Kilmer17 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 body, the defense and STs are different now and the offense is the same. How do you explain the drop off in performance? I personally think he's not a good QB for any system. But that's ot what Rush said and it's not something I can argue. What I am saying, and what he said, is that he is considered better than he really is. IE, over-rated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggle in Exile Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 body, the defense and STs are different now and the offense is the same. How do you explain the drop off in performance? What drop-off? This year? It's still too early to tell - obviously, McNabb was horrible in the first two games, and Reid did nothing to unburden Mcnabb. But it's still too early to say that two lousy games equals the rest of the year. About him being overrated: I wrote this earlier, but maybe a case can be made for it. 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 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. 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 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. http://espn.go.com/nfl/2000/20001126/boxscore/phiwas.html http://espn.go.com/nfl/2000/20001008/boxscore/wasphi.html http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=211125021 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=211216028 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=220916028 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=221215021 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/boxscores/1999/11/28/redskins_eagles/index.html http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/boxscores/1999/11/14/eagles_redskins/index.html I think you be pressed to find more than 2 games (not a "majority") where McNabb "torched" us. And by "torched", your words and not mine, I do mean having big passing days. Again, you claimed a "majority" of the time as well. *yawn* Ok, I think I really am done with this 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 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. So much for "torching" - your words, not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 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. TE, regarding the game in question, McNabb threw three INTs. Two of them were at the Eagle 31 and 26. We got three points off those. While I would be pleased with the win, I don't think I'd consider a game in which my QB threw two INTs deep in my own territory a good game by that QB. I suspect I'd be happy the defense bailed him out, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggle in Exile Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 And by "torched", your words and not mine, I do mean having big passing days. I meant 'torch' as in 'burn'. But yeah, he hasn't torched the Skins passingwise too much. So I guess that one that one point you aren't full of crap. 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 I meant 'torch' as in 'burn'. But yeah, he hasn't torched the Skins passingwise too much. So I guess that one that one point you aren't full of crap. If you want to clarify the Ramsey statement, please feel free. But my read on it, and I'm sure many people here will understand, is that you are clearly insinuating that, were it not for the prevent D, Ramsey would not have been successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggle in Exile Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Actually Henry, on that game we discussed (the 20-6 win by Philly), it seems that McNabb had some big plays that did in the Skins: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=211216028 Maybe not torch-worthy, but still I'll take it.... 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 Henry, on that game we discussed (the 20-6 win by Philly), it seems that McNabb had some big plays that did in the Skins: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=211216028 Maybe not torch-worthy, but still I'll take it.... Because the article discusses the issue of McNabb's effectivness as a passer and a pocket passer in particular, by "torch" I thought you were referring to his passing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggle in Exile Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 OSF, I clarified it a million times before and I think that most people get it. But I'll quote myself to show my intent. Post #15 (of this thread) And yeah, Ramsey had a good game but remember that we were up 31-7 at one point and went into the prevent defense. I wasn't blaming Johnson for anything; a prevent defense at 31-7 seems quite reasonable to me. Post # 33: I never wrote that PR succeeded ONLY because of the prevent. Obviously he still had to make the plays. He impressed me that day. This is in contrast to you, who refused to give McNabb any credit in the 37-7 victory and instead blamed Marvine Lewis. Post #38: Because it was a friggin' factor!!!! You want to think that Ramsey just went out and smote the Eagles defense; god forbid that I mention that the smoting (or is it smiting?) came after the Eagles were up 31-7. And to repeat: I didn't blame Johnson; I credited him!!!!!! The prevent defense wasn't the only factor, but it was a factor! Again, no nuance. Post # 45: 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. Post #63: 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!!!! In essence, I have given credit to Ramsey while noting that he did his heroics against a prevent defense. Yet you have yet to acknowledge that McNabb had any role in the 37-7 rout. You're basically accusing me of what you are in fact doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 quote: And yeah, Ramsey had a good game but remember that we were up 31-7 at one point and went into the prevent defense. BUT we....... went into the prevent defense. Sort of a backhanded compliment, really. So, do you think that Ramsey will fair poorly if Philly plays man coverage some more? That's what I take issue with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggle in Exile Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Sort of a backhanded compliment, really. It's actually a nuanced compliment. Which by the way, is more credit than you ever gave to McNabb for his performance in the 37-7 game. How did he do in that game, anyway? So, do you think that Ramsey will fair poorly if Philly plays man coverage some more? I have no idea; this year is completely different from last year. I expect Ramsey to have a good game this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by BodyBagGame Actually Henry, on that game we discussed (the 20-6 win by Philly), it seems that McNabb had some big plays that did in the Skins: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=211216028 Maybe not torch-worthy, but still I'll take it.... What I read was that the Redskins had the ball inside the Eagle 40 EIGHT times and came away with 6 points. Then I read that McNabb overcame a career high three interceptions to pass for two TDs, one of which was a trick play that the Redskins bit on and resulted in more than a quarter of McNabb's total passing yards. So basically, you had one successful drive for a TD, scored a few FGs, threw in a trick play, and let your defense do the rest. If that's what you consider a banner game for your QB then perhaps he's overrated after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potato Sack Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 I think McNabbs a hell of a player. The problem, in my opinion, lies not in his failure to become Steve Young, but in Reid's failure to design an offense that plays to McNabb's strengths. Exactly! The remarks weren't racist, they were completely inaccurate. The problem lies on the shoulders of Reid. McNabb did what he does best last Sunday. He RAN the ball when he needed to. McNabb's two greatest strengths are his arm-strength and his ability to scramble and make big plays. Why would you try to steer him away from running with the ball when need be? McNabb will murder us this weekend if we play soft. Unless he forgets that he can run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggle in Exile Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 I guess I saw it as a young QB making some big plays that helped his team win! But I would never consider this a banner game.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggle in Exile Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Well it pains me to do this but I'll be away for a few days so I'll have to let you guys have the last word. Ciao. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasEagle Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Henry TE, regarding the game in question, McNabb threw three INTs. Two of them were at the Eagle 31 and 26. We got three points off those. While I would be pleased with the win, I don't think I'd consider a game in which my QB threw two INTs deep in my own territory a good game by that QB. I suspect I'd be happy the defense bailed him out, though. Ok... But I wasn't talking about a specific game (I'll leave that to OSF & BBG - personally I don't really care to talk about what happened two years ago ) I was just addressing the general idea behind Kilmer's post. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 the application of race to McNabb is a distractor and incorrect. However, I believe some of you are living in another world if you don't think the deeper point is accurate. The media and pundits have been, if nothing else but insistent, over the past few years in its assessment of NFL hiring practices - particulalry at the head coaching level - along racial lines. Now, you can spin it any way you want, but to spin it as though this has not been a highlighted piece of ideology on the part of wide portions of the sports press is pure horse manure. who's really being dishonest here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 I may be wrong, but I don't think there is a media conspiracy to promote black players or coaches. I think the race issue is a hot topic and the media is going to run with the story that sells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Honestly, why do some of you have to accuse people of 'spinning' every time you disagree with them? Sometimes people just disagree and there really isn't any further agenda. Now, had Rush said he thinks Tony Dungy is overrated specifically because the media and the NFL are anxious to see a black head coach succeed, that would be a more valid point. But the NFL doesn't have some stupid rule about forcing teams to workout black QBs or whatever. That barrier has been removed. I don't think Rush makes a compelling argument in this case. While I don't think Rush's statement makes him a racist, I think it does make him an ignorant pot-stirrer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigchuck Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Tarhog I think Limbaughs off the mark also. I don't think the remarks are shocking or even racist. They are just inaccurate. I think McNabbs a hell of a player. The problem, in my opinion, lies not in his failure to become Steve Young, but in Reid's failure to design an offense that plays to McNabb's strengths. This guy is never going to become the quintessential NFL pocket passer. Just isn't him. But get him out of the pocket where defenders have to worry about him breaking it downfield and watch out. He's having a down year, but to be fair, he is coming off a long hiatus and an injury. He'll be back. This isn't Cosell yelling 'look at that little monkey run'. I think Limbaugh chose an incredibly stupid way to say 'McNabbs overrated'. Amen my brother!:applause:My thoughts exactly.:eaglesuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Henry....but it is spin. Very simply wide portions of the press have argued implicity that because the preponderance of NFL players are black that there ought to be more black head coaches. Heck, the NFL now has to consider skin color when considering candidates for HC. Call it what you will, but this is very close to quota system thinking. It is definitely based on racial attributes. And I feel comfortable saying this as one of the few ML supporters on this board way back when last season when most were arguiing against him as HC material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Al, again, we're not talking about a black coach here. We are talking about a black QB. I completely agree with you regarding the head coaching rule, but to lump in a QB's popularity as part of that issue is, to say the least, a reach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Peter King actually has a good article about it here http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/writers/peter_king/09/30/mcnabb_limbaugh/index.html At the end he does say McNabb is overated. What people don't realize about Limbaugh's quote is he isn't going after black QB's or coaches he is going after the media and says they are the one who might be trying to push the out just so they are not percieved as racist. People just jumped on it fast because he said "black". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Originally posted by Henry While I don't think Rush's statement makes him a racist, I think it does make him an ignorant pot-stirrer. Exactly. Great Point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.