Carolina Panthers vs Washington Redskins Gameday Thread

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

So, a guy who is a lock to be worthless in 2-3 years is more worth a roster spot than an unknown guy who might or might not be useful in 2-3 years. Hence, short-term gains is more valuable to you than the future. 1-2 wins this year thanks to T.O is more important than taking a look at PS'ers around the league to see if someone will help us long term or even provide depth. Well, those two wins aren't going to do us jack shit in the future exc and who fans wish they could have taken.

Only Hankerson. The rest of the young guys, Royster, Helu, Austin, Paul... They've actually shown that they can be consistent if not decent. I've got no beef with the other rookies. I dunno why you're on the guy's jock so bad.

[Chief X_Phackter]

I would like someone to look at what is going on with the coaching of the receivers. Is that still McCardell? You can't coach catching the ball, but it seems like the receivers are not where they are supposed to be, or at least where the quarterback thinks they are going to be - a lot. If it was one guy all the time, ok...but it seems to be systemic.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

I would like someone to look at what is going on with the coaching of the receivers. Is that still McCardell? You can't coach catching the ball, but it seems like the receivers are not where they are supposed to be, or at least where the quarterback thinks they are going to be - a lot. If it was one guy all the time, ok...but it seems to be systemic.

Yes it is.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

Only Hankerson. The rest of the young guys, Royster, Helu, Austin, Paul... They've actually shown that they can be consistent if not decent. I've got no beef with the other rookies. I dunno why you're on the guy's jock so bad.

Indifference is the only feeling I have when I hear Leonard Hankerson's name.
I have not even said that he was good. I haven't even said that he was certain for success. You accusing me of being "all over his jock" is ****ing bullshit.
You have already deemed Hankerson to be doomed to failure. This is equivalent to having a 0% probability of providing value to us. Therefore, he will not provide any value. T.O will be guaranteed to provide value(100% certainty). Therefore, T.O should be picked up.

I don't believe Hankerson has a 0% probability of success, more like 5-7% ish of "making it", and something .03% of becoming a superstar. Well, Hankerson's low probability of success is still higher than T.O probability of even playing 2 years from now. And FA pickups are never 100% guaranteed either. T.O very well could pull a Randy Moss in Tennessee and not do much either.

I care about good personnel strategy just as much as good personnel execution. Hankerson might indeed fail and thus he becomes an example of failed execution in personnel acquistion. But I'm willing to take a chance on him over T.O because he might provide more than T.O.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Indifference is the only feeling I have when I hear Leonard Hankerson's name.
I have not even said that he was good. I haven't even said that he was certain for success. You accusing me of being "all over his jock" is ****ing bullshit.
You have already deemed Hankerson to be doomed to failure. This is equivalent to having a 0% probability of providing value to us. Therefore, he will not provide any value. T.O will be guaranteed to provide value(100% certainty). Therefore, T.O should be picked up.

I don't believe Hankerson has a 0% probability of success, more like 5-7% ish of "making it", and something .03% of becoming a superstar. Well, Hankerson's low probability of success is still higher than T.O probability of even playing 2 years from now. And FA pickups are never 100% guaranteed either. T.O very well could pull a Randy Moss in Tennessee and not do much either.

I care about good personnel strategy just as much as good personnel execution. Hankerson might indeed fail and thus he becomes an example of failed execution in personnel acquistion. But I'm willing to take a chance on him over T.O because he might provide more than T.O.

You seem to be under the delusion that I think TO is the second coming of Jesus. But if you'd like to twist things around like that, that's fine. All I said was TO could be a short term (read SHORT TERM) band-aid and Hankerson isn't going to be anything special from what I've seen from him in college and in the pre-season.

With Gaffney, Austin, and Paul, a guy from the practice squad who's had 6 weeks to study the playbook and still run around like a chicken with his head cut off it doesn't look very promising. The odds are against Hankerson is what I've been getting at. I get that everything is a risk, some guys actually show promise. To me seeing his college tape and his pre-season tape, Hankerson doesn't.

But if you wanna fill the team in your head with a bunch of what-if's, go right ahead. This argument is ridiculous because apparently I wanna take TO and make him play for 5+ years and think he's never/hasn't dropped off. Silly me.

But for the sake of you being right and the Skins getting better, I hope Hankerson ends up the second coming of Jerry Rice.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

You seem to be under the delusion that I think TO is the second coming of Jesus. But if you'd like to twist things around like that, that's fine. All I said was TO could be a short term (read SHORT TERM) band-aid and Hankerson isn't going to be anything special from what I've seen from him in college and in the pre-season.

With Gaffney, Austin, and Paul, a guy from the practice squad who's had 6 weeks to study the playbook and still run around like a chicken with his head cut off it doesn't look very promising. The odds are against Hankerson is what I've been getting at. I get that everything is a risk, some guys actually show promise. To me seeing his college tape and his pre-season tape, Hankerson doesn't.

But if you wanna fill the team in your head with a bunch of what-if's, go right ahead. This argument is ridiculous because apparently I wanna take TO and make him play for 5+ years and think he's never/hasn't dropped off. Silly me.

But for the sake of you being right and the Skins getting better, I hope Hankerson ends up the second coming of Jerry Rice.

Yeah, god forbid a rookie wide receiver step up and give us a game changing performance when we need it most. Obviously, that would be asking way too much.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Yeah, god forbid a rookie wide receiver step up and give us a game changing performance when we need it most. Obviously, that would be asking way too much.

Never asked him to make a game changing performance. Just show some promise. I don't know why people seem to think I wanted him to come out with 200+ yards and 3 TDs. Run routes. Catch. Basic stuff.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

Never asked him to make a game changing performance. Just show some promise. I don't know why people seem to think I wanted him to come out with 200+ yards and 3 TDs. Run routes. Catch. Basic stuff.

No, no I'm with you. Hank should be able to show us something after week six. But I DID want a game changing performance. Hell, that's what we need. That's what this team has lacked from a drafted wide receiver since Ricky Frickin' Sanders.

Other teams can get game changing performances from rookie wideouts. Why the hell can't we?

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

You seem to be under the delusion that I think TO is the second coming of Jesus. But if you'd like to twist things around like that, that's fine. All I said was TO could be a short term (read SHORT TERM) band-aid and Hankerson isn't going to be anything special from what I've seen from him in college and in the pre-season.

I never assumed that you thought these things. My points are based on T.O having a modest season. 600 yards, 3 Tds AT BEST, and likely less.
I'm arguing that the short-term should not be sacrificed in favor of the long term gains. The big question that should be addressed is simple: What do we gain wins/losses-wise picking up T.O? And I'd answer, not enough to justify the move(maybe 2 or 3 at best). I'd rather cut Hankerson for some impressive (to the coaches) practice squader over T.O. And I would be ALL ON BOARD for that move as well. Yes, replacing Hank for some PS'er. No sarcasm. Why? Because it's following the same principle: hunting for long-term assests.

With Gaffney, Austin, and Paul, a guy from the practice squad who's had 6 weeks to study the playbook and still run around like a chicken with his head cut off it doesn't look very promising. The odds are against Hankerson is what I've been getting at. I get that everything is a risk, some guys actually show promise. To me seeing his college tape and his pre-season tape, Hankerson doesn't.

And I state 5%. FIVE ****ING PERCENT and THREE-THOUSANDTHS of a percent of being a superstar AND YOU'RE ASSUMING I'M IN LOVE WITH THE DUDE AND DESTINED FOR SUCCESS.

But if you wanna fill the team in your head with a bunch of what-if's, go right ahead. This argument is ridiculous because apparently I wanna take TO and make him play for 5+ years and think he's never/hasn't dropped off. Silly me.

I never assumed that you thought these things. My points are based on T.O having a modest season. Anywhere between 400-600 yards, 3 Tds, give or take.

But for the sake of you being right and the Skins getting better, I hope Hankerson ends up the second coming of Jerry Rice.

Wait, a guy I stated that I think has .03% chance of becoming a superstar is someone I have a mancrush on? 3 thousdanths of a percent is not that high at all.

You'll probably keep on assuming those same things about me no matter how many times I try to clarify it. That's one assumption I'll actually make from your posting history.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

I never assumed that you thought these things. My points are based on T.O having a modest season. 600 yards, 3 Tds AT BEST, and likely less.
I'm arguing that the short-term should not be sacrificed in favor of the long term gains. The big question that should be addressed is simple: What do we gain wins/losses-wise picking up T.O? And I'd answer, not enough to justify the move(maybe 2 or 3 at best). I'd rather cut Hankerson for some impressive (to the coaches) practice squader over T.O. And I would be ALL ON BOARD for that move as well. Yes, replacing Hank for some PS'er. No sarcasm. Why? Because it's following the same principle: hunting for long-term assests.

And I state 5%. FIVE ****ING PERCENT and THREE-THOUSANDTHS of a percent of being a superstar AND YOU'RE ASSUMING I'M IN LOVE WITH THE DUDE AND DESTINED FOR SUCCESS.

I never assumed that you thought these things. My points are based on T.O having a modest season. Anywhere between 400-600 yards, 3 Tds, give or take.


Wait, a guy I stated that I think has .03% chance of becoming a superstar is someone I have a mancrush on? 3 thousdanths of a percent is not that high at all.

You'll probably keep on assuming those same things about me no matter how many times I try to clarify it. That's one assumption I'll actually make from your posting history.

Probably.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

Probably.

THAT'S Humor......

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

Probably.

Not a lot of things piss me off, but being falsely accused is one of them. That you would prefer your little assumptions about me to whatever I communicate about my actual feelings on the matter(far more netural than you think. T.O is to us as Roman Hamrlik was to Montreal) shows me that you justice and fairness sure as hell isn't on your moral compass. Throughtout the whole converstaion, I was going by T.O providing 400-600 yards or less and trying to prove that was worthless for us. I don't need to draw up a strawman of T.O being a perennial pro-bowler. But you won't see that and instead attribute to me that I'm a Hankerson fanboy. Well, **** off.

I hope Hankerson ****ing fails so I can prove you wrong. **** you. **** Leonard Hankerson. **** T.O.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Not a lot of things piss me off, but being falsely accused is one of them. That you would prefer your little assumptions about me to whatever I communicate about my actual feelings on the matter(far more netural than you think. T.O is to us as Roman Hamrlik was to Montreal) shows me that you justice and fairness sure as hell isn't on your moral compass. Throughtout the whole converstaion, I was going by T.O providing 400-600 yards or less and trying to prove that was worthless for us. I don't need to draw up a strawman of T.O being a perennial pro-bowler. But you won't see that and instead attribute to me that I'm a Hankerson fanboy. Well, **** off.

I hope Hankerson ****ing fails so I can prove you wrong. **** you. **** Leonard Hankerson. **** T.O.

Geez, take a Valium. It's not that serious.