Realistically, how is Mike doing on building the roster?

[2cents]

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.

[thesubmittedone]

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.

[darrelgreenie]

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

[skinny21]

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). )

[BDOG510]

DONE nothing...done....English is your friend.

Are you the grammar police? what a douchebag thing to do.

[2cents]

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.

[BDOG510]

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.

[2cents]

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.

[thesubmittedone]

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.

[SkinsTillIDie]

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

[TheLongshot]

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.

[pjfootballer]

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.

[thesubmittedone]

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.

[darrelgreenie]

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.

[thesubmittedone]

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.