Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Huddle
Irrelevant.
We are here discussing a completely different, and less-than-ideal, situation.
Did you mis-read my remarks as a claim that platooning Brunell and Campbell would make us unstoppable...or is this a strawman argument you've created?
|
First of all, it's not irrelevant just because you say so. You're suggesting a QB platoon/rotation. In support thereof, you've offered the 2005 Browns as "support" for the proposition that a QB platoon can work in the NFL (which is kind of funny, the 2005 Browns? Did you really think that was going to convince anyone that we should do the same thing?). I countered with a perfect example of how QB platoons do not work.......in fact, us Skins fans are particularly familiar with the QB platoon/rotation approach and I doubt too many of us want to go back to those days.
Now it's your turn. Explain to me how the Skins's QB platoon of a few years ago is "irrelevant" to the discussion of whether QB platoons can work in the NFL or not. Do you seriously even know what "irrelevant" means? Seriously, do you?
Furthermore, I'd like for you to explain to me why the Browns QB platoon is relevant, but the Redskins QB platoon is not relevant. Is it just because the Browns were your idea, and the Skins were my idea? Is that what makes my point "irrelevant", and yours gospel? Do you see the HYPOCRACY of your statements here?
I mean I really hate to be the one to break this to you, but your points are no more valid than anyone else's on this site. We are all offering our OPINIONS. You can't prove the QB platoon will work or that it is a good idea for the Skins in the long run. And I can't prove that it's a bad thing (although I can point out that it's never worked in the NFL to any degree of appreciable success). So, what we are doing here is arguing, and offering support for our arguments. You think the Browns are a worthwhile example to support your stance, I think the Skins are a worthwhile example to support my stance. My example is no less relevant than yours just because it stands in opposition to your opinion. Are you starting to see how this whole thing works here?
As for my "unstoppable" comment: it's called sarcasm. You can look that up too when you look up what irrelevant means.