Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
I don't know of anyone who said all the bolded is false. I assume you have a reading comprehension problem, and you're talking about me suggesting that you might be overrating the effect of some unproven (but not disproven) in-the-box/out-of-pocket factors that would suggest that maybe, McNabb was being completely misused in Philadelphia.
For certain, the premise that McNabb was out of place in the Eagles offense he helped build is a weak point that you hang on to. I never said that it was completely without evidence whatsoever, I just asked you to produce some.
Your weakness here is obvious, but I guess I'm happy for you that you found someone to throw out some one-liner cliches that just happen to match what you've said. That's kind of convenient, actually.
|
Quote:
Campbell beating out McNabb short passing-wise? Uhhh, no.
O that requires the QB to throw on the run or extend that play? McNabb wins by a longshot. We know he has the instincts to make plays on the move.
Deep ball? McNabb
Age? Evened out by Campbell lack of experience.
Durability? When Fat Andy passes 50+ times a game, of course he's going to get his QB hurt eventually.
|
Quote:
You can't claim self-evidence as logical support when your arguments are entirely faith based. I'll do you the courtesy of not accepting your failures here as support for my arguments validity, and I wouldn't jump to a conclusion and rule out the fact that there's genius in this move that neither of us can see, but I'm just going to reject most if not all of your premises here as some mix of false and insignificant.
I have no idea what you mean by McNabb "knows how to play on the run". He doesn't complete too many of his deep balls, so perhaps he should take some of that great touch off of it. McNabb isn't Rodgers (that one was particularly easy).
|
You're going to reject some or all of those premises as false or insignificant, right?
I do remember arguing how McNabb did have the at least some of properties that former Shanahan QBs had, namely, the ability to make plays both in and out of the pocket, mobility, and arm strength.
I also remember arguing how McNabb having a running game will help him out. You essentially said "oh really?" and now out of McNabb's own mouth he goes illustrates an example on the John Thompson show of how a running game can affect the defense.
You were opposed the trade at least partially on the grounds that it was too expensive and not worth it, and yet this GM says that it wasn't too steep.
"McNabb was being completely misused in Philadelphia.
For certain, the premise that McNabb was out of place in the Eagles offense he helped build is a weak point that you hang on to. I never said that it was completely without evidence whatsoever, I just asked you to produce some.
"
You're also putting words in my mouth and trying to make it sound vaguer than it actually was. I never said he was OUT OF PLACE in the sense that the scheme was NOT to his strengths, just that Reid's playcalling often turned it one-dimensional and that he tried to "discipline" him into a pocket passer too much. In one of those preseason games, the pass rush on him was pretty hot, but Vick had plenty of time because the were afraid of his running threat even though it'd been a few years since he even played football .
These can be considered obstacles, not major ones, but definitely NOT difficult to correct. How the hell did you infer that these two things lead to he is "completely misued" is beyond me, unless you believe so highly in your powers of induction that you deliberately interpreted that way. "Completely misused" is trying to make him make all the throws Chad Pennington can make and go deep may once a game. Reid got it right in designing a lot of big plays for McNabb, but his playcalling and possible overcoaching may have hinder the team juuuust enough.
Shanahan knows about using a good running game and he also uses bootlegs and rollouts(again confirmed by the article), which means these aforementioned limitations are essentially lifted.