Skip to comments.
McNabb Worse than Mediocre as Eagles Survive Skins 27-25
espn.com ^
| Oct. 5, 2003
| ESPN.com
Posted on 10/05/2003 6:02:10 PM PDT by litany_of_lies
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-83 next last
To: lavrenti
McNabb is good, showed great potential and character in the course of his college and professional career. He just plays for a mediocre offensive team, poorly coached. McNabb was totally inaccurate on passes over 5 yards all day. It reminded me of that arthritis drug commerical wherein the graying athlete is trying to throw the football through the tire hung from the tree. I think the arthritic guy was more accurate than was McNabb on Sunday.
61
posted on
10/06/2003 9:16:49 AM PDT
by
montag813
(Fire Tenet...Jail Joseph Wilson...Rally 'Round Our President, Dammit!!!)
To: Akira
"I've been bugged by all the wrath directed at McNabb this week" What wrath would that be?
62
posted on
10/06/2003 9:17:32 AM PDT
by
subterfuge
(God will NOT be mocked!)
To: litany_of_lies
I didn't realize how much PC has infected sports coverage. Now I do. Well, the number 24 is in every baseball park as a retired number never to be worn again by anyone as if Jackie Robinson was the greatest to ever play the game. He was good but not so good as to be deified.
63
posted on
10/06/2003 9:29:34 AM PDT
by
N. Theknow
(Why does Clemson wear orange? Play in it on Sat. hunt in it on Sun. Then work release.)
To: N. Theknow
Well, the number 24 is in every baseball park as a retired number never to be worn again by anyone as if Jackie Robinson was the greatest to ever play the game. He was good but not so good as to be deified. FWIW, I don't have a problem with that (I think it's really #42).
Jackie R did more to move professional sports, especially baseball, from the Jim Crow era to modernity than anybody else. If he fails, he sets back the civil rights movement bigtime, maybe to the point where the late-50s/early 60s civil rights movement doesn't succeed. It think he was THAT important.
Also, Jackie R was a pretty conservative guy politically. Jesse Jackson would be denouncing him if Jackie were alive today.
To: litany_of_lies
You're right it was 42.
Doubly right on what his success meant.
However, that does not warrant retiring a number. Only stellar play deserves a retired number and then only for the team for which he played, not the entire sport.
65
posted on
10/06/2003 9:44:00 AM PDT
by
N. Theknow
(Why does Clemson wear orange? Play in it on Sat. hunt in it on Sun. Then work release.)
To: Defendingliberty
Except that everytime McNabb validates the mediocre tab on the field, the media validates their bias by ignoring McNabb's mediocrity. The whole thing is laughable.
66
posted on
10/06/2003 9:45:07 AM PDT
by
iranger
To: lavrenti
"I like McNabb, though. This offense is badly put together. I think Rush was wrong, and wasn't really paying attention to the serious problems the Eagles offense has faced since preseason, with all the hold-outs."
The Eagles offense has been suspect for years and so has McNabb's QB play.
67
posted on
10/06/2003 9:46:43 AM PDT
by
iranger
To: N. Theknow
However, that does not warrant retiring a number. Only stellar play deserves a retired number and then only for the team for which he played, not the entire sport. If you agree he belongs in the Hall of Fame based on his on-field achievements (a 10-season career batting average of .311, his above-average fielding [can't find stats], and his legendary ability to disrupt opposing pitchers is enough for me), we're just going to have to agree to disagree about whether his breaking the color barrier is enough justification to eternally retire his number for all teams.
Now let's get on to important stuff, like whether 10-year pros from Japan should get Rookie of the Year awards.
To: Akira
McNabb is better than Dilfer, and the Ravens D was better than Philly's the past 2 years. Sure...but my point remains, that just because the Eagles made it to the championship is not proof of his being the best Quarterback - especially not when we have had several middling QBs make it to championships on the back of an excellent defense. Dilfer was a very good role-player - essentially, just don't blow the game by making a silly turnover. Dilfer was functionally not a QB at all, and he wasn't required to be for his team to succeed. McNabb is clearly better than that...but there are several QBs in each conference that are better QBs than McNabb.
You are also correct that the Eagles Defense was not the completely dominating thing that the Ravens was. That just means they needed more of an offense to compliment them. The Eagles defense was the core of the Eagles team, with the offense an occasional supporting cast. The Eagles offense didn't need to dominate, or even be exceptional - all it had to do was not blow things, be occassionally successful, and take advantage when the defense handed them a plum as they did with yesterdays 18 yeard touchdown "drive".
As you describe, Pro-Bowl selection is hardly objective, nor is it neccessarily even a reflection of what it claims to be due to the factors you cite. On the other hand, McNabb DOES bring more to the game than his middling statistics would suggest...I just don't think the case can be well made that he is a top-tier QB, at least yet.
All of this is getting off the point. McNabb is not, nor has he been a top-tier QB, so why has he been presented as such and honored as such? Is it implausible that he has been getting more than his fair share of attention and praise because of media cheerleading? What other reasons might there be for this?
69
posted on
10/06/2003 10:10:54 AM PDT
by
lepton
To: litany_of_lies
I knew the Skins would lose when LaVarr Arrington got a 15 yard Personal Foul penalty for accidentally giving McNabb a dirty look in the first quarter. Wait, that was actually called "roughing the passer."
It must have been really rough, since McNabb actually almost moved his feet when Arrington pulled up and ran into him.
70
posted on
10/06/2003 10:13:35 AM PDT
by
ko_kyi
To: subterfuge
I was referring to the posts yesterday (Sunday) afternoon, referring to the Eagles score and taking obvious delight in McNabb's stats (which again were certainly not spectacular). Some of the posters obviously wanted him to fail, as if that would be some vindication for Rush, when in fact Rush's main point was directed at the media.
Perhaps "wrath" was a bit strong, I just felt many of the comment were misdirected, that's all.
71
posted on
10/06/2003 10:35:06 AM PDT
by
Akira
("Experience is a hard teacher, but fools will have no other." - Ben Franklin)
To: rockinonritalin
I agree. Based on McNabb's news conference you would have thought Rush said something completely different. That disappointed me also.
72
posted on
10/06/2003 10:36:19 AM PDT
by
Akira
("Experience is a hard teacher, but fools will have no other." - Ben Franklin)
To: montag813
loudmouth Chris Collingsworth bashing Limbaugh and praising McNabb I never liked Collingsworth. His suit always looked funny with those diapers on under his pants.
73
posted on
10/06/2003 10:37:56 AM PDT
by
1Old Pro
(ESPN now has 4 little wimpy sissies left. I'm switching back to FOX.)
To: Akira
Based on McNabb's news conference you would have thought Rush said something completely differentMcNabb's a looser,,just look as his stats.
74
posted on
10/06/2003 10:39:56 AM PDT
by
1Old Pro
(ESPN now has 4 little wimpy sissies left. I'm switching back to FOX.)
To: litany_of_lies
Agreed
Disagree
10 year pros from Japan should only receive Lookie of the Year honors.
75
posted on
10/06/2003 11:07:02 AM PDT
by
N. Theknow
(Why does Clemson wear orange? Play in it on Sat. hunt in it on Sun. Then work release.)
To: litany_of_lies
You mean they are playing football, with the Cubs winning haven't notice anything about the Whiney over rated NFL.
It has become so overa rated and so boring.
Haven't seen anything exiciting in the lock step NFL in years.
76
posted on
10/06/2003 11:07:45 AM PDT
by
dts32041
(Is it time to practice decimation with our representatives?)
To: 1Old Pro
Why did the media vote him as runner up for MVP in 2000 ???
It makes no sense based on the QB ratings. Check it out:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?statsId=4650 This last week was a good example. His QB rating of 51 is horrible -- but Philly D won the game. Rush was right!!!
77
posted on
10/06/2003 11:13:23 AM PDT
by
Silas
To: TheExploited
Heaven help me, but I have a policy on drafting quarterbacks for fantasy football. It always seems that some guys are drafted way too high.
By the way, did you catch how Gus Frerotte is slingin' the ball for Minnesota?
78
posted on
10/06/2003 11:14:56 AM PDT
by
gridlock
To: Silas
79
posted on
10/06/2003 11:16:07 AM PDT
by
Silas
To: Silas
To be fair, his rushing statistics were impressive that year.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-83 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson