Your thoughts on McNabb... (1 Viewer)

[Gachi]

All this talk about McNabb possibly being traded and people saying he can't win the big one and that he was given all the pieces and still couldn't win got me to thinking. What if instead of throwing an interception at the end if the 2004 superbowl, ultimately ending the game, he had led his team down the field and scored against the patriots? Would you then put him in the same league as Brady and Manning? I'm a McNabb fan, I think he's pretty good over the last two years he's only threw 22 ints and competed 60% of his passes. I hate to say it, but he has proven himself to be a choker in the most crucial games. But you can't always blame him, he threw a perfect would-be first down pass on 4th and 10 in the 2008 NFCCG, but the reciever dropped it and the drive ended and he lost his 4th championship game.

So, if he had beaten Tom Brady and the patriots, would u think that he would belong in the all-time list of QBs?

 

[Leroy's Aces]

All this talk about McNabb possibly being traded and people saying he can't win the big one and that he was given all the pieces and still couldn't win got me to thinking. What if instead of throwing an interception at the end if the 2004 superbowl, ultimately ending the game, he had led his team down the field and scored against the patriots? Would you then put him in the same league as Brady and Manning? I'm a McNabb fan, I think he's pretty good over the last two years he's only threw 22 ints and competed 60% of his passes. I hate to say it, but he has proven himself to be a choker in the most crucial games. But you can't always blame him, he threw a perfect would-be first down pass on 4th and 10 in the 2008 NFCCG, but the reciever dropped it and the drive ended and he lost his 4th championship game. So, if he had beaten Tom Brady and the patriots, would u think that he would belong in the all-time list of QBs?

This is an excellent post, and actually, yes, I do think that his media portrayal, public perception, value to the team...well, pretty much everything would be different for him. It's too bad, because it isn't all on him, of course. And conversely, if the Colts hadn't won the Super Bowl in 2006, Peyton would be labelled as an all-time choke artist.

 

[Adebisi]

All this talk about McNabb possibly being traded and people saying he can't win the big one and that he was given all the pieces and still couldn't win got me to thinking. What if instead of throwing an interception at the end if the 2004 superbowl, ultimately ending the game, he had led his team down the field and scored against the patriots? Would you then put him in the same league as Brady and Manning? I'm a McNabb fan, I think he's pretty good over the last two years he's only threw 22 ints and competed 60% of his passes. I hate to say it, but he has proven himself to be a choker in the most crucial games. But you can't always blame him, he threw a perfect would-be first down pass on 4th and 10 in the 2008 NFCCG, but the reciever dropped it and the drive ended and he lost his 4th championship game. So, if he had beaten Tom Brady and the patriots, would u think that he would belong in the all-time list of QBs?

I think he'd get a lot more respect than he does now, but I still wouldn't put him on the same level as Manning and Brady. Probably a notch or so below Brees.

 

[Cassius]

the opening/foreward of Education of a Coach (the Belichick book, might not be the exact title) includes an exchange between Belichick and Charlie Weis up in the booth at the end of the SB against the Eagles. Belichick was watching McNabb casually walk up to the line of scrimmage as the seconds ticked off the clock.

Exchange was something close to:

Belichick: "We have the lead, right?"

Weis: "Yeah, we have the lead."

Belichick: "Then what the #### is he doing?"

 

[Chase Stuart]

Wouldn't change things for me. For other people, sure.

 

[tbglog]

he would move a notch above Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer, SB WINNIG QB's.

Seriously, ring or not, he has been a great QB for the Eagles for a decade. There are a hell of alot of teams that would have loved to have him for all these years. If Favre doesn't come back, I would love for him to be traded to the Vikes.

 

[Ghost Rider]

So, if he had beaten Tom Brady and the patriots, would u think that he would belong in the all-time list of QBs?

No. He would be more highly-regarded, but talked about as being one of the all-time great QBs? Absolutely not.

 

[silentmark]

All this talk about McNabb possibly being traded and people saying he can't win the big one and that he was given all the pieces and still couldn't win got me to thinking. What if instead of throwing an interception at the end if the 2004 superbowl, ultimately ending the game, he had led his team down the field and scored against the patriots? Would you then put him in the same league as Brady and Manning? I'm a McNabb fan, I think he's pretty good over the last two years he's only threw 22 ints and competed 60% of his passes. I hate to say it, but he has proven himself to be a choker in the most crucial games. But you can't always blame him, he threw a perfect would-be first down pass on 4th and 10 in the 2008 NFCCG, but the reciever dropped it and the drive ended and he lost his 4th championship game.

So, if he had beaten Tom Brady and the patriots, would u think that he would belong in the all-time list of QBs?

What if he and TO were best buds ? What if, what if, what if ... No he would not belong in all time with a SB win, because he is a choker, plain and simple ...

 

[Tanner9919]

All this talk about McNabb possibly being traded and people saying he can't win the big one and that he was given all the pieces and still couldn't win got me to thinking. What if instead of throwing an interception at the end if the 2004 superbowl, ultimately ending the game, he had led his team down the field and scored against the patriots? Would you then put him in the same league as Brady and Manning? I'm a McNabb fan, I think he's pretty good over the last two years he's only threw 22 ints and competed 60% of his passes. I hate to say it, but he has proven himself to be a choker in the most crucial games. But you can't always blame him, he threw a perfect would-be first down pass on 4th and 10 in the 2008 NFCCG, but the reciever dropped it and the drive ended and he lost his 4th championship game.

So, if he had beaten Tom Brady and the patriots, would u think that he would belong in the all-time list of QBs?

well I don't even put Manning in the same category as Brady so it's unfair to try to put McNabb in there too..McNabb isn't even one of the top 10 QB's in the game today..

you can make all the excuses you want ( see bold text above) , fact remains , McNabb is nothing more than a 'good' QB, he'll never be HOF material, he's never won the Big One, etc..

he's.just.average.

when you play in ,what, 5 championship games, you've got to win more than 1..

and instead of saying woulda/coulda in regards to the int on the last drive of the SB, can't we just give credit where it is due: Ne Patriots defense?

 

[Snotbubbles]

All this talk about McNabb possibly being traded and people saying he can't win the big one and that he was given all the pieces and still couldn't win got me to thinking. What if instead of throwing an interception at the end if the 2004 superbowl, ultimately ending the game, he had led his team down the field and scored against the patriots? Would you then put him in the same league as Brady and Manning? I'm a McNabb fan, I think he's pretty good over the last two years he's only threw 22 ints and competed 60% of his passes. I hate to say it, but he has proven himself to be a choker in the most crucial games. But you can't always blame him, he threw a perfect would-be first down pass on 4th and 10 in the 2008 NFCCG, but the reciever dropped it and the drive ended and he lost his 4th championship game. So, if he had beaten Tom Brady and the patriots, would u think that he would belong in the all-time list of QBs?

So your question is, "If he didn't choke, would you consider him a choker?"That's like asking, "If your aunt had a balls, would you consider her your uncle?"

 

[daveR]

All this talk about McNabb possibly being traded and people saying he can't win the big one and that he was given all the pieces and still couldn't win got me to thinking. What if instead of throwing an interception at the end if the 2004 superbowl, ultimately ending the game, he had led his team down the field and scored against the patriots? Would you then put him in the same league as Brady and Manning? I'm a McNabb fan, I think he's pretty good over the last two years he's only threw 22 ints and competed 60% of his passes. I hate to say it, but he has proven himself to be a choker in the most crucial games. But you can't always blame him, he threw a perfect would-be first down pass on 4th and 10 in the 2008 NFCCG, but the reciever dropped it and the drive ended and he lost his 4th championship game. So, if he had beaten Tom Brady and the patriots, would u think that he would belong in the all-time list of QBs?

So your question is, "If he didn't choke, would you consider him a choker?"That's like asking, "If your aunt had a balls, would you consider her your uncle?"

Tough crowd...

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

I love "IF" posts when it comes to McNabb.

IF McNabb didn't drill balls into the ground, IF McNabb could consistently lead his WR's, IF McNabb was a better leader, IF McNabb had one more year with TO, IF Andy Reid would run the ball...

Things would be much different.

 

[Nagle2998]

McNabb deserves a lot of the blame for the Eagles not having a SB but so does the rest of the team but the Qb will always take most of it. There is only one game IMO that McNabb can be blamed for and that is the Tampa game but if your not a real hater the are reasons for every game that they lost besides McNabb. In the Tampa game he was just coming back from an injury that kept him out something like 7 weeks and even though he looked decent the week prior he just looked like he didn't have it against a top flight defense but this is the game I blame him the most for. In the Carolina game a player can't remember his name gave a late hit on McNabb and he was done after that IMO. Another thing in the Carolina game was his Wr stunk and couldn't get off the line at all the Panthers DB' manhandled them and his Wr caused two of the INT's I put the full blame of that game on the Wr but of course haters put it on McNabb. A lot of people put the SB on McNabb but the defense didn't do anything and he did throw for a ton of yards even though he also threw three picks the last one didn't matter at all though. The Pats were also a much better team and he kept the game very close this is also the one game I blame on Reid more then McNabb. When they lost to the Rams it was because the Rams were just a much better team at that time but again they kept it close. As for the Cardinals game Mcnabb took the lead in the 4th quarter but the defense stunk it up and they are to blame for that loss. This year the Cowboys beat them in every aspect of the game yet McNabb again takes the full blow even though no Qb could have done anything in that game with the way the team was playing. McNabb has been to 5 NFC Championship games and in most of them he had below average weapons to throw to this is the best weapons he has ever had but he isn't an elite Qb anymore I just wish they would have gotten him these weapons earlier I think he would have had atleast one SB. I'm not a huge McNabb guy I just think he takes a lot of the blame because he says dumb things and acts like a fool and it pushes the fans away. Buddy Ryan and Cunningham are loved in Philly yet they never won a single thing but Reid and McNabb are hated the reason is attitude. Eagles fans love attitude more then they do winning IMO even though they would love to have both.

 

[Chunky Soup]

Wouldn't change things for me. For other people, sure.

Agreed. Sad that a difference of 4 points in Superbowl 39 would do this.

 

[Christo]

he would move a notch above Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer, SB WINNIG QB's.

This is pure silliness. Those guys don't come close to McNabb. Do you also think Marino needed a SB to move a notch above Johnson & Dilfer as well?

 

[finito]

Wouldn't change things for me. For other people, sure.

Agreed. Sad that a difference of 4 points in Superbowl 39 would do this.

The problem for me is that McNabb looked simply awful at the end of the that Superbowl. I mean he seemed to have no sense of how much time was left in the clock or what the score was. There was zero urgency on his part. To this day it baffles me. I think he's a very good QB but if he had won that SB it would absolutely change my opinion of him.

 

[rjv]

Please don't forget that in those years that the Eagles were the top of the NFC, 2002-2004, about 80% of those teams were god awful. Now I'm a Eagles fan and loved having McNabb for a QB, but once again ppl need to realize that in that time and even in college, McNabb was and will always be a low % accuracy QB, a bad decision maker in the red zone, scored a 14 on the wonderlich test, but who is counting.

McNabb for a good part of his professional life has had really bad WRs, outside TO and D Jax, and Reid refuses to run the ball. Which in my mind would make me draft ot trade for high quality Wrs but he is the boss. Untill the last 3 seasons he has had viable passing targets but he time is over IMO.

I am willing to say now is the rebuilding year with 80% of the Eagles under the age of 28. Kolb has been groomed for the starting job so let's hand over the keys to the car now and try to get something for Mcnabb while we still can.

 

[FavreCo]

Sweetest bounce pass in the history of the NFL.

 

[Jason Wood]

Of course a SB ring would dramatically reshape the way McNabb is perceived. That's the one thing missing from his resume and, frankly, it's an enormous thing. He's done everything else. NFC Championships, Super Bowl appearance, multiple Pro Bowls, high powered offenses, fantastic winning percentage. But he doesn't have the ring, and some of his worst (at least in terms of national profile) games have been his most important.

I hate that people overweight (IMHO) some of those games. But I also understand it.

 

[3nOut]

I think McNabb has won more games for the team than he had lost for them. This is a team sport and I think its unfair to rest everything on the QB. Yes, he is a leader of the team, but its not all up to him. Why does he have a 'choke' sign around his neck? Maybe it was the D that choked? Maybe its the TEAM that choked? It's unfair that he wan't given a fair shake from day one. I wonder how he would have done if he was drafted by another team.

 

[Tau837]

Of course a SB ring would dramatically reshape the way McNabb is perceived. That's the one thing missing from his resume and, frankly, it's an enormous thing. He's done everything else. NFC Championships, Super Bowl appearance, multiple Pro Bowls, high powered offenses, fantastic winning percentage. But he doesn't have the ring, and some of his worst (at least in terms of national profile) games have been his most important.I hate that people overweight (IMHO) some of those games. But I also understand it.

I suppose it depends on what question you are considering, but a Super Bowl championship isn't the only thing missing from his resume. In this case, the OP asked whether or not McNabb would belong on the "all time list of QBs" had he won a championship. IMO the answer is no.McNabb has never even been second team All Pro. He has been chosen for 5 Pro Bowls in 11 seasons. IMO those facts are not reflective of a QB who belongs on the all time list, unless it is a very long list... unless he can overcome those facts with great numbers and/or multiple championships. But in this hypothetical, McNabb would have neither of those things, and thus IMO a single championship wouldn't do it.

 

[Jason Wood]

Of course a SB ring would dramatically reshape the way McNabb is perceived. That's the one thing missing from his resume and, frankly, it's an enormous thing. He's done everything else. NFC Championships, Super Bowl appearance, multiple Pro Bowls, high powered offenses, fantastic winning percentage. But he doesn't have the ring, and some of his worst (at least in terms of national profile) games have been his most important.I hate that people overweight (IMHO) some of those games. But I also understand it.

I suppose it depends on what question you are considering, but a Super Bowl championship isn't the only thing missing from his resume. In this case, the OP asked whether or not McNabb would belong on the "all time list of QBs" had he won a championship. IMO the answer is no, and it would still be no had his team won a single championship.McNabb has never even been second team All Pro. He has been chosen for 5 Pro Bowls. IMO those facts are not reflective of a QB who belongs on the all time list... unless he can overcome that with great numbers or multiple championships. So in this hypothetical, IMO a single championship wouldn't do it.

You'll get no argument from me there JWB. As one of McNabb's staunchest defenders, I think -- ring or not -- he would slot into that group of 'very good' QBs that were not the elite of their era, but were better than most that played at the time.

 

[Chunky Soup]

Wouldn't change things for me. For other people, sure.

Agreed. Sad that a difference of 4 points in Superbowl 39 would do this.

The problem for me is that McNabb looked simply awful at the end of the that Superbowl. I mean he seemed to have no sense of how much time was left in the clock or what the score was. There was zero urgency on his part. To this day it baffles me. I think he's a very good QB but if he had won that SB it would absolutely change my opinion of him.

Really? Take a look at the Eagles receivers from that SB. An injured TO and who else? Brian Westbrook? If TO was healthy or if they had any other NFL caliber WR, do the Eagles get 4 more points? Regardless of that argument, if Deion Branch didn't play out of his mind (or if the Eagles D could stop him), McNabb would've looked all the better apparently.I really don't get this logic.

 

[finito]

Wouldn't change things for me. For other people, sure.

Agreed. Sad that a difference of 4 points in Superbowl 39 would do this.

The problem for me is that McNabb looked simply awful at the end of the that Superbowl. I mean he seemed to have no sense of how much time was left in the clock or what the score was. There was zero urgency on his part. To this day it baffles me. I think he's a very good QB but if he had won that SB it would absolutely change my opinion of him.

Really? Take a look at the Eagles receivers from that SB. An injured TO and who else? Brian Westbrook? If TO was healthy or if they had any other NFL caliber WR, do the Eagles get 4 more points? Regardless of that argument, if Deion Branch didn't play out of his mind (or if the Eagles D could stop him), McNabb would've looked all the better apparently.I really don't get this logic.

Go back and watch the last few minutes. McNabb has no urgency. He wastes time. This has nothing to do with his WRs. They are down late in the game and he can barely get out of the huddle. I'm talking about the biggest moment of his football career and he simply can't operate like a normal QB. Forget who he is throwing to, it doesn't matter. He looked like a befuddled old man. TO said he was throwing up in the huddle. Freddie Mitchell said McNabb couldn't call his plays:From Wikapdedia:

Controversy surrounded the end of the game, as center Hank Fraley claimed that McNabb was seriously ill towards the end of the game. Wide receiver Freddie Mitchell claimed that he had to call a few plays due to McNabb's illness. However, in an interview with NBC, McNabb said he was not sick and did not throw up. He just said he was tired.[20] Some reports claim that McNabb had the wind knocked out of him by an earlier hit while others assert that he was unduly fatigued (interestingly, McNabb also suffered from a bout of nausea at the conclusion of a 2002 regular-season game played at Alltel Stadium, where Super Bowl XXXIX was contested). Both head coach Andy Reid and McNabb have denied any physical problems that led to the puzzlingly slow pace of play, but they did not address mental problems.

 

[CaptainHook]

yea my favorite theory is hes got a bunch of weird anxiety issues which really would explain everything about him

 

[css2373]

the opening/foreward of Education of a Coach (the Belichick book, might not be the exact title) includes an exchange between Belichick and Charlie Weis up in the booth at the end of the SB against the Eagles. Belichick was watching McNabb casually walk up to the line of scrimmage as the seconds ticked off the clock. Exchange was something close to:Belichick: "We have the lead, right?"Weis: "Yeah, we have the lead."Belichick: "Then what the #### is he doing?"

This is what has always bothered me about him...

 

[Chunky Soup]

Agreed. Sad that a difference of 4 points in Superbowl 39 would do this.

The problem for me is that McNabb looked simply awful at the end of the that Superbowl. I mean he seemed to have no sense of how much time was left in the clock or what the score was. There was zero urgency on his part. To this day it baffles me. I think he's a very good QB but if he had won that SB it would absolutely change my opinion of him.

Really? Take a look at the Eagles receivers from that SB. An injured TO and who else? Brian Westbrook? If TO was healthy or if they had any other NFL caliber WR, do the Eagles get 4 more points? Regardless of that argument, if Deion Branch didn't play out of his mind (or if the Eagles D could stop him), McNabb would've looked all the better apparently.I really don't get this logic.

Go back and watch the last few minutes. McNabb has no urgency. He wastes time. This has nothing to do with his WRs. They are down late in the game and he can barely get out of the huddle. I'm talking about the biggest moment of his football career and he simply can't operate like a normal QB. Forget who he is throwing to, it doesn't matter. He looked like a befuddled old man. TO said he was throwing up in the huddle. Freddie Mitchell said McNabb couldn't call his plays:From Wikapdedia:

Controversy surrounded the end of the game, as center Hank Fraley claimed that McNabb was seriously ill towards the end of the game. Wide receiver Freddie Mitchell claimed that he had to call a few plays due to McNabb's illness. However, in an interview with NBC, McNabb said he was not sick and did not throw up. He just said he was tired.[20] Some reports claim that McNabb had the wind knocked out of him by an earlier hit while others assert that he was unduly fatigued (interestingly, McNabb also suffered from a bout of nausea at the conclusion of a 2002 regular-season game played at Alltel Stadium, where Super Bowl XXXIX was contested). Both head coach Andy Reid and McNabb have denied any physical problems that led to the puzzlingly slow pace of play, but they did not address mental problems.

Yet if Deion Branch didn't go ape#### and have the game of his career, you'd think McNabb was a better QB.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Wouldn't change things for me. For other people, sure.

Agreed. Sad that a difference of 4 points in Superbowl 39 would do this.

The problem for me is that McNabb looked simply awful at the end of the that Superbowl. I mean he seemed to have no sense of how much time was left in the clock or what the score was. There was zero urgency on his part. To this day it baffles me. I think he's a very good QB but if he had won that SB it would absolutely change my opinion of him.

Really? Take a look at the Eagles receivers from that SB. An injured TO and who else? Brian Westbrook? If TO was healthy or if they had any other NFL caliber WR, do the Eagles get 4 more points? Regardless of that argument, if Deion Branch didn't play out of his mind (or if the Eagles D could stop him), McNabb would've looked all the better apparently.I really don't get this logic.

Oh we're playing this game?If McNabb didn't have 2 turnovers when the team was in scoring position they would have scored more points.

And please stop using McNabbs WRs as a crutch.

Here goes Tom Brady's top 2 recievers when he won the Superbowls:

2001: Troy Brown 1199 yds-5 tds; David Patten 749 yds-4 tds

2003: Deion Branch 803 yds-3 tds; David Givens 510 yds -6 tds

2004: David Givens 874 yds-3 tds; David Patten 800 yds-7 tds

Brady didn't exactly have All-Pro recievers in that Superbowl.

 

[delusional]

they have a ring if they had a different game plan and actually helped him over the years

 

[finito]

Yet if Deion Branch didn't go ape#### and have the game of his career, you'd think McNabb was a better QB.

If I didn't see McNabb have the epic fold of all time, sure, I would think he was a better QB. But I did see McNabb choke, looking lost, dazed and simply too tired to continue in the waning minutes of the most important game of his life. So sure, if you're going to use that logic, you can have it. But let me ask you... you watched his dismal showing in the last few minutes where everything was on the line and no explanation has ever been offered - do you consider that a HOF type performance?

 

[Chunky Soup]

Yet if Deion Branch didn't go ape#### and have the game of his career, you'd think McNabb was a better QB.

If I didn't see McNabb have the epic fold of all time, sure, I would think he was a better QB. But I did see McNabb choke, looking lost, dazed and simply too tired to continue in the waning minutes of the most important game of his life. So sure, if you're going to use that logic, you can have it. But let me ask you... you watched his dismal showing in the last few minutes where everything was on the line and no explanation has ever been offered - do you consider that a HOF type performance?

I'm not saying that he does/doesn't belong in the HOF. I thought we were talking about judging McNabb how he is, versus how he'd be with a ring. In general, I think the whole "no ring" talk is pointless. In this case it's even more pointless, and puts a spotlight onto why I think the discussion in general is silly. He was 4 points away from beating a great NEP team in the Superbowl. Could he have played better and won? Probably. Could he have played even worse and won (Eagles defense stopping Branch would have helped)? Probably. Yet in either case you'd view him as a better QB.

 

[Truman]

McNabb would never be able to do that because he can't run a 2-minute offense.

 

[Chunky Soup]

Wouldn't change things for me. For other people, sure.

Agreed. Sad that a difference of 4 points in Superbowl 39 would do this.

The problem for me is that McNabb looked simply awful at the end of the that Superbowl. I mean he seemed to have no sense of how much time was left in the clock or what the score was. There was zero urgency on his part. To this day it baffles me. I think he's a very good QB but if he had won that SB it would absolutely change my opinion of him.

Really? Take a look at the Eagles receivers from that SB. An injured TO and who else? Brian Westbrook? If TO was healthy or if they had any other NFL caliber WR, do the Eagles get 4 more points? Regardless of that argument, if Deion Branch didn't play out of his mind (or if the Eagles D could stop him), McNabb would've looked all the better apparently.I really don't get this logic.

Oh we're playing this game?If McNabb didn't have 2 turnovers when the team was in scoring position they would have scored more points.

And please stop using McNabbs WRs as a crutch.

Here goes Tom Brady's top 2 recievers when he won the Superbowls:

2001: Troy Brown 1199 yds-5 tds; David Patten 749 yds-4 tds

2003: Deion Branch 803 yds-3 tds; David Givens 510 yds -6 tds

2004: David Givens 874 yds-3 tds; David Patten 800 yds-7 tds

Brady didn't exactly have All-Pro recievers in that Superbowl.

How is Brady relevant to the discussion? Brady is a better QB than McNabb and arguably in an even friendlier system as well. My point was that McNabb's top WR (and the Eagles heavily relied on him) was injured (broke his leg that December) so he was playing with a depleted WR group.As far as McNabb having turnovers, yeah, he probably shouldn't have had them. Of course, he did have a depleted WR group (see above) and played against a better than average defense.

That all said my point is that him not having a ring is simply circumstantial. Sure, maybe he could have avoided some of those INTs. But what if TO was fully healthy? And if the Eagles could play a little better pass defense? Or if Tom Brady never became the starting QB for the NEP? Apparently for some, the opinion of him would have been different; you and others want to see the final score (and his play at the end) and decide that McNabb is not as good a QB as he would be if they had won. I don't get it, the fact that they lost that game (or didn't win the SB other years for that matter) means very little.

 

[Jous]

Yet if Deion Branch didn't go ape#### and have the game of his career, you'd think McNabb was a better QB.

If I didn't see McNabb have the epic fold of all time, sure, I would think he was a better QB. But I did see McNabb choke, looking lost, dazed and simply too tired to continue in the waning minutes of the most important game of his life. So sure, if you're going to use that logic, you can have it. But let me ask you... you watched his dismal showing in the last few minutes where everything was on the line and no explanation has ever been offered - do you consider that a HOF type performance?

To be fair, even a healthy and in prime form McNabb and almost any other QB probably wouldn't have succeeded when they were given the ball down by 10. It's not like they had a ton of time, and going against a very good defense in the SuperBowl wouldn't help.

 

[Adebisi]

I think people are being overly critical of McNabb. If we're going to trash him for choking in the Super Bowl (which we should, IMO), then we should at least give him credit for getting there, and for regularly getting the Eagles deep into the playoffs. Regardless of how weak the NFC was at the time, it is still an accomplishment to get to the conference championship game.

In regards to the Super Bowl, I'm not really sure how relevant TO's injury was. I realize that he wasn't 100% (who is, at that point in the season?), but he finished the game with 9 catches for 122 yards. It's hard to imagine that he wouldn't have been the Super Bowl MVP had the Eagles won.

 

[Adebisi]

Yet if Deion Branch didn't go ape#### and have the game of his career, you'd think McNabb was a better QB.

If I didn't see McNabb have the epic fold of all time, sure, I would think he was a better QB. But I did see McNabb choke, looking lost, dazed and simply too tired to continue in the waning minutes of the most important game of his life. So sure, if you're going to use that logic, you can have it. But let me ask you... you watched his dismal showing in the last few minutes where everything was on the line and no explanation has ever been offered - do you consider that a HOF type performance?

To be fair, even a healthy and in prime form McNabb and almost any other QB probably wouldn't have succeeded when they were given the ball down by 10. It's not like they had a ton of time, and going against a very good defense in the SuperBowl wouldn't help.

It's been stated a couple of times in defense of McNabb that the Patriots had a very good defense. I think that's a bit misleading. The Pats did finish 9th in the league in defense that year, but they were only 17th against the pass. It should also be pointed out that the Patriots were without both starting cornerbacks (Ty Law and Tyrone Poole) in the Super Bowl. They had to start undrafted free agent rookie Randall Gay opposite a still somewhat raw Asante Samuel, and Troy Brown was the nickelback.I think it's being very generous to say that McNabb was against anything better than an average (at best) pass defense when he choked.

 

[JetMaxx]

Yet if Deion Branch didn't go ape#### and have the game of his career, you'd think McNabb was a better QB.

If I didn't see McNabb have the epic fold of all time, sure, I would think he was a better QB. But I did see McNabb choke, looking lost, dazed and simply too tired to continue in the waning minutes of the most important game of his life. So sure, if you're going to use that logic, you can have it. But let me ask you... you watched his dismal showing in the last few minutes where everything was on the line and no explanation has ever been offered - do you consider that a HOF type performance?

Completely indefensible. It represents the moment when, as an Eagles fan, I was done with him. He has done NOTHING since then to change the feeling I developed that day.