Schefner said KC taged

[ehb5]

For starters, how about the fact that he franchised Kirk? I'll be the first to admit that, if Kirk reaches a long-term deal, he'll be paid more than he's worth. But going off what I've read of what your assessment of Kirk is, I'd venture a guess that most football people would hold Kirk in higher regard than you.

I wanted him to tag kirk. And plenty of football people agree with me. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

 

[redskinsfan]

I wanted him to tag kirk. And plenty of football people agree with me. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

I think I do. Based on my reading of your posts, you don't hold too high of an opinion of Kirk. If that's incorrect, you can certainly advise on that. And, based on my review of what others such as Andrew Brandt and other respected football commentators have opined on Kirk, they hold a higher opinion of his prospects as a QB than you do. Pretty simple stuff.

 

[ehb5]

I think I do. Based on my reading of your posts, you don't hold too high of an opinion of Kirk. If that's incorrect, you can certainly advise on that. And, based on my review of what others such as Andrew Brandt and other respected football commentators have opined on Kirk, they hold a higher opinion of his prospects as a QB than you do. Pretty simple stuff.

I doubt that. You had no idea I wanted to franchise tag him. I have a very middle of the road view of him.

 

[j_y19]

How about just taking the words of SM on his views of KC? He has said in interviews that he is high on KC and expects him to be the QB for the Redskins for a long time. Then you can also view his actions. He just Franchised him and is paying him as one of the highest paid players in the league. That alone should tell you all you need to know. If he had any serious concerns, there is not way he franchise tags him.

 

[redskinsfan]

I doubt that. You had no idea I wanted to franchise tag him. I have a very middle of the road view of him.

Well, I'll take your word for that.

 

[redskinsfan]

How about just taking the words of SM on his views of KC? He has said in interviews that he is high on KC and expects him to be the QB for the Redskins for a long time. Then you can also view his actions. He just Franchised him and is paying him as one of the highest paid players in the league. That alone should tell you all you need to know. If he had any serious concerns, there is not way he franchise tags him.

And that's why SM's views on KC differ from ehbs.

 

[ehb5]

How about just taking the words of SM on his views of KC? He has said in interviews that he is high on KC and expects him to be the QB for the Redskins for a long time. Then you can also view his actions. He just Franchised him and is paying him as one of the highest paid players in the league. That alone should tell you all you need to know. If he had any serious concerns, there is not way he franchise tags him.

That's exactly what I'd say and do if I were gm too.

 

[ehb5]

And that's why SM's views on KC differ from ehbs.

Except what he just posted is what I wanted him to do.....

 

[j_y19]

That's exactly what I'd say and do if I were gm too.

I came into this thread late and admittedly haven't read it all. But its my impression that you would do it because you don't have any other options. Conversely, its my read that SM is doing it because he believes KC will become a franchise QB. I, of course, could be wrong. But he is putting his job on the line. lets be clear. He is cutting the QB the owner has supported for a QB that has only shown 1 season of better than adequate play. That also should tell you all you need to know about his true feelings for KC.

 

[redskinsfan]

Except what he just posted is what I wanted him to do.....

There are many different reasons why a team places a tag on a player. The issue here is your view on KC and how it differs from SM's. That was my point.

 

[redskinsfan]

I came into this thread late and admittedly haven't read it all. But its my impression that you would do it because you don't have any other options. Conversely, its my read that SM is doing it because he believes KC will become a franchise QB. I, of course, could be wrong. But he is putting his job on the line. lets be clear. He is cutting the QB the owner has supported for a QB that has only shown 1 season of better than adequate play. That also should tell you all you need to know about his true feelings for KC.

Exactly.

 

[ehb5]

I came into this thread late and admittedly haven't read it all. But its my impression that you would do it because you don't have any other options. Conversely, its my read that SM is doing it because he believes KC will become a franchise QB. I, of course, could be wrong. But he is putting his job on the line. lets be clear. He is cutting the QB the owner has supported for a QB that has only shown 1 season of better than adequate play. That also should tell you all you need to know about his true feelings for KC.

Not really true. Id do it because I dont want to lose him. He could be a franchise QB, it would be silly to let him leave. I dont think SM is convinced Kirk will be a franchise QB. But (obviously) he wants him back in DC for at least another season. So for all we know, Im on the same page as SM.

 

[ehb5]

There are many different reasons why a team places a tag on a player. The issue here is your view on KC and how it differs from SM's. That was my point.

And you've offered nothing to support your claim. You said something that you have given 0 evidence to support.

 

[redskinsfan]

And you've offered nothing to support your claim. You said something that you have given 0 evidence to support.

Check out jy's post above. That's my evidence on that. That, by the way, is greater than "0 evidence."

 

[ehb5]

Check out jy's post above. That's my evidence on that. That, by the way, is greater than "0 evidence."

Jy's post showed nothing other than I agree with SM. You have no idea what you're talking about. Find some evidence bud.

 

[redskinsfan]

Jy's post showed nothing other than I agree with SM. You have no idea what you're talking about. Find some evidence bud.

Wrong. The fact that you may concur with decision to tag Cousins doesn't necessarily mean you agree with SM on why he did so. Jy explained this well. Bud.

 

[ehb5]

Wrong. The fact that you may concur with decision to tag Cousins doesn't necessarily mean you agree with SM on why he did so. Jy explained this well. Bud.

And where is your evidence that his reason is different from mine?

 

[redskinsfan]

And where is your evidence that his reason is different from mine?

I explained that in prior posts. Read them. And re-read jy's post. Again. Bud.

 

[ehb5]

I explained that in prior posts. Read them. And re-read jy's post. Again. Bud.

No you didn't. You have nothing. Not sure you understand what evidence is bud. Neither jy nor you have offered any. All we know is I agree with SM. And that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

 

[redskinsfan]

No you didn't. You have nothing. Not sure you understand what evidence is bud. Neither jy nor you have offered any. All we know is I agree with SM. And that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

The fact that you can't understand that some people can agree on an ultimate conclusion but differ on the reasons for agreeing on that conclusion is mind-boggling. Happens all the time. Ever read some rulings by a court of appeal or a supreme court? Some judges / justices agree to affirm or reverse a decision, but sometimes offer different reasons supporting that decision. Same thing here and this basic, common sense principle was explained by jy above.