Skinsfan In NM Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 A 2nd 4th and a 6th for the back with the 2nd most yards in the league ain't bad. No joke there. I'd take that every day to be honest. But don't forget it wasn't only just 2nd most yards but also second most rushing tds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 No joke there. I'd take that every day to be honest. But don't forget it wasn't only just 2nd most yards but also second most rushing tds. And almost what the Browns traded to move up a spot to get Richardson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 No, but I wouldn't call it "value". I would. I'd call it great value. It's simple, actually... you think the "loss" we incurred on the failed McNabb experiment nullifies what we've gained from Morris, but the problem with that logic is it only "starts" at a point where the failure occurred and not when the actual trade was made. You see, I'd take a chance at a franchise QB that just came off a Pro Bowl campaign when you don't have one a thousand times an off season and one hundred more before the trade deadline during the regular season for good measure. The fact that it didn't work out does not change the principle of taking calculated risks on a guy like that. The McNabb trade had plenty of value at the time. Gotta love how much criticism the McNabb trade gets by so many in hindsight, when the vast majority of media "experts" and fans alike were on board with it. Yes, it failed... but, again, the principle remains. Mike wanted to get a franchise QB in here to stabilize the position that affects the rest of the roster the most and he thought one was available in McNabb. Nothing wrong with that other than McNabb turned out to be unmotivated and lazy. Now, it can be argued that Mike knew that McNabb had those issues and, therefore, shouldn't have made the trade, but one can't fault (too much) any coach for thinking they can motivate someone better than another guy. They all should have that confidence to a degree. I hope you don't think I'm stating you were for the McNabb trade when it happened... I have no idea, but either way, I think it's hard to argue against the principle of trading a 2nd and a 4th for a franchise QB coming off a Pro Bowl season when your roster lacks one. So, therefore, it's unfair to nullify the value we got in Morris by including the failed McNabb experiment in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 This thread: 'NFL.com: What if Robert Griffin was drafted by the Raiders' has me thinking of alternate scenarios: (6th pick) Mark Barron FS (39th pick) Janoris Jenksins CB/Jonathan Martin RT (71st pick) Russell Wilson instead of Josh LeRibeus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 This thread: 'NFL.com: What if Robert Griffin was drafted by the Raiders' has me thinking of alternate scenarios:(6th pick) Mark Barron FS (39th pick) Janoris Jenksins CB/Jonathan Martin RT (71st pick) Russell Wilson instead of Josh LeRibeus I hate playing the 'what if' game with the draft... usually makes me wanna beat my head against the wall seeing who we could have on the roster. BTW, would we really have gone FS? In hindsight though, we'd have a darn good defense and very few holes going forward. I love Griffin, but Wilson... what can you say? Really impressed with him and would have loved to pick him (in hindsight of course). ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDOG510 Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 DONE nothing...done....English is your friend. Are you the grammar police? what a douchebag thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Are you the grammar police? what a douchebag thing to do. Well when you have stupid arguments to begin with and then state them in an even stupider way, it does take away from your points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDOG510 Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Well when you have stupid arguments to begin with and then state them in an even stupider way, it does take away from your points. I never am critical of another user over an internet message board. You see, it is a cowardly thing to do! Knowing that you will never, ever have to see me or face me. Stay classy, tough guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I never am critical of another user over an internet message board. You see, it is a cowardly thing to do! Knowing that you will never, ever have to see me or face me. Stay classy, tough guy. Just stating the facts as they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I never am critical of another user over an internet message board. You see, it is a cowardly thing to do! Knowing that you will never, ever have to see me or face me. Stay classy, tough guy. That's interesting coming from you, though. I guess you see the coaches and players you're incessantly and obsessively critical of here on this message board face to face all the time, huh? I mean, since, you know, it's cowardly to criticize unless you know you'll be facing that person. Right? Sorry, I couldn't help myself. You left that one wide open. Seriously, though. Practice a little of what you preach and tone it down when it comes to your obsession with bashing whoever on the team doesn't meet your "standard". It is cowardly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTillIDie Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I mean things were looking pretty bleak until the second half.The D had timely TOs and thankfully Kirk got it together Of course, it was a rookie quarterback making his first start in the NFL. They can't all be like RGIII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 You see, I'd take a chance at a franchise QB that just came off a Pro Bowl campaign when you don't have one a thousand times an off season and one hundred more before the trade deadline during the regular season for good measure. The fact that it didn't work out does not change the principle of taking calculated risks on a guy like that. The McNabb trade had plenty of value at the time. Not for us it didn't. Trading for McNabb makes sense if you think you are a QB away from being competitive. No one who reasonably looked at the roster could have thought that. The OL was in shambles. We had no running game. The only WR worth counting on was Moss. The defense was in the process of switching over to the 3-4 and was undergoing personnel change. Even if McNabb had been at his best, we probably would have eked out some mediocre seasons in the time he had left, and by the time we actually had the talent, we'd be looking to replace him anyways. No, we would have been better off rolling with Campbell and Grossman holding down the fort while the team was rebuilt behind them and then draft the next guy. You can say it is all hindsight, but I've been saying the McNabb trade didn't make sense for us on day one, and it ended up being even worse than I ever could have predicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 That's interesting coming from you, though. I guess you see the coaches and players you're incessantly and obsessively critical of here on this message board face to face all the time, huh? I mean, since, you know, it's cowardly to criticize unless you know you'll be facing that person. Right? Sorry, I couldn't help myself. You left that one wide open. Seriously, though. Practice a little of what you preach and tone it down when it comes to your obsession with bashing whoever on the team doesn't meet your "standard". It is cowardly. Good post. I was about to say that telling someone who you've never met, to come tell that to them face to face is kind of an internet tough guy thing to do also. I have no idea if the person is bigger than me, a better fighter than me or is carrying/packing, if I actully did make a trip somewhere to confront someone. Technically we're all internet tough guys in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Not for us it didn't. Trading for McNabb makes sense if you think you are a QB away from being competitive. No one who reasonably looked at the roster could have thought that. The OL was in shambles. We had no running game. The only WR worth counting on was Moss. The defense was in the process of switching over to the 3-4 and was undergoing personnel change. Even if McNabb had been at his best, we probably would have eked out some mediocre seasons in the time he had left, and by the time we actually had the talent, we'd be looking to replace him anyways.No, we would have been better off rolling with Campbell and Grossman holding down the fort while the team was rebuilt behind them and then draft the next guy. You can say it is all hindsight, but I've been saying the McNabb trade didn't make sense for us on day one, and it ended up being even worse than I ever could have predicted. I understand where you're coming from, but in my mind that's only a good point if you assume that having a QB you know is doing a good job at their position does not affect the evaluation of the other positions. Furthermore, it also ignores the modern day truth of the NFL that QB is the most significant position in terms of being competitive. So when you say that it "makes sense if you think you are a QB away from being competitive", you're neglecting the fact that almost any team can say that in today's NFL. We're seeing more and more the rules and regulations changed to the point where having a poor defense or even poor offensive personnel means little if you have a great QB. And that's good that you were against it from day one as it means you're argument is sincere, however, very few were and it's hard to argue against that had McNabb come in here and actually worked hard we could've been competitive even with our personnel deficiencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I don't question the McNabb decision. The results simply didn't meet the expectation but imo the expectations (from the FO/staff) were reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I don't question the McNabb decision.The results simply didn't meet the expectation but imo the expectations (from the FO/staff) were reasonable. Thanks for summing up my point cleanly and succinctly while I stumbled upon explaining it for a few paragraphs. ---------- Post added January-22nd-2013 at 11:41 AM ---------- Good post. I was about to say that telling someone who you've never met, to come tell that to them face to face is kind of an internet tough guy thing to do also. I have no idea if the person is bigger than me, a better fighter than me or is carrying/packing, if I actully did make a trip somewhere to confront someone. Technically we're all internet tough guys in here. Speak for yourself I'm an internet teddy bear. :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick7423 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Of course, it was a rookie quarterback making his first start in the NFL. They can't all be like RGIII Agreed, but once he 'locked in', man was he good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I don't question the McNabb decision.The results simply didn't meet the expectation but imo the expectations (from the FO/staff) were reasonable. Well said. I looked at McNabb not as our franchise QB, but as a solid bridge to get this team where they envisioned it. Once we crossed the bridge (or while we were on it) we were going to need to find our future QB. Unfortunately, the wood was rotten under all the paint and it fell apart under us... so we hit rock bottom. Thankfully, that's all water under the bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I understand where you're coming from, but in my mind that's only a good point if you assume that having a QB you know is doing a good job at their position does not affect the evaluation of the other positions. Furthermore, it also ignores the modern day truth of the NFL that QB is the most significant position in terms of being competitive. So when you say that it "makes sense if you think you are a QB away from being competitive", you're neglecting the fact that almost any team can say that in today's NFL. We're seeing more and more the rules and regulations changed to the point where having a poor defense or even poor offensive personnel means little if you have a great QB. Maybe I should slightly rephrase what I said: would the trade for McNabb make us a Super Bowl caliber team as the team was set up in 2010? IMO, no, it wouldn't. So, the hope is that we are able to build a team in that time that could take advantage of McNabb well enough to get us to the Super Bowl. That didn't seem terribly likely in 2010. In my view, it was a short term move in what looked like (and still does) a long-term project to build this team into a Super Bowl caliber team. As for his Pro Bowl season, he did have Jackson and Maclin to throw to, and McCoy in the backfield. I've said it before, but a QB's performance doesn't operate in a vacuum. It depends on the players around him, and the system that allows him to succeed. It is a trap we as fans have fallen into time and time again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MR2Drift Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 This is interesting because you have this as a positive and a negative ... the Beck Grossman experiment happened preciselydont think you c because we did not reach for Gabbertt (although we could have taken Dalton but our pick in the 1st was too high for Dalton (even after the trade down) and he went before we picked again in the 2nd .. I also dont think you can criticize Shanahan for the cap penalty because not only was there no Cap to circumvent, but the same contracts had been approved in Tampa (Bruce Allen had used the same language in 2009) and all the contracts had been approved by the league office . The cap penalty is ball and everyone knows it . And as for not developing talent outside the first round - I do not think you can blame him for injuries to promising young players . Robinson was looking good before injury, LeRib looked like a starter when he came in for Lict ... Helu looked like he could be at least a very good 3rd down back before injury, Hankerson (i know people disagree) also is looking good for a developmental player coming off an injury ... the bottom line is this - We got to the playoffs with a "team" which in year 3 IS Shanahans team - They stepped up when asked and that is not something they have done in the past - The NFL is won by "teams " not collections of high profile stars - Look at the East the Cowboys, Giants and Eagles all have more recognizable talent than we do but (in the case of the Eagles in particular) they are collections of players who wear the same uniform - not teams . (we went 5-1 against these superior talented teams and would have been 6-0 if not for a last second breakdown against some salsa dancer) We have real talent - Williams, Monty, Garcon, Morris, RGIII, Rack, Kerrigan, Fletcher etc.. but behind that you have guys who have bought in and playing hard - in time the backups become stars, and if you work hard enough you will get the opportunities (look at Morris - slated to be a PS player at the beging of training camp) and so I think with just that mentality Shanahan has done a fantastic job building the roster ... I can't give credit to Shanny for the QB situation in '11 in the same way we don't give credit to the Colts for never developing a competent back up QB. Both situations put teams in positions to draft generational talents but most of the time you won't be so lucky. Shanny could of got kaepernick in the 2nd and developed him instead of losing and hoping for a draft pick which isn't considered a sign of great coaching or personnel management. But I dont want to go down that rabbit hole because Its difficult to say if we only had done this or that we would be in this place because we get this crazy butterfly effect, I mean would we be better off as a team if Sean Taylor was still around because we need a safety or would his presence completely have changed how this team would look like now. Regarding the cap penalty, we were warned, we took a calculated risk and it failed. I'm not sure if the risk would of been worth it though. I know we had cap issues but honestly how bad was our cap situation going to be if we didn't do it? What players would we have lost out on vs. potentially gained this year. This would make a great hypothetical topic to pass the off season. I just had to put Shanny at a negative on drafting players outside the first. I'm not all in on that opinion because it is too early to tell but there is not enough players here that I can say "yeah that guy is legit and will help us win for a long time", outside of three mentioned of course. I don't think three players is enough to put our drafting in the plus category so far. Fans have a horrible bias towards their own players and the reality is that 95% of the time, especially with this team is that those players that don't make it here don't make it anywhere. I fall into that camp sometimes but instead of trying to claim that Jenkins, Minnifield or other hot name we hype has already made it I'll have to see the proof in the regular season. Injuries are unfortunate but that is football and every team has those guys who showed potential and injuries throw a wrench into it. We still need more impact players and without first rounders in the next two years we will find out how good we are at drafting players. As for your final two points, I agree completely hence my last two points in the plus category and also the chemistry comment. Overall we made plenty of mistakes but we did enough to put us in a better position now than we have been in for a long time. I don't question the McNabb decision.The results simply didn't meet the expectation but imo the expectations (from the FO/staff) were reasonable. We traded for an over the hill QB with a poor attitude. If we can't question that then how can we question Haynesworth who pretty much had the same issue. Both weren't guys that put team first but at least Haynesworth has the excuse of wanting to play in the 4-3 he signed on for while McNabb can't say the same. They might be a major reason for the surge of team captains we acquired after them. It would be one thing if it was injury related like with Brown, that I can understand but not when we get a QB that doesn't even want to learn the offense. I know he told Shanny he would do everything possible to learn the offense but who wouldn't say that when they are out of a job? Also you have the fact that Reid traded him here for not much, that should raise major flags which it seems everyone said. In general it seems that you can't teach an old dog new tricks and Favre showed that with the Jets and Vikings. If we ever go for an aging vet QB that played in a different system then we shouldn't be trading high draft picks for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD Riggo Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 DONE nothing...done....English is your friend. LOL I don't think his post was IN English! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 LOL I don't think his post was IN English! It was in "uninformed with an agenda". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDOG510 Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 It was in "uninformed with an agenda". Your comments are in the "douchebag homers with rose colored glasses section" or "internet tough guy" maybe "internet English teacher who feels it's his job to correct everyone's grammar" **** you buddy... I have an opinion just like everyone else, if you don't like it- skip it and move to the next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Your comments are in the "douchebag homers with rose colored glasses section" or "internet tough guy" maybe "internet English teacher who feels it's his job to correct everyone's grammar" **** you buddy... I have an opinion just like everyone else, if you don't like it- skip it and move to the next. I'm sorry it is such a shock to you that on a public message board some people have the audacity to disagree with you. Your post are usually wrong, ill informed and not very well thought out. On a public board people will point that out to you and if you can't handle criticizm I suggest you go elsewhere. Oh, and take your own advice, and if you don't like my posts, ignore them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Your comments are in the "douchebag homers with rose colored glasses section" or "internet tough guy" maybe "internet English teacher who feels it's his job to correct everyone's grammar" **** you buddy... I have an opinion just like everyone else, if you don't like it- skip it and move to the next. This is now your 4th moderator action since you've been here. Next one will be permanent. This one is 2 months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.