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.