McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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 scenarioI'm thinking the value pick there probably would have been a defensive guy, if not one of the three first-round RBs.

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

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

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.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.

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.

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.

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?