McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

we're going to compare wasting away draft picks when it comes to Campbell vs McNabb? That's ironic.

Perhaps, but it's also obviously relevant.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Look no further than the injury record for disproof of your statement.

4 missed games in the last three years is hardly an "injury record for disproof of your statement". If anything McNabb is consciously scrambling less and avoiding unnecessary contact based on his run production and watching the guy play.

All I'm saying is that the decline signs are readily available for anyone who's interested in looking at them. QB rating kind of obscures it a bit, but most other stats suggest that the decline phase for McNabb is entering year three now. Which means that the steady consistent production he's become known for is the next thing to go.

What are these decline signs?

- His completion %? It's been the best 3 year span of his career 2007-09.
- Passing Yds? same as above.
- QB Rate? his career average is 86.5, 2007 = 89.9, 2008 = 86.4, 2009 = 92.9.
- TD % and INT % are consistent with his career averages over the last three years.
- Sack % is consistent with his career average, slightly higher in 2007 & 2009, but way down in 2008.
- Playoff appearances in 2008 (NFC Championship appearance) & 2009
- Team record 2007 - 8-8, 2008 - 9-6-1, 2009 - 11-5, trends upward.

I don't see any evidence of decline from the stats. The guy is 33, if he sticks around and gives us the level of production he has for 3-4 years, this deal is an absolute steal for us. With the advances in sports medicine over the last 10 years, who's to say he can't be prodcutive until he's 37-38?

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

How do we know the Ravens and Dolphins didn't also talk to the Eagles? I would guess that, based on how these things usually go, every team except maybe the Saints, Falcons, Colts, and Pats had some conversation with the Eagles. All teams talk all the time

They said pretty much every team had called.. I mean not every team was set on picking him up of course, but sure they'd talk.

Let's also say that McNabb is more of a fit for some clubs than others and we're one of them. Of course with a rookie you're willing to take the chance on putting him into something new, but it narrows down the ball clubs that should be seriously interested when a guy's been in one system his full career.

And if we still want to talk Campbell vs McNabb, how many teams are interested in Campbell?

Never knew serious inquiries was an indication of how good a QB is.

[CRedskinsRule]

I think this was posted before, but here is Mike Wise's column.Mike Wise - Redskins' acquisition of McNabb similar to so many moves before - washingtonpost.com

[Redskins_P]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

Get ready for some differential calculus from GTripp how not only is this incorrect but that Reid + wet ham sandwich - the bite he takes out of it > Shanny + McNabb / Zorn's increased knowledge after watching Cooley's ankle surgery + a healthy sesamoid

LOL! Hilarious.

[SBXVII]

The way I'm looking at this.....

A 100% awsome trade now package him up with something to the Rams for the #1 pick and Bradford.

I just get the feeling something is up and I guess we'll all have to wait and see.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

SS also has more access to "film guys" than I do, so believe him when he says that there are people out there who do hardcore analysis and support the Redskins in this trade.

And believe me when I say that a lot of really smart people in the know have no idea what we are thinking.

Not sure who your using as a source but the only negative thing I have heard on the radio or TV was that it looked like the same old same old with this deal. I guess the worse case would be if he became another Mark Brunell deal but I think DM has alot left in the tank.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

The way I'm looking at this.....

A 100% awsome trade now package him up with something to the Rams for the #1 pick and Bradford.

I just get the feeling something is up and I guess we'll all have to wait and see.

The problem is we would have to include our 4th overall. So to get Bradford now, would cost 1st rd, 2rd (McNabb), 4th next year(McNabb), and probably another player or a 1st or 2nd next year. Way too much at this point.

[sandtrapjack]

Wow the Eagles are staged for some wheeling and dealing in the draft, or perhaps a serious youth movement in the City of Brotherly Love.

After this trade, I think that the Eagles now have 10 or 12 picks total in this years draft. Whats more is 6 of those picks are in the first 3 rounds. That are staged man.

[Chico23231]

Clearly we are better today with McNabb and Grossman vs Campbell and Collins as our quarterbacks. Im interested to see what get for JC at this point. If we trade him for a 3rd or 2nd we have come out insanely great with these moves. 2nd round for McNabb is pretty easy to justify the risk IMO, but if we get a decent pick for JC...wow that really be the sweetener for this deal.

I dont buy JC doesnt have a market, numerous sources have anywhere between 3-5 teams ready to work with us...sign that tender JC so you finally move on

[Trample the Elderly]

I would be willing to say that JC is worth a bag of pork rinds in a trade to Oakland.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Okay, well stated. Do you have any actual evidence for these claims, or will a simple "I still think you're overrating the effect of a generic running game commitment on passing efficiency" suffice?

I'm well versed in game-theory, so you can save the lecture. There's obviously some effect of run-pass balance on play efficiency, but I don't think there's a major effect to be found there. Just my opinion.

Also, how many Brownie Points do I get for breaking your composure with just a little bit of logical reasoning? Some? I'll settle for some.

No more 8-in-the-box for Adrian Peterson.

Just for the record, you assuming that, to paraphrase, I thought Campbell was the ONLY QB that couldn't do it is what ticked me off. I was all smiles until you asserted that reckless assumption, and it seems that it deserves multiple mentions because you seem to have promptly forgot about it. If you like to tread closely to ad hominem land, be my guest, just don't go pat yourself on the back for being awesomely rational when you aren't so invulnerable.
You deserve no points for your faux "logicalness" and trying to assert a logically valid, but unsound-- I'm assuming you know what soundness and validity are, as you should if you're going to assert that you were logical in the first place--, syllogism regarding sacks and the slowness of QB feet, which only goes to further show your inflated opinion of yourself. I'm know about the material conditional, and there is at least one example of a mobile QB getting frequently sacked.

[Audi]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Allen/Gruden was interested in Favre to replace Garcia. Oh, and Minnesota. Brees, by all reports, had a choice between Miami and New Orleans before Miami traded for Culpepper. I don't know if I would call Miami under Saban a "true winning" franchise, but for the purpose of answering a cherry-picked example of a guy with a wrecked shoulder, they will suffice as an organization who people thought had direction.

I think you might have me on Warner (of course, I had thought of him before as a potential positive McNabb example). There were like, two teams interested in him as a backup, Arizona was the only team that was going to give him the starters role. But again, Josh McCown beat him out for the starting job in 2005. That's no different than if Grossman beat out McNabb for us this year: no one wants to see that happen. Warner's such an odd case. He's more proof that I'm wrong: anything can happen, as opposed to I'm wrong: McNabb is being underrated.

By what criteria were Minnesota, Miami, New Orleans, and Tampa Bay considered "winning organizations"? One would logically think it'd be wins, but obviously you're going by something different.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Aaron Schatz: not someone I talked to.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Washington's Small Upgrade

Before I even got to the part where they mentioned it I was thinking "Hey, did all of those other QBs change teams too?"

We probably weren't going to have Campbell again... Putting Grossman at the top of the depth chart unless a draft pick (you're not big on Bradford or Clausen right? just McCoy who might not be there at 37?) was able to take it from him.

To me this is a smart move. What would you have done? Kept Campbell, drafted McCoy (if available), start McCoy next year or pick up a FA next year? Done what if we didn't get McCoy? Start Grossman? Extend JC even though he'd probably rather move on to mentor a young guy? lol

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The problem is we would have to include our 4th overall. So to get Bradford now, would cost 1st rd, 2rd (McNabb), 4th next year(McNabb), and probably another player or a 1st or 2nd next year. Way too much at this point.

and this is the same crap they were going to offer anyway to the Rams cause thats what they wanted except we were offering JC as bait. The Rams were not interested in JC. They were interested in McNabb.

I'm not saying it's not a lot, I agree. Some fans here were offering our 1st, JC, Carter, and next yrs 1st or second. In this situation we gave up our 1st and 2nd, gave them McNabb, and we keep our top 2 draft picks next yr.

Trade some of our current players for draft picks and we've made up the difference.