Kilmer17 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Trent Dilfer must be God then. Afterall, he won a Superbowl. Criticize Rush for making a stupid comment about the media. But dont set up a straw man argument and claim he said something about McNabb that he did not say. How many times did McNabb try to give us the game last year in Philly? And each and every time his defense bailed him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Actually, Kilmer, I think you're thinking of the FedEx game when Marty was the coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Yeah, You may be right. We pciked him off twice and caused a fumble in the second half and their defense didnt let us breathe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Comments like that are the precise reason I hate the ground Rush Fatbaugh (now that he's lost weight, the name refers to the size of his head) walks on. Using his logic, I suppose the media was/is hyping Montana, Young, Manning, etc. just because they're white QB's ? Fatbaugh is just the polar opposite of the "Poverty Pimps" he used to always rail about. He's in the business of using race to polarize people as a career choice. He makes me sick to my stomach. :puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f_dallas Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 But dont set up a straw man argument and claim he said something about McNabb that he did not say. Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and views, but I don;t think you actually read or heard what he said. Why would race EVER even enter the discussion? Have you EVER heard anyone say "That QB was overhyped and given too much credit for games his defense won because the media wants a black QB to succeed"? He has the right to attack Mcnabb's abilities or any other part of his game, but why would race even enter the conversation???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Then you would be an wrong. I watched it live. Is he an idiot for bringing up the media and race? Maybe. I wont argue that point if anyone wants to assert it. But what he DID NOT SAY was that McNabb's race had anything to do with his success and failures. His initial argument is dead on the money. McNabb IS overrated. Why he is overrated is up for debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by BodyBagGame Actually, you made a lot of points, none of which held up very well. First it was that McNabb didn't have that many good games against the Skins; then it was that I was blaming Johnson for going into prevent last year; then it was that I argued that Ramsey only did well because of the prevent. The difference between us seems to be that I can accept that multiple factors can determine the outcome of a game. Maybe Lewis' schemes were lousy; but the Eagles had something to do with the 37-7 score also. Maybe Ramsey had an easier time in the second game because of the prevent, but I also admitted that he made some good plays. If Kordell Stewart were your QB, chances are there would have been no Redskins comeback. You must take lessons personally from Bill Clinton. With respect to McNabb you stated: quote: Originally posted by BodyBagGame Yeah Kilmer, he's Akili Smith - a real fraud. A fraud who turned a 5-11 team into a 11-5 team. A fraud who has won 4 playoff games in the last 3 seasons. A fraud who torched the Redskins most times he played them, especially last year, even though you like to comment that the Eagles have no WRs or RBs. Yeah, it must have been the defense and special teams that scored those 71 points last year. Actually, it's not McNabb who's exposed - it's you. Idiot. According to NFL.com, not just your selective memory, McNabb has had maybe two games that were decent in the passing department. Go do the damn research yourself - you're the idiot. YOU use the term MAJORITY and you are incorrect. Two does not make many out of 5 + games. Again, there is no reason to say "besides we were in a prevent defense" other than to suggest that that is the key reason why Ramsey was successful. Save your gratiuitous statements for some pathetic Eagles board out there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggle in Exile Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 OSF - quite a convoluted post on your part. But it's a refreshing change from nitpicking over your inability to discern the difference between observation and criticism. First, you're only confirming my comment that you have made numerous points, none of which had stood up. You completely changed the argument yet again because I easily thrust aside your previous silly comments. Second, you're an ass - you claim some stats of the NFL.com website but demand that I do the research in order to support your point. Yeah, right. You want to support your new pet argument, YOU do the research. Third, I guess you missed my earlier post about how Mcnabb stats are deceptive because a) of Reid's dink-and-dunk offensive philosophy, and that McNabb's intangibles (few mistakes, his running ability) don't show up that well in the stats. Fourth, this is simply incomprehensible: "Again, there is no reason to say "besides we were in a prevent defense" other than to suggest that that is the key reason why Ramsey was successful." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 What Rush said was correct and Czaban on the sports reporters said is correct too. What is it a republican cant have an opinion? Mc Nugget on another team is Akili Smith As I heard on ESPN the past 3 weeks mcnabb is a combination running back quarterback and not great at either. And the league does want to see a black QB succeed not that there anything wrong with that but lets wait for their performance to be on the Favre level before giving hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by BodyBagGame OSF - quite a convoluted post on your part. But it's a refreshing change from nitpicking over your inability to discern the difference between observation and criticism. First, you're only confirming my comment that you have made numerous points, none of which had stood up. You completely changed the argument yet again because I easily thrust aside your previous silly comments. Second, you're an ass - you claim some stats of the NFL.com website but demand that I do the research in order to support your point. Yeah, right. You want to support your new pet argument, YOU do the research. Third, I guess you missed my earlier post about how Mcnabb stats are deceptive because a) of Reid's dink-and-dunk offensive philosophy, and that McNabb's intangibles (few mistakes, his running ability) don't show up that well in the stats. Fourth, this is simply incomprehensible: "Again, there is no reason to say "besides we were in a prevent defense" other than to suggest that that is the key reason why Ramsey was successful." Do you specialize in gratuitous posts of the hit and run variety? This thread is beginning to look like an Eagles board. You are such a dumb a$$, it's pathetic. Go back and review the games from the past few years and you will see that McNabb has not torched the Redskins a "majority" of the time. Hell, he's had maybe two solid games against the Redskins. "Thrust aside"? The only thing you are thrusting aside is the truth. Damn, you are delusional or just a complete liar. You can only drag a horse to water, you can't make him drink. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggle in Exile Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 OSF, pretty lame. Do you specialize in gratuitous posts of the hit and run variety? No, I specialize in giving clowns like you a hard time. You are such a dumb a$$, it's pathetic...Damn, you are delusional or just a complete liar. You can only drag a horse to the water, you can't make him drink.. Is that all you got? Can't refute any of my comments so all you're left with is flaccid insults? Go back and review the games from the past few years and you will see that McNabb has not torched the Redskins a "majority" of the time Again, instead of providing stats to buttress your case you want ME to do it. And FYI, I have done the research and am holding on to it, and am ready to respond in the event that you produce it yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 quote: Originally posted by BodyBagGame Yeah Kilmer, he's Akili Smith - a real fraud. A fraud who turned a 5-11 team into a 11-5 team. A fraud who has won 4 playoff games in the last 3 seasons. A fraud who torched the Redskins most times he played them, especially last year, even though you like to comment that the Eagles have no WRs or RBs. Yeah, it must have been the defense and special teams that scored those 71 points last year. Actually, it's not McNabb who's exposed - it's you. Idiot. FACT: BBG makes the following statement in an earlier thread - "...[MCNabb] torched the Redskins most times he played them. Reality begs to differ. Nice revsionism there, BBG. Again, I point you to www.nfl.com/stats for the truth. FACT: You accuse me of using Lewis' scheme as an excuse for our play against the Eagles last season. Yet, you take great liberty and license in using the prevent D as an excuse as to why Ramsey was successful in that game. There is no other plausible reason for making the statement, "besides we were in a prevent defense". Ok, I'm done with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggle in Exile Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Ok, I'm done with you. You mean it this time? You made a similar comment before but as is often the case with you, you couldn't back up your words. Reality begs to differ. Nice revsionism there, BBG. Again, I point you to www.nfl.com/stats for the truth. Provide the actual stats! Man, you're either lazy or you're afraid to provide them. I'm amazed at how you just confirm my comments that you want ME to do all of your research for you. FACT: You accuse me of using Lewis' scheme as an excuse for our play against the Eagles last season. Yet, you take great liberty and license in using the prevent D as an excuse as to why Ramsey was successful in that game. There is no other plausible reason for making the statement, "besides we were in a prevent defense". Fact: you are a baldfaced liar. I never 'took liberty and license in using prevent D as an excuse to Ramsey's performance. A) I claimed it as ONE FACTOR; I ALSO GAVE RAMSEY CREDIT!!!! Yet you are a hypocrite in the reverse situation: while I gave Ramsey credit for his comeback, you have steadfastly refused to give McNabb any similar credit for the 37-7 drubbing. No, it was all Lewis' fault - the ball just magically floated through the air into various Eagles' hands without any real plan. Nah, it just happened. Maybe Lewis' scheme had something to do with it, but so did the guys on the other side of the ball. Once again, you have shown no ability to accept that an occurance may be due to more than one factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggle in Exile Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 By the way, OSF, I know you're done with me and all, but in the unlikely event that you aren't, your first response to me was that McNabb has only had one good game vs. the Skins. In more recent posts you said he may have had two good games against the Skins. Just out of curiosity, would these two games be the second Eagles-Skins meeting in 2001 and the first Eagles-Skins meeting in 2002? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Oy, you guys are killin me. Here are McNabb's passer ratings against the Skins. in 99 he played against us once. His PR was 99.1 in 00: 61.6 and 71.1 in 01: 62.6 and 52.9 in 02: 108.7 I'm seeing two good games out of six, with one being four years ago. What does this all mean? I have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sashae Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 I tend to think that McNabb would be fabulous in a run'n'shoot type offense -- he's just not that great at the short, accurate passes that the WCO requires. If he was allowed to run around and create like say, Michael Vick, he'd be one of the best *football players* in the league (not QBs -- as a QB, I don't think he's great shakes, but he DOES make things happen on the field as both a player and a leader.) -s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggle in Exile Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Henry, not surprisingly I’ll be more charitable to McNabb. I don’t think he started that 1999 game; I think he was brought in midway (if I remember correctly, Reid had a sort of a platoon system that year with Pederson and McNabb). McNabb is 3-2 against the Redskins as a starter. In 2000, he had an average game and a good game (19 of 30, 137 yards, ran for 125 yards.) In 2001, same thing. Bad game where we lost 13-3, and a good one (16 of 34, 235 yards, ran for 25 yards) In the only 2002 game he played against the Skins, he was 26 of 38 for 292 yards. So basically, where McNabb goes the Eagles go, at least vs. the Skins. And again, these stats don’t take into account his intangibles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by Henry Oy, you guys are killin me. Here are McNabb's passer ratings against the Skins. in 99 he played against us once. His PR was 99.1 in 00: 61.6 and 71.1 in 01: 62.6 and 52.9 in 02: 108.7 I'm seeing two good games out of six, with one being four years ago. What does this all mean? I have no idea. I don't either, Henry, but McNabb is 4-2 vs. Washington and undefeated at FedEx. BBG: McNabb did start in '99. Earlier it was Pederson, but that got too painful after about 6 games, then it was McNabb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 I don't know BBG, that second 2001 game he threw 2 TDs and 3 INTs. Add that to a 47% completion percentage and I'd tend to think the Eagles won that game because Tony Banks couldn't hit the side of a barn that night and the defense held us to 6 points. But then that's the argument against McNabb, isn't it? That his defense bails him out when he struggles. Blazers, he's also 0-2 at The Linc, which I believe is where we play next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggle in Exile Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Could be, Henry. I put that down as a good game because he averaged over 14 yards per completion, which is unusual in Reid's offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 BBG, yards per completion is a pretty obscure stat upon which to base a performance. Tony Banks averaged over 12 yards per completion that night ... yay. That you need to delve THAT far into the record book to come up with a nice number speaks volumes about that game. In my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggle in Exile Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Henry, it was a pretty good win for the Eagles: 20-6. I don't remember the game all that much, except having a general sense that McNabb had a better game than the first matchup from that year. Maybe the yards-per-catch tells the story. Maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 That's been my point all along. He was bailed out over and over by a crushing defense and special teams. They deserve the credit for the wins. Not McNabb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggle in Exile Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 I think Henry was referring to one game where the defense may have bailed out McNabb. I think your point is that this is always the case. But the defense can only do so much; Mcnabb still has to perform. He had a great year last year until he went down. He has also had plenty of good games in previous years where, while the defense was a big help, did not win the game for him. And again, refer to the 1999-2000 turnaround. The defense was essentially the same both years; the one major variable was McNabb (and ok, Runyan.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasEagle Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 The only thing I'm going to say in this thread is that McNabb IS overrated... as a WCO QB. He's not overrated as a player in general. I still say (and have always said) he's in the wrong system for his abilities. As for the D bailing out McNabb... yes and no. The Defense did what Defense's are supposed to do. Keep other teams from scoring and giving their offense a short field. If that's bailing out McNabb... then Defenses bail out their QBs every year in the NFL and most QBs would be overrated using that argument. Where I will give credence to your statement Kilmer is the D and ST for the Eagles giving the O a short field to work with thus making his job (and life) as a QB all the easier for not having to put together 80 and 90+ yard drives every series. Does that make McNabb overrated? Maybe, depends on your perspective. But when all is said and done, the O still has to move the ball and score points.. the D doesn't do that once they're off the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.