Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

McNabb is the reason we won.

PalmettoRedskin

By PalmettoRedskin
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

visionary

visionary

Posted
Posted
The video called "Titans hurt themselves in OT"...it's the first play in the video. :thumbsup:

Maybe I'm sicker than I thought. I could swear the first play is the Titans' punt return td.

:ols:

Ok, I was watching the wrong video.

Weird, lol.

Damn it was pretty close. McNabb threw it a second before he crossed the line.

Great timing if he did that on purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taylor 36

Taylor 36

Posted
Posted
I wasn't ****ing about anything, but thanks for sticking your ignorant nose into it.
It's a message board with postings accessible to all who are signed on, and you want to say I am "sticking [my] nose in it"? Talk about being ignorant. This coming from a guy who wants to use semantics to dodge his idiotic comments when he is called out about them. Nice try, McFly!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dirt

Dirt

Posted
Posted
McPOS is what he is. Hes not going to win you games and hes usually not going to lose you games. If the game is there to win like today then you will win with McPOS. That sums him up pretty well

You can hate McNabb if you want, but that's just an ignorant thing to say. It doesn't make any sense. "if the game's there for the taking?" All games are there for the taking unless it's last Monday night. He won us this game, period. If you want to hate on him, just be quiet when he has a good game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rufus T Firefly

Rufus T Firefly

Posted
Posted
Um, is there any other way TO define "easy"? lol :ols:...

You used that word for a reason. You said the pass could have been "easily" intercepted BUT WAS DROPPED...There was nothing easy about intercepting that pass, and it was NOT dropped.

You'll have to contort your logic to an unrecognizable degree to wiggle out of this one lol...and, no, claiming it's nothing but "semantics" doesn't work. ;)

Since you have such problems with phrases that are common usage, here are a couple of examples of the phrase I used which don't translate as "it would have been easy"

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/blogs/soccer/article_837445ac-87e4-11df-8b76-001cc4c002e0.html

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2010-05-06/iowa-coach-ferentz-we-very-easily-could-have-been-6-7

http://www.goal.com/en/news/15/germany/2010/03/14/1832765/bayern-munich-could-easily-have-lost-against-freiburg-louis

Maybe you'll understnad now, but somehow I doubt it.

You are trying to carry an argument on that phrase, even though I am saying it wouldn';t have been an easy catch. Yet you continue to try to tie me to something I'm not saying. Yes, that is nothing but a semantic argument. And a thoroughly idiotic one, at that.

I thought you were better than this, but I guess I was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frostx08

Frostx08

Posted
Posted
McPOS is what he is. Hes not going to win you games and hes usually not going to lose you games. If the game is there to win like today then you will win with McPOS. That sums him up pretty well

This is a pretty ridiculous statement if you look at his career. Seriously....I've never seen this kind of double standard with other QBs

Sorry, no game ball for McNabb. Granted there were a number of drops and WR miscommunication, McNabb is still too inconsistent. He should had at least 2 INTs. You can thank the O-line for the win.

Ummm...where I come from the O-line is SUPPOSED to protect the QB. Yes there were a number of drops...which means if there wasn't his completion percentage would be higher, and that doesn't even include the spikes. Did he miss throws? Yes, but I can't remember the last time I saw a QB with a 90-100% completion percentage

The funny part is, I get the feeling if this was another QB besides McNabb this statement wouldn't be made

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
Since you have such problems with phrases that are common usage, here are a couple of examples of the phrase I used which don't translate as "it would have been easy"

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/blogs/soccer/article_837445ac-87e4-11df-8b76-001cc4c002e0.html

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2010-05-06/iowa-coach-ferentz-we-very-easily-could-have-been-6-7

http://www.goal.com/en/news/15/germany/2010/03/14/1832765/bayern-munich-could-easily-have-lost-against-freiburg-louis

Maybe you'll understnad now, but somehow I doubt it.

You are trying to carry an argument on that phrase, even though I am saying it wouldn';t have been an easy catch. Yet you continue to try to tie me to something I'm not saying. Yes, that is nothing but a semantic argument. And a thoroughly idiotic one, at that.

I thought you were better than this, but I guess I was wrong.

Try referencing your own words to make our point lol...I'll do it for you:

"it could have easily been caught by the DB"

That implies that the pass was--wait for it--EASY to catch, but was "dropped" (according to you, anyway lol...and I do love how you've backed away from the "dropped" claim now ;) )...Yet nothing in the video shows that "the DB"--not "a DB", but THE DB--could have "easily" intercepted that pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rufus T Firefly

Rufus T Firefly

Posted
Posted
Try referencing your own words to make our point lol...I'll do it for you:

"it could have easily been caught by the DB"

That implies that the pass was--wait for it--EASY to catch, but was "dropped" (according to you, anyway lol...and I do love how you've backed away from the "dropped" claim now ;) )...Yet nothing in the video shows that "the DB"--not "a DB", but THE DB--could have "easily" intercepted that pass.

So your answer is to refuse to accept a common English phrase and to continue to try to claim I am saying something which is clearly not what I am saying.

Congratulations on your idiocy. Be proud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
So your answer is to refuse to accept a common English phrase and to continue to try to claim I am saying something which is clearly not what I am saying.

Congratulations on your idiocy. Be proud.

Is this the best retort you can muster up? lol...I expected better from you.

Come to think of it, I have no idea why I would expect better responses from you...this is more or less par for the course when it comes to your debating skills. At least your consistent, I'll give you that. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jergyrulz

jergyrulz

Posted
Posted

I thought MacNabb played very well too. But from my arm chair I thought it was a team effort. In fact, Redskins Post Game gave the player of the game to Cooley. I was amazed at how much time Macnabb had today. Hats off to the makeshift O-line.

But it seems the Titans 3 HUGE penalties at the end really helped us win this and gave Gano another shot. Coupled with the fact they had to put in a rookie QB helped us a lot more.

I do hope MacNabb can improve on his accuracy when he has time on long throws though. His numbers did turn out pretty good though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rufus T Firefly

Rufus T Firefly

Posted
Posted
I don't think that helps....

Well, when someone goes multiple posts continuing to claim I am saying something I am not, because he doesn't understand a common phrase, and throws in an oh so clever line like this:

You'll have to contort your logic to an unrecognizable degree to wiggle out of this one lol...and, no, claiming it's nothing but "semantics" doesn't work

When he's doing nothing but continuing an argument over nothing but semantics, then I'd say idiocy is a nice way to put it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
da#1skinsfan

da#1skinsfan

Posted
Posted

I got news for you dude, if Mcnabb placed that pass just 8 inches above where it was thrown into the dirt, it would have been intercepted, and TN would have had the ball deeeeep in our territory with seconds left, game over.

He may be the reason we won, he was also 8 inches from being the reason we lost....yet again.

Just pointing out how perception can do a 180 based on one play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...