Rumor: Eagles and Rams Finalizing Trade Involving McNabb

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

yes, and "lately," mcnabb has done more than campbell. Lets compare the performance of the two over the past two years:

Donovan McNabb, Age 33 - 30 starts, 1014 pass attempts, 7469 yards, 45 touchdowns, 21 interceptions.

Jason Campbell, Age 28 - 32 starts, 1013 pass attempts, 6863 yards, 33 touchdowns, 21 interceptions.

mcnabb may be on the downside of his career, but so is campbell - not due to age, but due to simple suckiness. Three of the best QBs in the NFL last year, Manning, Warner, and Favre, were 34, 38, and 40 respectively. By all appearnances, Favre is returning, Warner could have still kept playing at a high level if he wanted to, and Mannings about to get paid the biggest contrat in NFL history. these guys are all getting it done in their mid-to late 30s. and you think teams should shy away from McNabb because he's 33? I dont think there's a reasonable person here who thinks that McNabb won't outplay Campbell over the next 5 years. McNabb is a great NFL QB who is still getting it done. Campbell is 5 years younger, has never "gotten it done," and there's no reason to think he ever will.

For any team out there, Campbell would buy 1 year - tops - before they needed to have a franchise QB in place. McNabb would buy a franchise 3-4 years minimum.

if it were up to me, i'd trade our 2nd rounder plus Andre Carter for McNabb, feel confident in our QB position for the next 5 years, draft a lineman with our 1st round pick, add more linemen in 2011 and then draft a QB of the future in 2012. Of course, the Eagles would never trade McNabb to a division rival, so the point is moot. Bottom line (in my opinion) - even on the "downside" of his career, McNabb at 33 is a better QB and has MORE upside than Campbell at 28.

I think the whole argument started because of the whole Charlie Whitehurst trade. Although I think this argument is a bit flawed because of the details of the trade. The Seahawks traded their 2010 2nd rounder (top 10 I think) and an undisclosed 2011 pick for a Whitehurst and their later 2010 2nd round pick.

Now the rumored McNabb trade is basically the first pick in the 2nd round and OJ Atogwe. Now, is JC worth more than McNabb? No. But, the Whitehurst trade probably gives you an idea of how much more Campbell should cost, which I would say right now at least a 3rd rounder.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I think the whole argument started because of the whole Charlie Whitehurst trade. Although I think this argument is a bit flawed because of the details of the trade. The Seahawks traded their 2010 2nd rounder (top 10 I think) and an undisclosed 2011 pick for a Whitehurst and their later 2010 2nd round pick.

Now the rumored McNabb trade is basically the first pick in the 2nd round and OJ Atogwe. Now, is JC worth more than McNabb? No. But, the Whitehurst trade probably gives you an idea of how much more Campbell should cost, which I would say right now at least a 3rd rounder.

i'll just reiterate what celts said because, because i couldnt say it any better:

Originally Posted by celts32

So true...and people that harp on JC's experience are missing the point. That experience counts against him because he's played so many games and is still not playing at a level he should be for all that experience. A guy like Whitehurst is worth more to Seattle because he has not played enough to prove he can't. Teams always overpay for what they think is untapped potential. not sure anyone sees JC as anymore then he already is which is just okay.

Whitehurst > Campbell

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

i'll just reiterate what celts said because, because i couldnt say it any better:

Whitehurst > Campbell

Well I would say that Whitehurst is a bigger risk than Campbell. And as celt said, teams do overpay for what they think is untapped talent.

Besides, for the benefit of our team, I would hope that someone would value Campbell more than Whitehurst. And I wonder what the unbiased eye would think about this comparison. But as I've always said, to me is about the team not the player. Teams tend to look at stats a lot and situations where QBs were when looking at a player like Campbell. Otherwise, you'd never have players having second chances at other teams.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Well I would say that Whitehurst is a bigger risk than Campbell. And as celt said, teams do overpay for what they think is untapped talent.

Besides, for the benefit of our team, I would hope that someone would value Campbell more than Whitehurst. And I wonder what the unbiased eye would think about this comparison. But as I've always said, to me is about the team not the player. Teams tend to look at stats a lot and situations where QBs were when looking at a player like Campbell. Otherwise, you'd never have players having second chances at other teams.

Actually what they are paying for is a player that has huge up side, meaning he can and will improve. True, how much is the question but the up side is knowing there is room for improvement. JC has basically topped out. After 5 years and only marginally improving shows he does not have much improvement.