No, and one of the main reasons were they weren’t getting solid QB play, which is why Keenum was benched and replaced by Haskins. Haskins wasn’t even ready to play but Washington had no choice to make the move because Keenan wasn’t getting it done.
Yeah, I don't agree. The fan base was screaming for Haskins before the season ever started. Most people who really know the skins and watch football were against that move. If you look at Keenum early, here is what you see.
Against:
Philly 30/44, 68.2 Comp%, 380 yds, 3 TDs, 0 INTs, Rate 117.0
Dal 26/37, 70.27 Comp %, 221 yds, 2 TDs, 0 INTs, Rate 103.5
Chi 30/43, 69.77 Comp %, 332 yds, 2 TDs, 3 INTs, Rate 78.8
NYG 6/11, 54.55 Comp %, 37 yds, 0 TDs, 1 INTs, Rate 23.7 (Keenum injured in this game, walking boot)
Mia 13/25, 52.0 Comp %, 166 yds, 2 TDs, 0 INTs, Rate 99.7
SFO 9/12, 75.0 Comp %, 77 yds, 0 TDs, 0 INTs, Rate 91.3
Min 12/16, 75.0 Comp %, 130 yds, 0 TDs, 0 INTs, Rate 87.4
DET DNP
NYG 16/22, 72.73 Comp %, 158 Yds, 1 TDs, 0 INTs, Rate 107.8
Dal 18/37, 48.65 Comp %, 206 Yds, 1 TD, 1 INT, Rate 63.6
Season: 160/247, 64.78%, 1707 Yds, 11 TDs, 5 INTs, Rate 91.3
So if you look at his early games, before the injury, he would have likely had a monster season. As it was, playing hurt through the rest of the season and sharing time with Haskins etc., he still had pretty decent numbers. The idea that Keenum was terrible in Washington is just not true and the Skins were bad all over. That's not a good team over there IMO. I think he played a lot better then people give him credit for.
JMO