A friend asked me if I could explain the reasoning behind the McNabb trade. Will I storm the front office? Why would they do that? Is their offense dead?
I am disappointed. No one I know is really that in love with Kolb, and even those who have been killing McNabb for the past few years are a bit puzzled. I hear the people saying McNabb has to go, but I don't hear the people saying this is a great move.
But can I explain it?
Sure.
It doesn't make football sense, but it makes business sense. I think it came down to 2 things: money (McNabb has a big extension, but why did they give it to him if they weren't sure? not a great decision) and not wanting to look stupid/waste draft picks. See, in the Green Bay case, as was in San Diego (with Rivers-Brees), they had both spent a lot of money on a high draft pick for a QB and they didn't want to waste it. If you spend a first round pick on a quarterback, you better damn hope he pans out or else your draft record is going to take a hit and all your cap space is wasted on a guy who does nothing. That's why San Diego let Brees go even after he finally came through for them. They had just spent a lot on Rivers, and they couldn't have both. In both cases, they were fine. I also think Cincinnati had a similar decision back in the day with letting go of Kitna after he had a decent year in favor of getting Carson Palmer reps. In all those cases, the young guy won out, not always because they thought he was better, but because he HAD to. They were spending too much money and had invested time and a pick into them, and to let them sit on the bench would just be too much of a waste.
In this case, it is a little different. Kolb is not making that much money and was not a first round pick, but he was a high second round pick, in a draft where they didn't have a first. So he's important to them. Not playing him would mean that Reid, supposed quarterback guru, failed with a high pick, and he would look bad. The money issue is almost the opposite - McNabb is making all the money while Kolb is still inexpensive. They save a lot by getting rid of him. I know they've got money, and they've already cut a lot of people, but it will still be a big cap relief. Why they wanted to do this when they're still contending is questionable, but if they are making a lot of changes, they want to have fexibility.
I was going to say that this is a pretty decent receiving core, but I don't know. Maclin showed good promise last year, but Curtis and Brown were disappointments. Avant and the return of Lotion Baskett don't really mean much. But it's something. It's a fairly good offense to have in the NFC, and they scored a lot last year.
But you're right, I am pissed because I thought they had one more year to give McNabb (and Reid) a shot. After next year, there will be a new collective bargaining agreement, possibly a strike, and many changes in how teams work. I wanted to give them one last chance, given that this is probably the best offense McNabb has had since the SB year. This effectively kills them, although anything can happen. The real problem is that once they started seriously shopping McNabb, they pretty much had to make a deal or it would be super awkward next year. They could have been more discreet about it.
Look, this franchise has a plan where they don't want to keep veterans around longer than they have to. They constantly want to have draft picks and young guys coming in to replace them. It's made for some sad goodbyes - Westbrook this year, Dawkins last, Trotter and Hugh Douglas in years past. Most of the time, the front office was correct - most of these guys are washed up. I don't believe McNabb is, and I thought he was the one guy they would hold on to until the end... but this basically fits their pattern. It's a major shift, but it does. So I hope that explains it, although it doesn't make me feel any better.
Monday, April 05, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment