Rob's House

I wasn't trying to prove anything; it wasn't even my poll. It's just ridiculous that someone can't gauge fan opinion without people with their bizarre message board agendas gumming up the results with bogus answers and then making excuses for why they gave an answer to a question other than the one asked. The fact that you're so convinced someone is out to prove something says a lot about your mindset. Where is DC Tom when you need him?

Dialogue in the thread is great, but the poll didn't leave room for equivocation.

No, it's really not. It actually couldn't be less nuanced or more simple. He didn't ask you whether he will or won't be anything, nor did he ask for probabilities. I'll repeat the question in a way that you can hopefully understand: If you had a gun to your head and your life depended on the accuracy of your prediction, and the only possible answers are yes and no, do you think EJ Manuel will become a franchise QB? The only room for nuance or interpretation is how you define "franchise QB". I swear, I can see some on this board at the roulette table explaining how you can't simply bet on red because the reality is too unknown and nuanced.

Somebody not currently on the roster. If I have to give a name I'll say Moore because I'm biased, but could just as easily go with Sanchise if I'm being realistic.

I don't know how they can do that. I suppose it's possible, but it seems like they'd have to do a backloaded extension with a lot of guaranteed money to make that work. We've already enjoyed the lower hit years on his deal and a lot of his cap hit is money that's already been paid.

Fixed. The question wasn't whether they thought he had the potential to be, but whether they thought he would be. It was a straightforward asked using unambiguous language. People who can't answer a simple yes or no question with a simple yes or no piss me off.

The sense of entitlement some on this board have is dumbfounding. Whenever someone with inside info share it there are always a handful of Nancies who are awfully quick to criticize. Maybe those posters should STFU. Maybe the next guy with an inside tip decides not to waste his time on a bunch of ass holes who will give him nothing but grief for his efforts. I don't see what the issue with McCown is. As Kelly succinctly put, his info may have been completely accurate when he posted it, and everything that's come out since tends to suggest it was true. If you can't wrap your mind around that maybe it's due to your own intellectual limitations and you may do well not to advertise them.

Not if I was drunk on red wine, going through a long period of involuntary celibacy, and just got shot down at the gateway with my bags packed and ticket stamped (so to speak). I'm not big on skinny girls anyway, but I don't think I could even rise to the occasion for that girl.

Only if TJ Graham is unavailable.

It's quite the self-congratulatory pat on the back isn't it? What they don't realize is that If it weren't for my raindance the rivers would have run dry years ago. You're welcome, liberals.

I'd say it's an established QB who's good enough that you consider the position filled.

I didn't vote because my vote would be no and I don't like to pile on in case his friends/family peruse fanboards to gauge perceptions.

Let's not make this harder than it has to be.

That's not it either. It's like an over under bet. It's asking, if you have to decide right now do you think it's more likely that he will or won't be a franchise QB.

Translation: I didn't like the question so I gave the answer to a different one.

I'm not saying it is the case, but if it were the case that they had 3 or 4 guys they thought were substantially better options, or if based on practice were convinced he had no realistic shot of progressing it might make more sense to invest your time and attention elsewhere. Think Trent Edwards.

Whether this is true or not, It's still amusing to watch all the EMBLA members freak out about it. It's not something I would expect to see happen, but the people who would ultimately make that decision know a whole lot more about Manuel, their options, and their strategy than I do, so until I have reason to think otherwise I'll assume their moves make more sense than whatever I, in my infinite ignorance, may think.

Come to think of it, to use Gene's definition any victim of crime could be said to be whining over sour grapes. Rape victim, not happy about the result, complaining about it...

Sour grapes is where you wanted something, didn't get it, and then said it probably sucks anyway. When you didn't want something to begin with, had it forced down your throat, and still don't like it, that's not sour grapes.

On one hand, he got cut by the Redskins who have a weak secondary as is. On the other, he got a year and a half of development at their expense. Maybe we got lucky and picked him up as he was about to turn the corner.

From what I understand the cap savings for cutting him would be less than $1m. If he's healthy he may start.

That's not what sour grapes means.

If the FO were to draft an OG for need in this draft they should be fired...or preferably shot.

You need to consider how rapidly the market is growing. That's why they need to enact the rules now because with the increase in access, including wireless internet access, that argument becomes less persuasive every day. Not surprising. I'd thought this but didn't know enough to say for sure, but you can file this away with countless other feel good liberal regulatory schemes designed to keep the big corporations in check and help the "little guy" that gets said little guy out of the way of the corporations so that a few large entities can rule the market free of outside competition. Congratulations liberals. You just made OC right. If you want to get something done (like freeing corporations from outside competition) put liberals in charge of doing the opposite.