "Wrong is wrong," that is exactly what is wrong with or society today. We are so hypersensitive to anything that someone may consider to be offensive that we assume anything with any racial connotation, positive or negative, to be a racial epithet. Unless you are of Native American descent, you simply are not qualified to judge right vs. wrong here without definitive proof that Native Americans are, to a large degree, offended by the name. I am struggling to find a single report, scientifically sound or not, to indicate that a significant proportion of Native Americans are offended by the "Redskins" name.
I am, and always have been, 100% open to a name change if the Native American community presents a strong case to do so. I'm not saying it requires a majority vote in a survey. A strong case could be presented by other means as well. Until now, the only case that has been made is that the vast majority of Native Americans are not offended by the term. Most agree that the team represents their strong culture and the bravery of their people. The opinions of a few people who push their opinions on others in the interest of being PC are not credible and it seems that you're being influenced by those arguments when you say, "wrong is wrong."
I didn't intend to steer this discussion in this direction. I'll comment further only if we want to continue this topic.
Merry Christmas!
Deeps you have given no reason for me to change my mind. You basically want me to change my opinion . . . because.
Let's break down your argument. You have two points.
1. "Redskins" isn't derogatory. It is and posting up the musings of one dude (probably a white dude) who admits to being a Deadskin fan doesn't change the fact that "Redskin" is a derogatory term. Look it up in the dictionary and read more about it all over the Web.
"Redskin" is a pejorative word, and it seems to me that you have given up your futile effort to pass it off as something other than that.
If you believe the word is racist then there is little more to discuss.
However, you have been arguing a second point to justify its use.
2. You keep citing the single Annenberg survey. But I looked a at the press release of the survey. Let me say, there is no way that their methodology passes water. They called folks across the country and had them self-identify if they were Native American. This is extremely problematic and would never pass for scientific research.
But for some reason you say I am being foolish for not accepting their results.
You said you cannot find any discussion anywhere that refutes your contention about Native Americans. Read below:
Here is another discussion of the issue in SI where another study is cited. In it, it is reported that 40 percent of Native Americans on reservations "thought Snyder should change his team's name." Is that percentage high enough for you?
But the methods for that study were not given, so I looked it up and within 5 minutes I was able to find a peer reviewed academic study that looks at the issue.
Here is the link to the academic paper. You will see that Native Americans want teams to change their names and that two thirds of Native Americans surveyed - and this is an actual group of Native Americans - found "Redskins" to be the most insensitive team name.
Is 66 percent of actual Native Americans who view "Redskins" as the most offensive name high enough for you?
Now that I have given you actual evidence from a peer-reviewed scientific study, as well as given you info from another study that offers a very different view than the clearly faulty (as I have explained) Annenberg "study." Why don't you change your mind?
Good find. I support whatever the Native American community wants.
Happy Holidays!
I would hate it if an indian cricket club changed their name to the Calcutta Sardars or Mumbai Singhs. Using Sikh designations for their historically fierce fighting ability, courage and bravery.
Anyways...
Congratulations to the Bears. They won the division. They earned it and deserve it. I have to say, they are for real. Dangerous team to play in the playoffs. I still have unrelenting hate for them and hope my Packers can dismantle them at Lambeau, and then I hope we can Bury them again at Soldier Field the following week if they play.
The Packers are a good team and it is hard to say that the Giants deserve to get in over them. But, I'd really like to see a rematch against the Giants at Soldier Field at some point in the playoffs. This Bears team is very different than the one that gave up all the sacks to the Giants earlier in the year.
Post a Comment