Rush's PERFECT comments Re: Donovan McNabb

me

[Pukin Dog]

For those who missed it, Limbaugh performed the most perfect comments on Donovan McNabb this morning by not even mentioning his name.

Instead he contrasted the way that Payton Manning came out and took responsibility for his performance against the way that the media instantly set out to blame the Eagles' wide recievers for what happened to them.

It was the best revenge, because by not mentioning McNabb, no one in the media can say that Rush attacked McNabb, but to all us football fans, what Rush DIDNT say, was LOUD AND CLEAR. Thanks Rush!

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

Your absolutely right.... I thought no one got it but the Panthers seem to have a sense of humor. The eagles obviously don't.

[LS]

I hope you are right. I can't believe that any pro sport would allow this travesty to go on for long.

[AmishDude]

Also, the national broadcast media always makes excuses for beloved quarterbacks, whether they be McNabb or Manning or Stewart.

[LS]

You completely miss the difference between PHILLY and TENNESSEE. The liberal media don't even know McNair exists. They know Vick, but face it---he will have a short career unless he STOPS running. Doug Williams is long gone.

No, the fact is that the liberal media treats a black QB much different in Philly or NY or LA than in even Dallas, where Quincy Carter is under scathing attack.

I guarantee you, Rush was doing exactly what the producers told him to . . . then canned him because he did it well. It's sickening. And what do you call Len Berman OUTRIGHT ENDORSING Lieberman? Or Steve Young's PC diatribes? Or Bob Costas on Inside the NFL doing pure leftist spin? Sooner or later, even sports comes down to politics. Rush was right.

[LS]

Perhaps I should qualify: Philly (and liberal) WRITERS consider him the second coming. Fans have more sense.

[dmzTahoe]

This is what Jim Kelly said after the game:

"I had to run the ball a couple times and I didn't want to, but our goal was to get to the 30. We got there and it wasn't meant to be."

So, the Bills' players, coaches and Norwood played for him to kick a 47yarder. They wouldn't have, had they felt he would not make it. He missed.

Was it the coach's fault, or Norwood's?

[LS]

Ah. I see your point. To me, the rule of thumb is that a receiver should catch any ball that hits him in the hands.

A QB should hit any receiver who is open (where, is irrelevant. Just hit him).

A QB under pressure is 50/50. Do you take the sack, lose the down on a throwaway, or try to make a play?

[LS]

And the odd thing is that in Dallas, people desperately wanted Quincy Carter to do well. There were a handful of "Hutchers" who were always pulling for Chad Hutchinson, but QC has nearly played himself out of a job with his poor decisions. As a Cowboy fan, I REALLY hope he improves---I'd love for the Cowboys to win a SB with him . . . but if he can't, sayonara.

[LS]

Yah, agree there. The national broadcasters were always more lenient on Quincy Carter than the writers.

[rintense]

From what I've seen, that is correct. McNabb, however, blamed his injury on what he thought was a cheap shot. He did not step up and take the blame for his interceptions. To me, he was just splitting hairs.

Be a man and say, "Yeah, I played terrible. The interceptions were my fault and I had a big part of our team losing." He would have instantly gained respect from man folks, including, I suspect, many of his team mates. You can bet that for as much of the chump Peyton was yesterday, his post game interview gained him a ton of respect in the locker room. He took the blame for his INTs and for the team losing.

[wi jd]

Danny White was run out of Dallas after getting to the NFC championships three years in a row . . . and losing. The only guys who seemed to keep their jobs after such a performance were the Buffalo Bills of the early 1990s.

Danny White lost those championship games. McNabb lost those championship games. Jim Kelly took the Bills to 4 straight Super Bowls. In other words, he won 4 straight AFC Championship games. Granted, the Bills lost all four Super Bowls, but 'tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.

[jaugust]

Just like it's better to be has been than a never has been...

[Alberta's Child]

. . . a lot of short term ownership that's not interested in giving the team to their children when they die doesn't help . . .

Here's an interesting little tidbit for you . . . this is a very appropriate topic of conversation on a political forum!

Why Owners Don't Give Their Teams to Their Kids

[Alberta's Child]

Was it the coach's fault, or Norwood's?

Both. This was similar to what Rams coach Mike Martz did in their loss to Carolina last week. The Rams were down by 11 with a few minutes left in the game. They scored a touchdown and were successful on the two-point conversion, getting them within three. They recovered an onside kick with about two and a half minutes to play, then proceeded to run a total of four plays just to get in field goal range to tie the game rather than go for the winning toouchdown.

Ironically, if they had failed on the two-point conversion and were down by five when they recovered the onside kick, they would have had no choice but to go for the touchdown and might have ended up playing in the Super Bowl.

In the case of Buffalo in Super Bowl XXV, the coach was a damned fool for executing his last few plays just to set up a 47-yard field goal. Even an additional seven yards could have made a huge difference, as most kickers' field goal percentages drop dramatically outside 40 yards. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that Norwood's history on grass wasn't terribly conducive to a successful 47-yard try.

[NittanyLion]

Perhaps I should qualify: Philly (and liberal) WRITERS consider him the second coming. Fans have more sense.

I can buy that...it's weird - the writers are very forgiving and liberal while thr radio guys are brutal.

[LS]

Oh, I agree. It is silly to dismiss such success---just as the current Cowboy fans are silly to ignore the fact that Carter got 10 victories this year. But in football, the fact is people don't remember "runner ups," and if you are a "runner up" too long, you are gone. White never had that top-flight talent, and got the most out of what he had.

[jaime1959]

Me: He said the press was rooting for McNabb to do well because they wanted to see a black QB succeed. That's not racism.

You: Actually, it is.

So, if I want to see a white heavyweight succeed, I'm a racist?

[jaime1959]

>PAY ATTENTION: Rush was speaking of the MEDIA making it a race thing...If Rush was making it a race thing, WHY DID IRVING SAY "Rush has a point?" <

Because Michael IRVIN is a f-ing idiot. If you actually watched the ESPN pre-game show you would know that.

[Moby Grape]

Your silly diversions are NOT making any sense....The FACT is that Rush did NOT make RACE the issue...he made the MEDIA making race an issue the point...all you can do is use VULGAR terms to describe Irving while CLAIMING that RUSH was making racist remarks....Irving might see YOUR rants as racist...not to mention silly.

Rush did not make race the issue...he made the media treatment of race the issue...if you refuse to face truth, and can only belittle and use vulgar terms to describe one of the BLACK commentators at ESPN, then it seems RACE is YOUR problem....

It isn't Rush's problem.

[jaime1959]

What is so hard for you to understand? On ESPN's pregame show, the talk is football, not the socio-political ramifications of football, not sports and race, just Rush is on the show to talk football. He steps on his pecker and tries to get political and inject race into a discussion where it was inappropriate, and he ends up quitting/getting canned. Because he's America's foremost political commentator and the media establishment loathe him, what do you expect his critics to do?

>If a policy, however good-intentioned, favors one skin color over another, I define that as racism.<>

Just what "policy" are you talking about that's germane to the discussion?

>Rush DID comment on the hiring process on the same show a week or two earlier. If it was inappropriate to the show, the ESPN producers would have nixed it, but they didn't. To Rush the McNabb press hype was part and parcel of the same argument.<

What, are you in Rush's head now? It's NOT the same argument.

> Other people have been critical of McNabb. Rush was singled out because he was 'profiled' by his enemies. (more hypocrasy) <

One, it's hypoCRISY. Two, being critical of McNabb, and being critical of McNabb and throwing in some superfluous racial argument are two different things. I think McNabb WAS overrated. It had nothing to do with the media wanting a black QB to succeed though.