Peter King -- What a dickhead

[FearTheDawk]

Re: Peter King -- What a dickhead

If you had any thought of this list being anything other than pure CRAP, I give you...

476. Kevin Kolb QB, Eagles

I would think almost anyone who has PLAYED IN A REGULAR SEASON GAME would rate higher, but that's just me

[tinopuno]

Re: Peter King -- What a dickhead

"She's going to Appalachian State* to get her MRS degree."


Well, only if she can find it on a map!!! U.S. Americans don't have enough maps. She may have to go to a place like Iraq or such as South Africa.

ALL HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR!! Miss South Carolina has made a map to help U.S. Americans better understand her logic.



I wonder if Chip72 can provide us with a schedule?

[stevemc]

Re: Peter King -- What a dickhead

that map is TPC Gold worthy!

[Merchant]

Re: Peter King -- What a dickhead

Speaking of Westy............

Spads, yes Spads makes some very good points here..................

/////////////////////////////////

Let's get this out of the way right away: Brian Westbrook is a great football player, one of the very best and most dangerous in the entire National Football League. He deserves big numbers and all the adulation he can handle. He deserves the headlines. However, when Donovan McNabb floated up the beach ball for the media to swat out of the ballpark on Tuesday and suggested that Westbrook could run for 2,000 yards if he had enough carries, I had to laugh.

I agree with McNabb. Westbrook is a supremely talented player who is a threat to score every time he touches the football. Anyone who questions his ability between the tackles just hasn't been watching the last couple of years. Westbrook is fast to and through the hole, and his quickness allows him to skip to the edge and get down the field.

Durability? Westbrook turned a corner last season and is healthy and happy and primed for 2007. He is a superbly-conditioned athlete who is much stronger than most expect. Westbrook is about to soar this year.

But 2,000 yards, for the purpose of having a conversation here, is just not a worthwhile goal. Why give Westbrook 25 carries a game? What purpose does it serve when the Eagles have more talent in the backfield than they have had since the three-headed-monster days when an inexperienced Westbrook and Correll Buckhalter complemented Duce Staley in the backfield?

The truth is, the Eagles don't need Westbrook to have that many carries every week. Buckhalter deserves his share of carries -- do 8 to 10 sound OK to you? -- and rookie Tony Hunt is a promising role player, so the Eagles have some options here.

In fact, spreading the ball around has been a staple of this offense, and there is absolutely no reason to change the philosophy. The receivers and tight ends have never been deeper and maybe have never been more talented. The offensive line has every reason to believe it will be one of the best in the league again.

Why change the role of Westbrook? He is a star, no matter if the rest of the world isn't quite tuned in yet -- although I have to believe that anyone who has paid half a bit of attention to the league knows how good Westbrook is and how valuable he is to the team. I look for Westbrook to carry 15 to 20 times a game and supplement that total with another 5-6 catches.

Two thousand yards? Let the Larry Johnsons of the world talk about that, shoot for that. I'm more interested in having Westbrook as a do-everything member of the offense, one of the many pieces that can pierce a defense.

Spads is arguing that it doesn't make sense to give Westbrook the number of carries he would need to have a shot at 2000 yards. However, I don't think McNabb was saying that they should. He was simply saying that given that number of carries, Westbrook would be able to hit that number. Whether Westbrook could run for 2000 yards and whether he should get the carries to do so are two different things.

[MDFAN]

Re: Peter King -- What a dickhead

"Whether Westbrook could run for 2000 yards and whether he should get the carries to do so are two different things."

I agree and I think Spuds is saying exactly the same thing.

In Spads D (god, this is a slippery slope) I don't think he was suggesting that Mcnabb said anything untoward, or was trying to put words in his mouth. IMO, he is just trying to explain to anybody who doesn't follow the game "that" closely, or understand it that well as to the WHY that 2000 yards shouldn't be the goal of the Eagles or Westy. I think some fans don't "get" it, and he did a good job of explaining it.

[leifdawg]

Re: Peter King -- What a dickhead

I actually wouldn't mind if they gave some of Westy's carries to Bucky/Hunt so Westy can go back to returning duties.