Print and Go Back ESPN.com: NFC West [Print without images]

Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Furthering discussion on draft gems, busts

By Mike Sando
ESPN.com

The earlier piece about NFC West gems and busts from past drafts generated some discussion.

Let's follow up.

Mind of no mind: Sando, you just ruined my day. "Ownership's decision to select quarterback Dan McGwire with the 16th pick in 1991 looks even worse when one considers that coach Chuck Knox wanted Brett Favre instead." I never knew that. Now I'm going to pay it forward and ruin the day for every Seahawk fan I know by telling them.

Mike Sando: That's true. There's actually a photo showing Knox crossing his arms and flashing a Pennsylvania steel-country glare while looking away from McGwire at the news conference to introduce the quarterback. Knox thought the Seahawks could have snagged a quarterback in the second round that year and Favre was a guy in his sights. Knox did not want to select McGwire, but ownership really wanted him. The injuries McGwire suffered affected his career, but he obviously could have encountered better circumstances, too.

The differences between Knox and the team's leadership at that time might sound pretty familiar given what the Seahawks have gone through recently. I jokingly wondered whether there was some way to blame the McGwire pick on Tim Ruskell (I suppose we could blame Ruskell's Bucs for selecting Charles McRae seventh overall in 1991, leaving McGwire on the board for Seattle nine spots later).

Mind of no Mind: I've also heard that when Warren Moon first came to the NFL from the CFL that he wanted to come to the Seahawks, but they would not guarantee him $1 million a year, so he went to Houston. Do you know if this is true?

Mike Sando: The Seahawks were definitely in the mix for Moon at that time, but the Oilers' offer was better. I don't recall specifics off the top of my head (writing this from my gate in Chicago before catching connecting flight to Indianapolis for the combine).

CFraychineaud: Sando, not sure if there was a format used by all of the other divisions, but it seems like most of the other division writers were mostly talking about players selected since 2000. Would be cool to see your thoughts on the busts and gems from the more recent years.

Mike Sando: You weren't the only one who noticed. Turns out the assignment did ask us to focus on "recent" selections. I read over that part of it and was airborne en route to the combine by the time this item published. Maybe I can follow up with an item focusing more on, say, the last 10-15 years.