McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)

Redskins Insider - McNabb to Redskins: How the trade was made (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/donovan-mcnabb/mcnabb-to-redskins-how-the-tra.html)
Reid reports half the teams in the league at least inquired about McNabb. I think it's safe to bet the Pats, Colts, Saints, Pitt, Giants, Cowboys, Packers, Lions, and Bears didn't bother.

Yeah, if only you add Kolb's passing games to Donovan's you get this monster known as Philadelphia quarterback, who is a 4,000 yd player.

But don't do that, because that would imply McNabb is a product of the system. You don't want to go there.
I'm assuming 200 yds a game. Only less than 100 yds shy of the mark.

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.

Yeah doesn't make much sense to give all that up for an unproven rookie who will get a monster contract.

What I don't understand is why did we have a poll in the "McNabb to Washington" thread with over 60% of the people saying "NO" and then all of a sudden instead of using the same poll we had to make a new poll in the "McNabb a Redskin (I)" thread?

I know some might try to twist the poll by saying one was prior to McNabb coming and the other was after we learned he was already here, but I'd argue I thought the first poll went up after McNabb was already named last night. Why didn't we just change the title and keep the same votes vs. starting a whole new poll with all the yes people?

Huh?

The first poll was up on Saturday. The new one went up this morning.

Thought it would be an interesting compare/contrast.

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.Your right, Peterson was a monster this year w/Favre.

You asserted that Gradkowski was greater than Campbell with the evidence of him moving around in the pocket kind of well for a half. Do you not understand how many days you set back rational discussion by doing this? You didn't even back down from this when pointed out, which changes the dynamic that I have to address.

Basically, the anyone but Campbell comment was a tongue in cheek generalization which shouldn't have ticked you off, if only because you were trying to go as far as you could to show that people like Alex Smith and Bruce Gradkowski have more value. That raised red flags about your assessment right away, but it's your persistent assumption that logic and reasoning is in your corner that forces me to conclude that my position is superior. If you have an unpopular opinion based on niche evidence, just state your case and move on. I do this all the time.

If you want to continue to pick at the most myopic parts of some of the 200+ posts I've made in the last day or so, regardless of the context it was intended in, knock yourself out. I'll defend my opinions, but I will not bother to defend a choice of wording from one of my posts from last night, that doesn't have a lot of meaning in the long term.

You can't change a my position vs. your position debate to a me vs. you debate because I don't give two craps about you as a person. It's nothing personal, but I've been on the WP a long time, and with the exception of a select few 15-20 group that makes this place fun to keep coming back to, I simply draw a line between your argument, which I am clearly passionate about, and you, who couldn't mean less to me.

Huh?

The first poll was up on Saturday. The new one went up this morning.

Thought it would be an interesting compare/contrast.

Yeah perhaps you are correct. I noticed one was put up at around 4pm the other at 8 pm I didn''t look at the days.

Still it's funny how 69% said no they didn't want him but now that we have him 72% say it was an awsome trade or they like it? I just don't get it. Redskins fans through and through.

Hey Gtripp and SirClinton?

Are you two going to be done playing swords anytime soon?

Yeah perhaps you are correct. I noticed one was put up at around 4pm the other at 8 pm I didn''t look at the days.

Still it's funny how 69% said no they didn't want him but now that we have him 72% say it was an awsome trade or they like it? I just don't get it. Redskins fans through and through.

I'm guessing people were against it initially because they simply didn't think it would actually happen, and it's a hated division rival. Now that it's a reality people have changed their tune. I actually expected the poll would reverse like that.

Drove that Gradkowski bandwagon right off a cliff eh Tripp? ;)

http://www.thewarpath.net/178452-post1.html