Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;683301]Considering that I'm having 5 different conversations in the same thread, you'll have to forgive me for such fallibility.

You're still not getting a single-year prediction from me, just an obvious observation regarding the evidence that disproves that there are no signs of decline for McNabb. No idea why this reluctance to predict something I don't have a great read on caused you to bring up some wide range of things I predicted.[/quote]

That's the point. You were reluctant to make a prediction, when that's all you seem to do.

By the way, please stop claiming things are so "obvious" or trying to assert opinions as fact. It doesn't work, unless you have a credible record, which you don't.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

I'm not gonna lie. This whole McNabb deal is sort of like a twighlight zone uncharted territory.

It's just so weird. Can't quite wrap my brain around it yet.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=Beemnseven;683312]Now that it's done, I'm 90% in favor. But the one thing that's been on my mind is pick #37 this year. In the long run, wouldn't it have been better to take the two best offensive tackles in the 1st and 2nd knowing how horrific the line was last year?

Doesn't matter anymore though.[/quote]

The OT at #37 may not have been worth selecting at #37. In other words, we may have just been taking an OT just to take an OT in that scenario

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=IrMitchell;683262]WOW WHAT????!?!!!!
I just got home from a trip to Ottawa check my espn/nfl/etc. and see this? Mike Shanahan you can just leave now man, you've already done enough! What a great trade!!
My heads spinning in circles just imaging a Mcnabb to Santana Moss 80 yard TD. I think the redskins have just locked up atleast a 7-9 record season.[/quote]

If we finish 7-9, I'd call the deal a failure.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=Beemnseven;683312]Now that it's done, I'm 90% in favor. But the one thing that's been on my mind is pick #37 this year. In the long run, wouldn't it have been better to take the two best offensive tackles in the 1st and 2nd knowing how horrific the line was last year?

Doesn't matter anymore though.[/quote]

Doubt we would have gone tackles back to back though. Shanahan definitely wanted a QB and one of those picks would have probably gone that way.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=SmootSmack;683318]The OT at #37 may not have been worth selecting at #37. In other words, we may have just been taking an OT just to take an OT in that scenario[/quote]I'm thinking the value pick there probably would have been a defensive guy, if not one of the three first-round RBs.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=Buster;683319]If we finish 7-9, I'd call the deal a failure.[/quote]

Really, I'd call it a success. DM isnt going to come in and make them a 12 game winner.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=Audi;683315]That's the point. You were reluctant to make a prediction, when that's all you seem to do.

By the way, please stop claiming things are so "obvious" or trying to assert opinions as fact. It doesn't work, unless you have a credible record, which you don't.[/quote]I mean, I really don't think you are the person who should be judging my credibility. No offense.

I do think there is some value in your statement. When I'm writing fast, I tend to claim things to be obvious, when I actually mean to point out that the information is freely available. Those things are not synonymous, and it's a fallacy on my part to use them as such.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

Let's not turn this into a Tripp vs. thread. We're talking about McNabb and what we all think of the trade, not Tripp's opinion of it.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;683324]I mean, I really don't think you are the person who should be judging my credibility. No offense.

I do think there is some value in your statement. When I'm writing fast, I tend to claim things to be obvious, when I actually mean to point out that the information is freely available. Those things are not synonymous, and it's a fallacy on my part to use them as such.[/quote]

Either way, you still have a lot of explaining to do.

I'll give you one to start with, and maybe you can type slower to make sure you don't commit anymore fallacies.

What "winning organizations" were interested in Kurt Warner, Drew Brees, and Brett Favre that makes you believe the lack of perceived interest from "winning organizations" in Donovan McNabb is indicative of anything?

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=SmootSmack;683326]Let's turn this into a Tripp vs. thread. We're talking about McNabb and what we all think of the trade, not Tripp's opinion of it.[/quote]

I would have kept the pick and given Philly the finger.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;683294]Burden of proof is on you, dude. It's your claim that Reid's offense was so unbalanced that it make McNabb's job difficult, not mine. As a hypothesis, I think it's legit, but you might as well put "I think" before it because I don't have to agree with every distant assumption you make, just like you don't have to agree with the way I use completion percentage and sack rate to show value.

In the absence of personal expertise on what makes the Shanahan offense click, your entire argument is valueless. You critique me for appealing to my own expertise, but I'm very forthright in where I'm deriving my opinions. You just write stuff seemingly to make me read it.[/quote]

Yes, you back off like a little coward once your "moral superiority" assumption against me went down the drain, now did it?

Then you seem unable to comprehend that every play's outcome can be broken down into two categories: Success or failure.

Running the ball effectively forces the opponent to call anti-pass plays with greater reservation, thus increasing the probability that when a pass play is called, the opponent will have an unsuitable defense to deal with it and a big play will occur.
Sure, you could have enough talent that you'll hit a big one, but the [B]chance[/B] of that is still lower since the opponent can commit everything to just stopping the pass via blitz, double coverage, bracket coverage. Run the ball effectively, and the opponent has to commit their linebackers and quite possibly more just to stop the RB, which leaves means the CBs will be stuck in man or something more often, which in turn can be exploited by running a passing play out of the same formation. The opponent now has to guess, and one wrong guess can mean the difference in the game.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

Let's put it this way. If we somehow get very lucky and win it all sometime in the next three years with McNabb as the QB it will be the ultimate FU to Philly fans.

I can live with that.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

yeah, i wanted to talk aobut mcnabb this morning. . . now, after this cock measuring contest, im kinda tired out on the subject already. freak it, i got work to do or im gonna be working all night.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;683219]Load of economic counterincetives, not lack of ability is why they didn't sell the farm for him.
Oh right, Bretto Favrah the system QB who made that O explode is simply not going to come back. A 99% success rate with quick slants is better than the 60% of JC17
Alex Smith, spread system QB extrodinaire and huge investment given a second chance.
Henne, don't know.
Orton, scheme-fit for McDaniels' ball-control Patriot-lite offense.
Arizona? Screw Arizona. Signing D. Anderson is more than enough to show that they can't really tell a good QB from a bad one.

[B]Then there's McNabb's PERSONAL incentive. He WANTED to be here and wasn't going to have it any other way[/B].[/quote]

In all fairness, given the choices of Buffalo, Oakland, or even the Rams, I'd want to come here too. McNabb wanted to come here to pay back Philly, unfortunately we play 14 other games besides the Philly games.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[url]http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs472.ash1/25880_384128678755_75529708755_3719017_1021281_n.jpg[/url]

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;683329]Yes, you back off like a little coward once your "moral superiority" assumption against me went down the drain, now did it?

Then you seem unable to comprehend that every play's outcome can be broken down into two categories: Success or failure.

Running the ball effectively forces the opponent to call anti-pass plays with greater reservation, thus increasing the probability that when a pass play is called, the opponent will have an unsuitable defense to deal with it and a big play will occur.
Sure, you could have enough talent that you'll hit a big one, but the [B]chance[/B] of that is still lower since the opponent can commit everything to just stopping the pass via blitz, double coverage, bracket coverage. Run the ball effectively, and the opponent has to commit their linebackers and quite possibly more just to stop the RB, which leaves means the CBs will be stuck in man or something more often, which in turn can be exploited by running a passing play out of the same formation. The opponent now has to guess, and one wrong guess can mean the difference in the game.[/quote]Okay, well stated. Do you have any actual evidence for these claims, or will a simple "I still think you're overrating the effect of a generic running game commitment on passing efficiency" suffice?

I'm well versed in game-theory, so you can save the lecture. There's obviously some effect of run-pass balance on play efficiency, but I don't think there's a major effect to be found there. Just my opinion.

Also, how many Brownie Points do I get for breaking your composure with just a little bit of logical reasoning? Some? I'll settle for some.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=SmootSmack;683340][url]http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs472.ash1/25880_384128678755_75529708755_3719017_1021281_n.jpg[/url][/quote]

GD that's ugly. Well at least he's better than JC, for now.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=SmootSmack;683340][URL]http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs472.ash1/25880_384128678755_75529708755_3719017_1021281_n.jpg[/URL][/quote]

I was just thinking I need to update my Skins roster and try them out. McNabb definitely adds some fun to the equation.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=Redskins_P;683205]This is the way I see the trade....

Campbell + Zorn < McNabb + Shanahan[/quote]

Unfair comparison since Zorn is no longer here.

Campbell + Zorn < Campbell + Shanahan

The coaching changes and the improved o-line are gonna be the difference this year.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=SmootSmack;683318]The OT at #37 may not have been worth selecting at #37. In other words, we may have just been taking an OT just to take an OT in that scenario[/quote]

I just don't get it. I understand the assigned value for players, but if you need an OL why not pick the next best one on the list or which ever one you think will do well in zone blocking. Instead you want to wait till the next round then said OL get picked by someone else. Then we decide on another OL and again we are too high to draft the OL or the value doesn't fit. So we wait then someone else gets him.

In the long run we get no OL cause when it's time for us to pick we don't like the value. Just fill our needs and stop with the BPA BS.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=Audi;683327]Either way, you still have a lot of explaining to do.

I'll give you one to start with, and maybe you can type slower to make sure you don't commit anymore fallacies.

What "winning organizations" were interested in Kurt Warner, Drew Brees, and Brett Favre that makes you believe the lack of perceived interest from "winning organizations" in Donovan McNabb is indicative of anything?[/quote]Allen/Gruden was interested in Favre to replace Garcia. Oh, and Minnesota. Brees, by all reports, had a choice between Miami and New Orleans before Miami traded for Culpepper. I don't know if I would call Miami under Saban a "true winning" franchise, but for the purpose of answering a cherry-picked example of a guy with a wrecked shoulder, they will suffice as an organization who people thought had direction.

I think you might have me on Warner (of course, I had thought of him before as a potential positive McNabb example). There were like, two teams interested in him as a backup, Arizona was the only team that was going to give him the starters role. But again, Josh McCown beat him out for the starting job in 2005. That's no different than if Grossman beat out McNabb for us this year: no one wants to see that happen. Warner's such an odd case. He's more proof that I'm wrong: anything can happen, as opposed to I'm wrong: McNabb is being underrated.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

-GTripp-
These columnists aren't the people I've been discussing takes on the trade with. They're just mainstream sources. For every columnist who doesn't like it for the Redskins, there are two who do. But I'm also not citing columnists as experts here. I'm just telling you that people that I have reached out to are "lukewarm" about what the Redskins are receiving.

There's no anger: these are not Redskins fans. It's just being panned as more of the same from a franchise that has come to deliver it on a consistent basis. And I tend to agree.-------------------------------------------

Dude, first off, let me say this. I love the passion. You are a fan, and that is great. Passion is great to see, whether u agree or not, Im sure you will be rootin for old #5 in Sept. whether JC has comparable stats or not. That said-----

I think your anonymous "sources" are anonymous because they are f*ckin' made up, kinda like a 4 year olds make believe imaginary friend, only your "sources" spout football statistical nonsense that could be tilted to either side given the change of a variable or two. I think you are just full of it, and trying to make it seem like your knowledge is superior than all of ours because "YOU GOT THE INSIDE TRACK, dude.....". some of your posts and spouts have come off as plain foolish.

I call BullShit.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;683229]Draft picks retained: not relevant.[/quote]
we're going to compare wasting away draft picks when it comes to Campbell vs McNabb? That's ironic.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

But the lack of interest in Warner suggests that no one, even winning organizations, thought him capable of his 2007-2009 seasons. Does that make McNabb likely to repeat it? Doubtful. But Warner surprised everyone, myself and plenty others included.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=tryfuhl;683361]we're going to compare wasting away draft picks when it comes to Campbell vs McNabb? That's ironic.[/quote]Perhaps, but it's also obviously relevant.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;683253]Look no further than the injury record for disproof of your statement.[/quote]4 missed games in the last three years is hardly an "injury record for disproof of your statement". If anything McNabb is consciously scrambling less and avoiding unnecessary contact based on his run production and watching the guy play.

[quote]All I'm saying is that the decline signs are readily available for anyone who's interested in looking at them. QB rating kind of obscures it a bit, but most other stats suggest that the decline phase for McNabb is entering year three now. Which means that the steady consistent production he's become known for is the next thing to go.[/quote]What are these decline signs?

- His completion %? It's been the best 3 year span of his career 2007-09.
- Passing Yds? same as above.
- QB Rate? his career average is 86.5, 2007 = 89.9, 2008 = 86.4, 2009 = 92.9.
- TD % and INT % are consistent with his career averages over the last three years.
- Sack % is consistent with his career average, slightly higher in 2007 & 2009, but way down in 2008.
- Playoff appearances in 2008 (NFC Championship appearance) & 2009
- Team record 2007 - 8-8, 2008 - 9-6-1, 2009 - 11-5, trends upward.

I don't see any evidence of decline from the stats. The guy is 33, if he sticks around and gives us the level of production he has for 3-4 years, this deal is an absolute steal for us. With the advances in sports medicine over the last 10 years, who's to say he can't be prodcutive until he's 37-38?

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=SmootSmack;683235]How do we know the Ravens and Dolphins didn't also talk to the Eagles? I would guess that, based on how these things usually go, every team except maybe the Saints, Falcons, Colts, and Pats had some conversation with the Eagles. All teams talk all the time[/quote]
They said pretty much every team had called.. I mean not every team was set on picking him up of course, but sure they'd talk.

Let's also say that McNabb is more of a fit for some clubs than others and we're one of them. Of course with a rookie you're willing to take the chance on putting him into something new, but it narrows down the ball clubs that should be seriously interested when a guy's been in one system his full career.

And if we still want to talk Campbell vs McNabb, how many teams are interested in Campbell?

Never knew serious inquiries was an indication of how good a QB is.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

I think this was posted before, but here is Mike Wise's column.[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/05/AR2010040500166_2.html]Mike Wise - Redskins' acquisition of McNabb similar to so many moves before - washingtonpost.com[/url]

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;683236]Get ready for some differential calculus from GTripp how not only is this incorrect but that Reid + wet ham sandwich - the bite he takes out of it > Shanny + McNabb / Zorn's increased knowledge after watching Cooley's ankle surgery + a healthy sesamoid[/quote]


LOL! Hilarious.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

The way I'm looking at this.....

A 100% awsome trade now package him up with something to the Rams for the #1 pick and Bradford.

I just get the feeling something is up and I guess we'll all have to wait and see.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;683209]SS also has more access to "film guys" than I do, so believe him when he says that there are people out there who do hardcore analysis and support the Redskins in this trade.

And believe me when I say that a lot of really smart people in the know have no idea what we are thinking.[/quote]

Not sure who your using as a source but the only negative thing I have heard on the radio or TV was that it looked like the same old same old with this deal. I guess the worse case would be if he became another Mark Brunell deal but I think DM has alot left in the tank.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=SBXVII;683370]The way I'm looking at this.....

A 100% awsome trade now package him up with something to the Rams for the #1 pick and Bradford.

I just get the feeling something is up and I guess we'll all have to wait and see.[/quote]

The problem is we would have to include our 4th overall. So to get Bradford now, would cost 1st rd, 2rd (McNabb), 4th next year(McNabb), and probably another player or a 1st or 2nd next year. Way too much at this point.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

Wow the Eagles are staged for some wheeling and dealing in the draft, or perhaps a serious youth movement in the City of Brotherly Love.

After this trade, I think that the Eagles now have 10 or 12 picks total in this years draft. Whats more is 6 of those picks are in the first 3 rounds. That are staged man.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

Clearly we are better today with McNabb and Grossman vs Campbell and Collins as our quarterbacks. Im interested to see what get for JC at this point. If we trade him for a 3rd or 2nd we have come out insanely great with these moves. 2nd round for McNabb is pretty easy to justify the risk IMO, but if we get a decent pick for JC...wow that really be the sweetener for this deal.

I dont buy JC doesnt have a market, numerous sources have anywhere between 3-5 teams ready to work with us...sign that tender JC so you finally move on

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

I would be willing to say that JC is worth a bag of pork rinds in a trade to Oakland.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;683342]Okay, well stated. Do you have any actual evidence for these claims, or will a simple "I still think you're overrating the effect of a generic running game commitment on passing efficiency" suffice?

I'm well versed in game-theory, so you can save the lecture. There's obviously some effect of run-pass balance on play efficiency, but I don't think there's a major effect to be found there. Just my opinion.

Also, how many Brownie Points do I get for breaking your composure with just a little bit of logical reasoning? Some? I'll settle for some.[/quote]No more 8-in-the-box for Adrian Peterson.

Just for the record, you assuming that, to paraphrase, I thought Campbell was the ONLY QB that couldn't do it is what ticked me off. I was all smiles until you asserted that reckless assumption, and it seems that it deserves multiple mentions because you seem to have promptly forgot about it. If you like to tread closely to ad hominem land, be my guest, just don't go pat yourself on the back for being awesomely rational when you aren't so invulnerable.
You deserve no points for your faux "logicalness" and trying to assert a logically valid, but unsound-- I'm assuming you know what soundness and validity are, as you should if you're going to assert that you were logical in the first place--, syllogism regarding sacks and the slowness of QB feet, which only goes to further show your inflated opinion of yourself. I'm know about the material conditional, and there is at least one example of a mobile QB getting frequently sacked.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;683359]Allen/Gruden was interested in Favre to replace Garcia. Oh, and Minnesota. Brees, by all reports, had a choice between Miami and New Orleans before Miami traded for Culpepper. I don't know if I would call Miami under Saban a "true winning" franchise, but for the purpose of answering a cherry-picked example of a guy with a wrecked shoulder, they will suffice as an organization who people thought had direction.

I think you might have me on Warner (of course, I had thought of him before as a potential positive McNabb example). There were like, two teams interested in him as a backup, Arizona was the only team that was going to give him the starters role. But again, Josh McCown beat him out for the starting job in 2005. That's no different than if Grossman beat out McNabb for us this year: no one wants to see that happen. Warner's such an odd case. He's more proof that I'm wrong: anything can happen, as opposed to I'm wrong: McNabb is being underrated.[/quote]

By what criteria were Minnesota, Miami, New Orleans, and Tampa Bay considered "winning organizations"? One would logically think it'd be wins, but obviously you're going by something different.

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;683279]Aaron Schatz: not someone I talked to.

[URL="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2010/washingtons-small-upgrade"]FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Washington's Small Upgrade[/URL][/quote]
Before I even got to the part where they mentioned it I was thinking "Hey, did all of those other QBs change teams too?"

We probably weren't going to have Campbell again... Putting Grossman at the top of the depth chart unless a draft pick (you're not big on Bradford or Clausen right? just McCoy who might not be there at 37?) was able to take it from him.

To me this is a smart move. What would you have done? Kept Campbell, drafted McCoy (if available), start McCoy next year or pick up a FA next year? Done what if we didn't get McCoy? Start Grossman? Extend JC even though he'd probably rather move on to mentor a young guy? lol

Re: McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;683372]The problem is we would have to include our 4th overall. So to get Bradford now, would cost 1st rd, 2rd (McNabb), 4th next year(McNabb), and probably another player or a 1st or 2nd next year. Way too much at this point.[/quote]

and this is the same crap they were going to offer anyway to the Rams cause thats what they wanted except we were offering JC as bait. The Rams were not interested in JC. They were interested in McNabb.

I'm not saying it's not a lot, I agree. Some fans here were offering our 1st, JC, Carter, and next yrs 1st or second. In this situation we gave up our 1st and 2nd, gave them McNabb, and we keep our top 2 draft picks next yr.

Trade some of our current players for draft picks and we've made up the difference.