Washed up, no talent, waste of a first round pick wrote:"T.O., he came and did an excellent job ... but that really took away from my play time and my opportunities," Mitchell said. "I couldn't shut a lot of people up that I wanted to shut up. That really hurt the situation."
deluxe_247 wrote:there is no way that mcanbb is a better leader,or a better qb than manning. ive read through this whole thread shaking my head at the absolute homerism...i dont even want to get started.
same heere, its unreal.. it gets to the point where i cant tell if their kidding or not. i shouldnt of gotten started either, but i do have to ask this question:
DO the eagles fans who have spoke here actually think mcnabb is a better QB, and/or leader than peyton manning?
Take TO and any two other Eagles WRs and compare them to Harrison, Stokley, and Wayne. Take LJ Smith and Thomason and compare them to Pollard and Clark.
Manning is a great QB, but he did do less with more. Swap the WRs and Manning doesn't break records this season, while McNabb at the very least makes a serious bid for the year's MVP. Yet when it came to playing the Pats in the playoffs (which is what teams seem to have a problem with in general), Manning could not produce a single TD, whereas McNabb kept it close with a substantially worse arsenal.
Oh, and with McNabb the Eagles still came close to 16-0 (considering if they actually bothered to play their last two games in which they would've been heavily favored, saying they'd have gone 15-1 is not a stretch of the imagination).
You see, there's this silly thing in football called a DEFENSE. Peyton doesn't have one.
Take Peyton off the Colts and they're done for. Take Mcnabb off the Eagles and they don't take that huge a hit. Just ask Koy Detmer and AJ Feeley.
eaglesrule wrote:4th and 26 has EVERYTHING to do with it -- if you are lobbing statments like "mcnabb isn't a good leader"
you specualte what went on in the huddle.
But if good leadership means stepping up and delivering when the chips are down -- so be it. He did it. The facts are that the eagles snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, and did it because mcnabb through the ball.
What the heck are you talking about? He made the 4th and 26 throw because he's a talented player, not because he's a leader. Chips are down? What are you talking about? Going out on 4th and 26 and throwing a post route to the right spot is a result of a good THROW, as you said, TALENT, not leadership.
eaglesrule wrote:Now maybe you haven't watched eagles football, but christ -- this was the first year they have had anything that resembles a "potent" offense. Any offenseive strides they made were because 5 was on the field.
Funny, 5 has been on the field all along. 81 hadn't...
eaglesrule wrote:-- yes on the heels of 4-26, a play that he compelted when all the chips were down, to this year when the eagles dominated everyone but the pats -- how can you say he isn't a leader?
That's called a good football team, there's no mention of leading anyone.
eaglesrule wrote:If you consider donovan a choker perhaps you should look at the history of the oakland raiders under the deified John Madden again.
Where the heck are you getting this stuff. How come you bring up this choke nonsense in every other paragraph. Remind me when the heck I ever mentioned anything about choking?
eaglesrule wrote:Mcnabb had some terrible Int's, but had a top 5 passing day in the super bowl, and produced 21 points -- with less tools at his disposal. I'd say that is "leadership"
LOL. What? Those sentences have nothing to do with leadership.
The bottom line is that anything and everything that you're basing this on is that the Eagles are good. So what? Yes, leadership is a tool that can be used to improve a team, but let's face it, a collection of talented mutes could win a championship.
Marc Bulger is a great quarterback, but he hardly ever talks, he's not much of a leader.
Mcnabb falls in a similar category. People get up, they look towards him to find out what they should do, and he stands there puzzled looking over at the sidelines for someone else to take control and tell him what to do.
I'm sorry, but as a couple other people in this thread have mentioned, this has got to be the most ridiculously un-arguable point that I've ever argued to this extent. It's like trying to argue that a nickel is worth more money than a quarter, it's obvious to everyone that it's not.
The only people that would even THINK about putting Mcnabb's leadership within the same REALM of Manning's are blinded Eagle's homers. It's not even close. I'm not even gonna bother continuing on this as it's just something that's so blatantly obvious that it's not even worth arguing.
Free bagel, before you look any more foolish. The eagles are good because of mcnabb, not the other way around. The team sucked before him. The results after he came are undeniable. The bottom line iis that he is the team leader -- no one in that locker room denies this. As team leader, the eagles have won more games than almost any other team. You think the eagles won despite mcnabb in a sense because they have a "good team"
I wonder how good any of these other qb's would be with the likes of james thrash, freddie mitchell, freddie milons, na brown. Those were some truly horrific wr's through the years, yet, mcnabb would lead the eagles to the playoffs almost single handedly if need be. On one hand it is his skill, on the other hand it is his leadership[ as that is quite the burden to bear.
yea -- its all "homerism" you got us. I don't know why you guys think blind assertation is some substitue for proof. What has manning done? He took the most prolific offense in the league, and one of the top offenses ever to a miraculous one and out in this years playoffs. He scored a whole 3 points in the divisional game. its not "homerism" -- I don't think mcnabb is as good as brady. I don't think anyone after brady has anything on mcabb
People act like it is a foregone conclusion manning is a "better leader" -- yet make no attempt to explain how this comes to pass.
first of all -- no one, and I mean NO ONE who is making these claims has defined or even hinted at a definition of what leadership is, or what is should entail.
Second of all, yes, manning did less with more this year. Defense isn't even under consideration. The fact is -- and deny it all you want, that manning has and will have better weapons at his disposal. He came up with 3 whole points against the pats. Mcnabb led his team to 23. Those are FACTS.
Yes, wins count -- especially when those wins stem from team philosohpy in drafting and building their team around the quarterback as was done with both manning and mcnabb. I can't remember a year that manning was responsible for 90 percent of the teams offense. I can't remember a year when manning had to rally a team from the adversity the eagles had last year. Do these things not count?
I guess "the catch" was all the result of montana being a good player, not because he is a leader.
If the point of the leader is to deliver wins, how can anyone deny mcnabb's leadership. If the poitn is to wave your arms, audible all day and still score 3 points, then manning is the guy. He has hardly transcended his offense.
Im still trying to figure out the assertation that "bulger is a great leader" -- that is hysterical, as he has accomplished SOOOOOO much.
Im still trying to figure out what manning has done except for racking up gaudy stats at the expense of a lot of subpar teams.
Don't bring his defense into it -- he and his team KNEW that the outcomes of games would be riding on his ability to deliver points, not on his defense ability to prevent them.n in that sense, he failed. his d has nothing to do with him socring 3 points against NE.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
Take TO and any two other Eagles WRs and compare them to Harrison, Stokley, and Wayne. Take LJ Smith and Thomason and compare them to Pollard and Clark.
Manning is a great QB, but he did do less with more. Swap the WRs and Manning doesn't break records this season, while McNabb at the very least makes a serious bid for the year's MVP. Yet when it came to playing the Pats in the playoffs (which is what teams seem to have a problem with in general), Manning could not produce a single TD, whereas McNabb kept it close with a substantially worse arsenal.
This was funny. TO = better than Harrison, and its not hard to see that Manning makes wayne and stokley as good as they are. Swap the receivers, and TO gets about 1600 yds, and Pinkston and Mitchell have the best years of their lives.. by far. Mcnabb may have kept the game close with his Tds, but he also threw the game away. That is something Peyton did not do. (he had the 1 pick on the last second play when hte game was over)
You put Manning on the eagles and theyre the best team in the league. I have nothing against Mcnabb, but to say he is a better leader, or beter QB, or whatever youre getting at here, is borderline stupid. I know its an opinion, but some things are obvious.
At no point have I argued that McNabb is a better QB than Manning. So don't put words in my mouth please.
I am arguing exactly what I stated, that McNabb did more with less. Do you deny that the WR corps of TO, Pinkston, and Mitchell is worse than Harrison, Wayne, and Stokley? If not, then how does my point not hold?
You mention what would happen if Manning helmed the Eagles, well what about if McNabb had Manning's WRs to throw to? Would it not also be reasonable and logical to assume McNabb would have the best year of his career throwing to such a talented group?
Manning certainly helps Wayne and Stokley's numbers, but its not like McNabb is holding Pinkston and Mitchell back from their potential as football players. Also, Wayne and Stokley make it easier for Harrison than it is for TO to get open as opponents are forced to cover them tighter than they do Pinkston and Mitchell.
Take TO and any two other Eagles WRs and compare them to Harrison, Stokley, and Wayne. Take LJ Smith and Thomason and compare them to Pollard and Clark.
Manning is a great QB, but he did do less with more. Swap the WRs and Manning doesn't break records this season, while McNabb at the very least makes a serious bid for the year's MVP. Yet when it came to playing the Pats in the playoffs (which is what teams seem to have a problem with in general), Manning could not produce a single TD, whereas McNabb kept it close with a substantially worse arsenal.
This was funny. TO = better than Harrison, and its not hard to see that Manning makes wayne and stokley as good as they are. Swap the receivers, and TO gets about 1600 yds, and Pinkston and Mitchell have the best years of their lives.. by far. Mcnabb may have kept the game close with his Tds, but he also threw the game away. That is something Peyton did not do. (he had the 1 pick on the last second play when hte game was over)
You put Manning on the eagles and theyre the best team in the league. I have nothing against Mcnabb, but to say he is a better leader, or beter QB, or whatever youre getting at here, is borderline stupid. I know its an opinion, but some things are obvious.
At no point have I argued that McNabb is a better QB than Manning. So don't put words in my mouth please.
I am arguing exactly what I stated, that McNabb did more with less. Do you deny that the WR corps of TO, Pinkston, and Mitchell is worse than Harrison, Wayne, and Stokley? If not, then how does my point not hold?
You mention what would happen if Manning helmed the Eagles, well what about if McNabb had Manning's WRs to throw to? Would it not also be reasonable and logical to assume McNabb would have the best year of his career throwing to such a talented group?
Manning certainly helps Wayne and Stokley's numbers, but its not like McNabb is holding Pinkston and Mitchell back from their potential as football players. Also, Wayne and Stokley make it easier for Harrison than it is for TO to get open as opponents are forced to cover them tighter than they do Pinkston and Mitchell.
Maybe I am stupid, but please explain the MORE with less?
Regular season:
Manning passed for more yards. (682 more)
Manning passed for more TDs. (18 more)
Manning had a better rating. (16.4 points better)
Manning had a better completion % (3.6% better)
Manning had less turnovers. (3 less INTs and fumbles combined)
Manning and McNabb both made the playoffs
Postseason:
Manning and McNabb are almost equal in stats and McNabb had one more game than Manning.
Manning lost to the Patriots, McNabb lost to the Patriots.
I just don't see the did more with less argument being valid. By saying McNabb did more, you mean he made it to the Super Bowl? So what. He still lost to the Patriots like Manning did. Are you saying McNabb would have beat the Pats in New England in the snow and made it if they were in the AFC? It's not Manning's fault that he faced the Patriots two weeks earlier than McNabb did. Anyone who think that the Colts couldn't have beat the Vikings and the Falcons is a fool in my opinion. That is all speculation though. Based on stats, they are almost equal and the same team knocked them both out of the playoffs.
Bottom line, Manning did more in the regular season and was about equal in the postseason.
Yea, the whole more with less thing doesn't make any sense. McNabb didn't do more then Manning and in fact Manning did alot more then McNabb including breaking the TD record. It's a no brainer that the Colts have the superior offence, so if anything you could say Manning did more with more. Nice try though.
I agree with the consensus here...McNabb is no way a better QB than Manning.
"The Eagles were 15-1 reg season in games they were contesting..."
Now that is funny. I am not even going to argue this one.
Watch your step, it's getting laid on pretty thick in here.
"Mcnabb had some terrible Int's, but had a top 5 passing day in the super bowl, and produced 21 points "...
Well, maybe top 5 in yardage...Not in overall play. I would be curious how his rating stacked up with other QBs. Produced 21 points..is that a shot against the Colts putting up 3 points in a blizzard and not a 60 degree night? They both lost to the same team, that outplayed them both.
Flockers wrote:" Washed up, no talent, waste of a first round pick"]"T.O., he came and did an excellent job ... but that really took away from my play time and my opportunities," Mitchell said. "I couldn't shut a lot of people up that I wanted to shut up. That really hurt the situation."
By the way am I the only one who caught that? That was hilarious...Oh, and true.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Flockers » Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:29 pm 
