Franchise Tag: Cooley or Taylor?

[Schneed10]

I really, really, really, really, really hate hypothetical questions.

Especially when you consider that Cooley will be a free agent in 2008, and Taylor will be in 2010 (or 2009 if he hits enough escalators to void the last year). Either way, neither will bump up against each other in a choice for a franchise tag.

But I guess in dream world where I'm forced to choose, I'd rather keep Chris Cooley.

This debate is stupid.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I really, really, really, really, really hate hypothetical questions.

Especially when you consider that Cooley will be a free agent in 2008, and Taylor will be in 2010 (or 2009 if he hits enough escalators to void the last year). Either way, neither will bump up against each other in a choice for a franchise tag.

But I guess in dream world where I'm forced to choose, I'd rather keep Chris Cooley.

This debate is stupid.

What's stupid about it? And who said it was a debate?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

What's stupid about it? And who said it was a debate?

It's stupid because there is no foreseeable circumstance in real life in which Taylor and Cooley would be competing for the franchise tag.

It's a debate because some people are choosing Taylor, others are choosing Cooley, and arguing the merits of either choice.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

It's stupid because there is no foreseeable circumstance in real life in which Taylor and Cooley would be competing for the franchise tag.

It's a debate because some people are choosing Taylor, others are choosing Cooley, and arguing the merits of either choice.

Of course there is no foreseeble circumstance in real life, I think I was pretty clear in stating that.

This really wasn't about franchising, per se, but rather which player fellow Warpathers feel is more valuable to the team.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

This really wasn't about franchising, per se, but rather which player fellow Warpathers feel is more valuable to the team.

OK, then that's a better question.

On the franchising question, I said I'd franchise Cooley, mainly because he's a good teammate. Both Taylor and Cooley are incredibly valuable to the team, but Taylor kind of does his own thing while Cooley seems more about being a Redskin.

But if you're asking who does more to help our team win football games? I'll go with Sean Taylor by the hair of his chinny chin chin. His range in the backfield is exactly what will allow GW to unleash blitzes. Taylor's range allows GW to move the strong safety (Landry) up into the box more often, meaning he can blitz LBs from all over the place and still have Landry in position to play the run.

Then again, Saunders uses Cooley down the middle of the field to threaten the safeties and hold them in the center of the field, which can help free Moss and the other WRs on the outside for one on one coverage with the CBs. Cooley also has a knack for getting open when you really need to move the chains, like on a crucial 3rd and 7 or something. He has a way of finding the holes in the zone and settling down. He's a good outlet for Campbell.

They're both very valuable, but I'll say Taylor's a bit more valuable because without his range, I don't think GW has the confidence in the corners to blitz quite that much.

Sorry for crapping on your question 12th, I got hung up on the franchising thing.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

It's stupid because there is no foreseeable circumstance in real life in which Taylor and Cooley would be competing for the franchise tag.

It's a debate because some people are choosing Taylor, others are choosing Cooley, and arguing the merits of either choice.

I'd say it is silly because the question implictly asks "who is the more valuable player?" within the context of the franchise tag. Which is unrealistic.

First off it is 100% subjective to debate the merits and value of two distinctly different players They play different positions and contribute in totally different ways. Hell they don't even play on the same unit with the same purpose. I know I find such discussions tedious and really pointless unless faced with a realistic or on-going situation. Which we do not have here.

These types of arguments tend to go "Well I think this" and "Well you're wrong and I think this". Then "Well we'll just disagree". Then it is over because in the end there will be no one who is "right" because the situation doesn't really exist. If it did then in the end somone would have come down on the "right" side of the argument. "Right" meaning the side that actually happened.

So in this case you're having a discussion/debate that can never be absolutely resolved. That is maddening to me.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

It's stupid because there is no foreseeable circumstance in real life in which Taylor and Cooley would be competing for the franchise tag.

It's a debate because some people are choosing Taylor, others are choosing Cooley, and arguing the merits of either choice.

I tend to agree. There's really not much point in discussing who to keep because there's simply no ounce in reality here. But for the sake of discussion we've certainly had worse threads. There's nothing wrong with hyotheticals as long as people at the same time understand the reality of the situation.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This debate is stupid.

But I guess I'll throw my vote toward Cooley. Taylor hasn't shown me that he is the dominant force everyone promised he'd be. Cooley, on the other hand, has consistently exceeded expectations.

Oh, and I wouldn't want my Cooley jersey to become out of date.