McNabb a Redskin! (Part II)

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Or 57% from McNabb, you know. Love me some Favre watch.

The market did not really react to McNabb being available, at least using the Cutler trade as a comparable. It's probably fallacious to suggest that Cutler will have a better career than McNabb, we simply don't know at this point, but at his age, he only had 3 or 4 suitors. And we unquestionably had the best QB of us Oakland and Buffalo, no matter how much lobster Gradkowski bought for you on your date last night.

In a playcalling syntax which overemphasized the pass and emphasized the big play.
But Shanahan's system requires big plays to complement a good-to-elite running game and shorter passing game so that the O becomes incredibly difficult to scheme against O. Henne, Orton, etc are not big play QBs. Smith is spread or bust. JC is inconsistent at best. McNabb is a consistent big-play QB. Philly lived and died by the big play, but why did they emphasize it in the first place when the WCO was historically more ball control oriented? Because their QB is better suited for that.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

In a playcalling syntax which overemphasized the pass and emphasized the big play.
But Shanahan's system requires big plays to complement a good-to-elite running game and shorter passing game so that the O becomes incredibly difficult to scheme against O. Henne, Orton, etc are not big play QBs. Smith is spread or bust. JC is inconsistent at best. McNabb is a consistent big-play QB. Philly lived and died by the big play, but why did they emphasize it in the first place when the WCO was historically more ball control oriented? Because their QB is better suited for that.

I don't know why you think that getting a QB who is incapable of producing when he throws 45+ times a game is so self-evidently awesome, and I think if you want to show that McNabb can benefit by inheriting a running game that, if nothing else, will take a lot of his passing attempts, you should try to go and build that case.

So far, I'm gathering that you think it's easier for any QB to be successful in the Shanahan system than in other systems. Anyone except Jason Campbell, of course, because that would completely ruin your already "interesting" argument.

I kind of agree with you that McNabb is a little bit out of place in the stat-inflating system that is the WCO. I'm sure glad that he's in a system now that has limited WCO elements. Oh, wait.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't know why you think that getting a QB who is incapable of producing when he throws 45+ times a game is so self-evidently awesome, and I think if you want to show that McNabb can benefit by inheriting a running game that, if nothing else, will take a lot of his passing attempts, you should try to go and build that case.

So far, I'm gathering that you think it's easier for any QB to be successful in the Shanahan system than in other systems. Anyone except Jason Campbell, of course, because that would completely ruin your already "interesting" argument.

I kind of agree with you that McNabb is a little bit out of place in the stat-inflating system that is the WCO. I'm sure glad that he's in a system now that has limited WCO elements. Oh, wait.

You're good at assuming shit about people who disagree with you. Too good. But DON'T go around recklessly using inference from simulation of what of anti-Campbell dumbasses argue is representative of what I think can work or not work in Shanahan's offense.

Alex Smith would not work in this O, because he's too much tied to the spread offense.
Orton and Pennington would not work as well because they can't attack the deep secondary, which in turns limits what Shanahan can exploit.
Brett Farve would be better than McNabb in this O. Just as good ability to attack deep, but better on the intermediate and shorter throws(quick slant).
Jason Campbell is woefully inconsistent. Throws that should be routine are a chore to him, and he has shown very little that he has other skills to adequately compensate.

Is that sufficient for you to stop calumniating me in that I think ANY(YES, YOU SAID ANY, which means all I have to do is mention JUST ONE example of where another QB would stink it up with Shanahan, and I mentioned three) QB is better than JC.

This isn't about stats. This is about McNabb's skillset. And I love to see your crazy argument that a one-dimensional offense doesn't inhibit the QB. Having a running game makes the probability that the D will bite on play action or think the play is a run MUCH MORE OFTEN.

Steve Deberg also had inflated stats. That didn't mean Walsh thought he was worth sticking with over Montana.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

You're good at assuming shit about people who disagree with you. Too good. But DON'T go around recklessly using inference from simulation of what of anti-Campbell dumbasses argue is representative of what I think can work or not work in Shanahan's offense.

Alex Smith would not work in this O, because he's too much tied to the spread offense.
Orton and Pennington would not work as well because they can't attack the deep secondary, which in turns limits what Shanahan can exploit.
Brett Farve would be better than McNabb in this O. Just as good ability to attack deep, but better on the intermediate and shorter throws(quick slant).
Jason Campbell is woefully inconsistent. Throws that should be routine are a chore to him, and he has shown very little that he has other skills to adequately compensate.

Is that sufficient for you to stop calumniating me in that I think ANY(YES, YOU SAID ANY, which means all I have to do is mention JUST ONE example of where another QB would stink it up with Shanahan, and I mentioned three) QB is better than JC.

This isn't about stats. This is about McNabb's skillset. And I love to see your crazy argument that a one-dimensional offense doesn't inhibit the QB. Having a running game makes the probability that the D will bite on play action or think the play is a run MUCH MORE OFTEN.

Steve Deberg also had inflated stats. That didn't mean Walsh thought he was worth sticking with over Montana.

Burden of proof is on you, dude. It's your claim that Reid's offense was so unbalanced that it make McNabb's job difficult, not mine. As a hypothesis, I think it's legit, but you might as well put "I think" before it because I don't have to agree with every distant assumption you make, just like you don't have to agree with the way I use completion percentage and sack rate to show value.

In the absence of personal expertise on what makes the Shanahan offense click, your entire argument is valueless. You critique me for appealing to my own expertise, but I'm very forthright in where I'm deriving my opinions. You just write stuff seemingly to make me read it.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Burden of proof is on you, dude. It's your claim that Reid's offense was so unbalanced that it make McNabb's job difficult, not mine. As a hypothesis, I think it's legit, but you might as well put "I think" before it because I don't have to agree with every distant assumption you make, just like you don't have to agree with the way I use completion percentage and sack rate to show value.

In the absence of personal expertise on what makes the Shanahan offense click, your entire argument is valueless. You critique me for appealing to my own expertise, but I'm very forthright in where I'm deriving my opinions. You just write stuff seemingly to make me read it.

Yes, you back off like a little coward once your "moral superiority" assumption against me went down the drain, now did it?

Then you seem unable to comprehend that every play's outcome can be broken down into two categories: Success or failure.

Running the ball effectively forces the opponent to call anti-pass plays with greater reservation, thus increasing the probability that when a pass play is called, the opponent will have an unsuitable defense to deal with it and a big play will occur.
Sure, you could have enough talent that you'll hit a big one, but the chance of that is still lower since the opponent can commit everything to just stopping the pass via blitz, double coverage, bracket coverage. Run the ball effectively, and the opponent has to commit their linebackers and quite possibly more just to stop the RB, which leaves means the CBs will be stuck in man or something more often, which in turn can be exploited by running a passing play out of the same formation. The opponent now has to guess, and one wrong guess can mean the difference in the game.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Yes, you back off like a little coward once your "moral superiority" assumption against me went down the drain, now did it?

Then you seem unable to comprehend that every play's outcome can be broken down into two categories: Success or failure.

Running the ball effectively forces the opponent to call anti-pass plays with greater reservation, thus increasing the probability that when a pass play is called, the opponent will have an unsuitable defense to deal with it and a big play will occur.
Sure, you could have enough talent that you'll hit a big one, but the chance of that is still lower since the opponent can commit everything to just stopping the pass via blitz, double coverage, bracket coverage. Run the ball effectively, and the opponent has to commit their linebackers and quite possibly more just to stop the RB, which leaves means the CBs will be stuck in man or something more often, which in turn can be exploited by running a passing play out of the same formation. The opponent now has to guess, and one wrong guess can mean the difference in the game.

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.

[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.