Cousins to start 2015 Season

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Sure, we can get to this entirely different discussion about what offense and whatever else.

But first, I would like to get back to our discussion. What benefit does it bring on the field to have Griffin off the team? After all that's what our discussion was about. Looking at the flip side of booting Griffin off the team. If J and Kirk succeeds great, everyone parks everyone wins. But, if J and Kirk fail and we've also got rid of Griffin where's the benefit there?

Chico simply responded to your question with a relevant question premised on the simple - RGIII has no value b/c he can't play JG's style and, if any style he may succeed in puts the club at risk of having to pay $16M to an injured and unavailable player which would cripple the of field product. Your response was, as always, either intentionally obtuse or pertinaciously pedantic.

Originally Posted by 30gut

You raise some interesting questions that aren't in response to my post.

The post you responded was a discussion of where/what is the benefit of having Griffin off the team? Especially if J and Kirk fail?

I have no problem discussing the questions you raise but would also like to have the original intent of the post to which you responded addressed.

He did respond to your post and answer the original intent in a perfectly relevant way. Very simply the poster you dismiss as unresponsive believes Griffin has no value to the team "on the field" b/c, regardless of the success or failure of KC & the JG Band, RGIII cannot play in the existing system or a system designed for the QB that existed in 2012. Again, your reply is obtuse and/or pedantic.

Originally Posted by 30gut

You may have missed the post that sparked the current discussion but its this: The 5th year option is still an issue but outside of the money (which can be massaged) getting rid of Griff doesn't bring any gain on the football field.

So, yes the 5th year option is an issue.

But outside of that what is the benefit on the field of not having Griffin on the team, not on the field but on the team?

How does Griffin being gone make the team better?

No. He very clearly understood your point and, unlike you, determined that RGIII being gone does not put the franchise at risk for having to "massage" a $16M cap hit and permits the team to plan and sign players who can perform on the field.

Each of these posters provided reasons as to why Griffin's being off the team helps the team "on the field" by raising relevant, responsive points which you summarily dismiss through rhetorical pedantry of the lowest form. It is a practice you consistently use, is intellectually lazy, and simply tiresome.

We all understand your question and it's loaded nature. B/c folks disagree with the premise of your question, does not mean their answers are unresponsive.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Chico simply responded to your question with a relevant question premised on the simple - RGIII has no value b/c he can't play JG's style and, if any style he may succeed in puts the club at risk of having to pay $16M to an injured and unavailable player which would cripple the of field product. Your response was, as always, either intentionally obtuse or pertinaciously pedantic.



He did respond to your post and answer the original intent in a perfectly relevant way. Very simply the poster you dismiss as unresponsive believes Griffin has no value to the team "on the field" b/c, regardless of the success or failure of KC & the JG Band, RGIII cannot play in the existing system or a system designed for the QB that existed in 2012. Again, your reply is obtuse and/or pedantic.



No. He very clearly understood your point and, unlike you, determined that RGIII being gone does not put the franchise at risk for having to "massage" a $16M cap hit and permits the team to plan and sign players who can perform on the field.

Each of these posters provided reasons as to why Griffin's being off the team helps the team "on the field" by raising relevant, responsive points which you summarily dismiss through rhetorical pedantry of the lowest form. It is a practice you consistently use, is intellectually lazy, and simply tiresome.

We all understand your question and it's loaded nature. B/c folks disagree with the premise of your question, does not mean their answers are unresponsive.

All I can say is word up Joe redskin. Word up.

In fact a hall of fame word up: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MZjAantupsA

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

...pertinaciously pedantic...

Pretty sure this is the only time in my life I'll get to see these two words used together in a sentence. Thanks Joe.