hawk45 wrote:Was listening to Brock and Salk talking to Peter King and he starts by saying how befuddled he was by the trade, so I'm thinking okay now I'm gonna hear some good analysis, and he goes on to say McNabb made tons more sense, to which Salk I think said...er...okay but we'd have had to give up a lot more for McNabb right and Peter waves that off saying yeah but he'd have been worth our 14, that we'd have the QB position locked up for 5 years and then could use the 6 and the 40 to best advantage.
Which is when I threw everything else he said completely out the window, my goodness. I can't stand McNabb for goodness sake, I think old Pete did more to sell me on Whitehurst by arguing against Whitehurst so poorly than anything else I've heard today.
The only good point he made was that Whitehurst hasn't done anything on the field, yeah that one's been made a million times and it's a good one, but you can't argue about the waste of 20 draft spots on one hand and then suggest throwing away our first for McNabb of all people. Philly doesn't even like McNabb. King's rationale for McNabb was that if we got a top 12 QB (really? McNabb? now?) we could take the NFCW while we were rebuilding...eh...no thanks to sinking a bunch of money and a first into a guy thereby hampering a real rebuilding process for the sake of a couple NFCW titles and getting bounced in the first round likely if we did win the division.
He said a few other silly things. The only thing of interest was speaking of AJ Smith and that he read between the lines that Smith just told the Hawks what it would take and we just gave it up. His take was that it wasn't even that Arizona drove the price up but that we just rolled over. However, he based this on his interpretation of Smith's comments and it sounded like wild speculation to me.
I was prepared to be a sympathetic listener and was already suspicious our FO didn't drive a hard bargain but the reasons HE gave for thinking that did not impress.
Peter King is always writing about how Hasselbeck is finished and Seattle needed to find a QB. Now the Seahawks have made a deal for a QB, he says it makes no sense. Based on the fact the guy hasn't started a game with Philip Rivers and one of the best #2's in the business in front of him.
The Seahawks will have done their homework... something King neglects. His over reaction to this almost makes it seem like Seattle just pulled a name out of a hat. Seattle made a splash for a guy they think could start down the line. Can we really say that about Derek Anderson?
If it doesn't work out Seattle lost 20 places in a deep draft. If it does work out - people will call it a steal. I hardly think that warrants his negative stance.
And as for McNabb - why the hell would you spend the #14 pick on a guy well into his 30's? Five years seems a bit optomistic to say the least from McNabb at this stage in his career. Even then, at #14 you're really hoping for what? 6-8 years out of a guy minimum in a perfect world? How does that add up? If he was saying Kevin Kolb I could understand, but McNabb?
But then every time I've listened to that radio station online this week, there's somebody complaining about the Whitehurst deal. Some guy even pouted because it meant we couldn't get Tebow or McCoy at #40. I can only predict that was a suggestion made without any real dedication to look into what Tebow or McCoy bring to the table. But then - they're big name rookies! And they don't cost top ten money! That must be good! Let's forget how much of a major project Tebow is or the fact that... actually... as a passer he doesn't make good enough progressions, he misses open guys, he isn't that accurate. As for McCoy - I don't say this lightly, but having literally watched hours of McCoy... if he makes it in the NFL I'll be very surprised.
(McCoy is another guy Peter King really likes if I remember correctly).