McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)

Trade Landry.

Trade Campbell.

Pray that Okung falls to #4 or move back.

Must build a proper offensive line.

What are you a cop? It's like

"Guy goes in, see's no one there, takes the jewelry and splits. Walks into the kitchen and bam, partner stabs him in the heart."

Or you know, that Jason Taylor wouldn't work out, the Bears overpaid preposterously for Cutler, neither Stafford or Sanchez was worth a top five pick, Orakpo would be a stud, Devin Thomas would stink, etc, Jamarcus Russell had no chance of success, etc.

Should I keep going? Or are you ready to drop this foolish charade.

You can keep going, but it doesn't change the fact that you are often wrong despite the high horse you sit on.

I don't know why you think that getting a QB who is incapable of producing when he throws 45+ times a game is so self-evidently awesome, and I think if you want to show that McNabb can benefit by inheriting a running game that, if nothing else, will take a lot of his passing attempts, you should try to go and build that case.

So far, I'm gathering that you think it's easier for any QB to be successful in the Shanahan system than in other systems. Anyone except Jason Campbell, of course, because that would completely ruin your already "interesting" argument.

I kind of agree with you that McNabb is a little bit out of place in the stat-inflating system that is the WCO. I'm sure glad that he's in a system now that has limited WCO elements. Oh, wait.
You're good at assuming shit about people who disagree with you. Too good. But DON'T go around recklessly using inference from simulation (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/folkpsych-simulation/)of what of anti-Campbell dumbasses argue is representative of what I think can work or not work in Shanahan's offense.

Alex Smith would not work in this O, because he's too much tied to the spread offense.
Orton and Pennington would not work as well because they can't attack the deep secondary, which in turns limits what Shanahan can exploit.
Brett Farve would be better than McNabb in this O. Just as good ability to attack deep, but better on the intermediate and shorter throws(quick slant).
Jason Campbell is woefully inconsistent. Throws that should be routine are a chore to him, and he has shown very little that he has other skills to adequately compensate.

Is that sufficient for you to stop calumniating me in that I think ANY(YES, YOU SAID ANY, which means all I have to do is mention JUST ONE example of where another QB would stink it up with Shanahan, and I mentioned three) QB is better than JC.

This isn't about stats. This is about McNabb's skillset. And I love to see your crazy argument that a one-dimensional offense doesn't inhibit the QB. Having a running game makes the probability that the D will bite on play action or think the play is a run MUCH MORE OFTEN.

Steve Deberg also had inflated stats. That didn't mean Walsh thought he was worth sticking with over Montana.

Aaron Schatz: not someone I talked to.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Washington's Small Upgrade (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2010/washingtons-small-upgrade)

Paid more, got less.

Brunell was asked to come here, be smart with the football, and pretty much just go through the motions. McNabb will be asked to go out and win games for us. Completely different situations which will have very different results.

What are you rambling on about now?

The guy said he thought it might be similar to the Brunell situation. I said it's not. Now what is the point you are trying to make?

Draft picks retained: not relevant.

youre not considering what could have been done with the 2nd round pick. How about this? Wait until the 37th pick is made in the draft and let us know if that player (or any player still available at that point) is better than McNabb.

At MOST, you could say there's a chance that a player available at that point could contribute more to the team over the next 3-4 years than McNabb. But not a single player available at that point - at any position - would be clearly better than McNabb.

Yes, McNabb is not the long-term answer at QB. But the fact is, using a top draft pick on a quarterback would be the worst possible thing this team could do right now. Right now, if we drafted a QB, it would be by a coaching staff and GM in their first 4 months on the job. the scouts evaluating QB prospects are vinny cerrato holdovers awaiting unemployment.

Finding a franchise QB in the NFL draft is one of (if not the) hardest things to do in all of professional sports. By trading for McNabb, we've bought ourselves a couple of years to find him. When we do, the task will be handled by a GM, head coach, and scouting department who have all been working together for at least one or two full seasons.

And when we fiinally find that franchise QB, he'll be learning the ropes from a future Hall-of-Fame quarterback and not Jason Campbell or Rex Grossman.

Unless McNabb really has absolutely nothing left in the tank, I simply don't understand how anyone can think the Skins made a bad move.

You can keep going, but it doesn't change the fact that you are often wrong despite the high horse you sit on.Well, no, you just made an ad-hoc attack to misrepresent what I predicted at the time to try to build a case that I don't know what I'm talking about here, EVEN THOUGH, my record gives me great credibility, no matter how good I thought Brady Quinn could be coming out of Notre Dame (update: quite good, not Manning good, he was not No. 1 on my board that year).

And once the argument leaves the point where you're debating the facts, it's clear you'd rather I be wrong than you be right.

What are you a cop? It's like

"Guy goes in, see's no one there, takes the jewelry and splits. Walks into the kitchen and bam, partner stabs him in the heart."

I have no idea what this means?

youre not considering what could have been done with the 2nd round pick. How about this? Wait until the 37th pick is made in the draft and let us know if that player (or any player still available at that point) is better than McNabb.Fair enough, excellent way to frame it, BHA.

I have no idea what this means?

It's just that you talked about it so generally. Like a cop going through a crime scene and speculating what he thinks happened.