Cliff Lee

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

What was your opinion? I think the guy was a warrior with the Birds who never had any weapons. Look what happened when he finally got a reciever, they went to the Super Bowl.

But refresh my memory.

you thought i was crazy for being thrilled we traded McNabb and thinking we'll be better with out him.

Granted the whole Mike Vick thing is different than me talking about Kolb... but I'll still take Kolb over McNabb any day of the week, and twice on Sundays... and so would every GM in football (especially the redskins)

I would bet lots of $$ that if McNabb was the qb, we would have lost our past two games. With McNabb, you know the team isnt going to come back. He was a very good qb up until 2005. ups and downs since then.. and overrated. but he is certainly someone you do not want to count on come crunch time, which is why we never got a SB. We had plenty of opportunities against the Pats.

I mean, the Skins benched him with 2 mins left and a 1 possession game.. for Rex Grossman. If that doesnt make my case than nothing will.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

you thought i was crazy for being thrilled we traded McNabb and thinking we'll be better with out him.

Granted the whole Mike Vick thing is different than me talking about Kolb... but I'll still take Kolb over McNabb any day of the week, and twice on Sundays... and so would every GM in football (especially the redskins)

I would bet lots of $$ that if McNabb was the qb, we would have lost our past two games. With McNabb, you know the team isnt going to come back. He was a very good qb up until 2005. ups and downs since then.. and overrated. but he is certainly someone you do not want to count on come crunch time, which is why we never got a SB. We had plenty of opportunities against the Pats.

I mean, the Skins benched him with 2 mins left and a 1 possession game.. for Rex Grossman. If that doesnt make my case than nothing will.

My argument was based on McNabb vs Kolb, and from what I remember Kolb did struggle a bit in his short time as QB. Obviously no one could have predicted Michael Vick playing at such a high level and having the sucess that he has had. But, you do have to admit that McNabb never had these types of weapons in all his years there. I don't know if they would be 9-4, but I believe that McNabb would have this team in playoff contention as well. I don't take any stock into the Grossman situation because I believe that Mike Shannahan isn't the genius that many people thinks he is.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

My argument was based on McNabb vs Kolb, and from what I remember Kolb did struggle a bit in his short time as QB. Obviously no one could have predicted Michael Vick playing at such a high level and having the sucess that he has had. But, you do have to admit that McNabb never had these types of weapons in all his years there. I don't know if they would be 9-4, but I believe that McNabb would have this team in playoff contention as well. I don't take any stock into the Grossman situation because I believe that Mike Shannahan isn't the genius that many people thinks he is.

with our O-line the way it is, McNabb would be lucky to be 7-6 with this team. Our defense gives up a lot of points. McNabb doesnt have 1/4 the mobility that Vick has (nobody does... McNabb used to be mobile, but for some stupid reason he decided to become a pocket qb) I highly doubt we make the playoffs with McNabb at QB.

Also, we probably dont make the playoffs with Kolb, soley based on our O-line, not Kolbs play.

I disagree with the weapons thing. WR's arent the only weapons on a football team:

McNabb had a hugely better O-line.. much better defense.. RB is a wash.. TE is a wash, WR's were much worse.

Vick has better WR's... rb wash, te wash, o-line sucks, defense is average at best.

Kolb has started and finished 5 games in his career... and has been named the NFC offensive player of the week twice. He had a 133 passer rating against the Falcons, and played very solid against the 49ers. Titans game was rough. Green bay is dumb to go by.. he didnt have more than .2 seconds before the D was all over him, and people forget that they were running Vick in every other play. Kolb actually played only like 60% of the offensive snaps before he was concussed by Clay Matthews. One thing I can say with conviction, a two QB system of running guys in and out does not work. Vick sucked that first half too. Its not easy being the qb and istead of getting 3 downs, you start with 2nd and 13.

I read reports where 12-13 teams tried to get Kolb this past off season. Lots of them offered #1 picks... Eagles were only going to trade him for two 1st round picks, which nobody offered. barely anyone inquired about McNabb.. we had to give him to a division rival for goodness sakes!

Kolb has a 64% completion rating & 1,575 yards in his 5 starts & finishes the past two years. Thing is, he throws too many interceptions (tho the # is inflated by having two hail marys picked off). He needs experience. He also doesnt have incredible arm strength. Its not bad, and its certainly not as bad as some people make it out to be, but he has a tough time when the wind is blowing strong. Mike Vick is the better player, but whoever ends up with Kolb is getting a heck of a player. Unlike what the Skins got with McNabb.

[slotdirt]

Oh boy, now we're moving on to the Eagles. We all know antitrust's opinion of McNabb. I'll pass on that argument.

If Cole Hamels/Oswalt's 2011 season is better than Neagle's 1997 season (20-5, 4.1 WAR), Avery's 1993 season (18-6, 4.0 WAR), Kevin Millwood's 1999 season (18-7, 5.7 WAR), or any of the 1971 Baltimore Orioles (four starters with 20+ wins, 11, 18, 20, 21 CG, 12 combined CG SO, etc.), then maybe we can talk about 2011 Phillies being one of the all-time best rotations.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Oh boy, now we're moving on to the Eagles. We all know antitrust's opinion of McNabb. I'll pass on that argument.

If Cole Hamels/Oswalt's 2011 season is better than Neagle's 1997 season (20-5, 4.1 WAR), Avery's 1993 season (18-6, 4.0 WAR), Kevin Millwood's 1999 season (18-7, 5.7 WAR), or any of the 1971 Baltimore Orioles (four starters with 20+ wins, 11, 18, 20, 21 CG, 12 combined CG SO, etc.), then maybe we can talk about 2011 Phillies being one of the all-time best rotations.

way to pick and choose those years.

and comparing a 5 man rotation to the 71 4 man rotation is pretty darn useless, as my 4 will have 33 combined less starts.... but you probably knew that..

you cannot judge it off wins and losses and it be a true reflection of how a pitcher pitched... but you know that also.

We can base it off WAR and ERA and strikeout to walk ratio.

You know how many times a Phillies pitcher went 7-9 innings and lost 2-1, or 1-0? Wins & losses arent always reflective of a pitcher. Take King Felix for example.

also eliminating the Eagles from the whole picture.. McNabb seems to be proving my points pretty darn well. Though I will say I watched in disbelief last week when the Skins and Low Throw actually scored a TD with less than a minute left.

[Scav]

Anyone else think that the Yankees were just a pawn in this bidding war. Pretty awesome if you ask me.

The one thing I will say about that rotation is that it is built for the regular season, and both Halladay and Lee should come into the playoffs ultra fresh. If you have to face Halladay and Lee guaranteed twice in a 7 game series, any team is in trouble.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Scav

Anyone else think that the Yankees were just a pawn in this bidding war. Pretty awesome if you ask me.

The one thing I will say about that rotation is that it is built for the regular season, and both Halladay and Lee should come into the playoffs ultra fresh. If you have to face Halladay and Lee guaranteed twice in a 7 game series, any team is in trouble.

I don't think you can say that they were a pawn based on him taking less money and a shorter deal.

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

way to pick and choose those years.

and comparing a 5 man rotation to the 71 4 man rotation is pretty darn useless, as my 4 will have 33 combined less starts.... but you probably knew that..

you cannot judge it off wins and losses and it be a true reflection of how a pitcher pitched... but you know that also.

We can base it off WAR and ERA and strikeout to walk ratio.

You know how many times a Phillies pitcher went 7-9 innings and lost 2-1, or 1-0? Wins & losses arent always reflective of a pitcher. Take King Felix for example.

also eliminating the Eagles from the whole picture.. McNabb seems to be proving my points pretty darn well. Though I will say I watched in disbelief last week when the Skins and Low Throw actually scored a TD with less than a minute left.

When one is deciding the "best rotation ever," isn't one essentially picking the best rotation for THAT season alone? So how could I possibly be picking and choosing when picking a 4th starter's best year - given that the other three are named Smoltz, Glavine, and Maddux - to determine how the 90's Braves fall into the "best rotation ever" conversation?

Regardless, the Phillies 2011 rotation is going to have to do something pretty special to break into this conversation. On paper, they don't match up to the 60's Dodgers, 90's Braves, 70's Orioles, or even the 20's Yankees, but the actual season will obviously tell the tale.

[Antitrust32]

for slotdirt: according to people who know what they are talking about, on paper, they seem to match up pretty damn well.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotsto...son&id=5920160

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

When one is deciding the "best rotation ever," isn't one essentially picking the best rotation for THAT season alone? So how could I possibly be picking and choosing when picking a 4th starter's best year - given that the other three are named Smoltz, Glavine, and Maddux - to determine how the 90's Braves fall into the "best rotation ever" conversation?

Regardless, the Phillies 2011 rotation is going to have to do something pretty special to break into this conversation. On paper, they don't match up to the 60's Dodgers, 90's Braves, 70's Orioles, or even the 20's Yankees, but the actual season will obviously tell the tale.

I think comparing them to the 90's braves is fair but what you see on paper will be deceptive. First of all, Hallady and Lee both pitched mostly in the AL. Halladay pitched in the AL EAST during a run by the yankees and red sox where they both outspent their competition by a large margin. Basically, he was doing it on his own and still putting up incredible numbers. You put him in the NL for a year with a real lineup behind him and look what he did. Give me Halladay ANY DAY over any of those Braves pitchers. None of them were as nasty.

Look at Lee's NL stats. Look at some of the teams he pitched for in AL. Are you saying he isnt just as good?

The Braves were better 3-4-5 in my opinion.

The REAL question is...who had the bigger nutcase in the pen?