McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)

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

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.

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?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.

-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.

Draft picks retained: not relevant.
we're going to compare wasting away draft picks when it comes to Campbell vs McNabb? That's ironic.

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.

we're going to compare wasting away draft picks when it comes to Campbell vs McNabb? That's ironic.Perhaps, but it's also obviously relevant.

Look no further than the injury record for disproof of your statement.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.

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.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?

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
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.

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

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


LOL! Hilarious.