Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="billsin01, post: 272906, member: 837"]
I'm with you on not comparing him to kelly/aikman etc for a variety of reasons (let's not forget that kelly got to play with absurd talent for like 8 years with minimal turnover; same for aikman, same for montana ...) .
 
I think where you're underselling him as a player (aside from saying he's 'nice' which is like saying he's slightly above replacement level, which is untrue) is in a couple of areas:
 
-- [B]Winning.[/B] QBs get credit for teams winning. Is this fair? I don't know, but they do and those eagles teams won a lot of games for a good length of time in an era when sustained success is exceedingly rare.
 
-- [B]Historical place.[/B] As I said earlier, McNabb isn't the first black QB but he's the first black QB viewed as an athlete first and QB second that actually put together a great career. Would there have been opportunities for Mike Vick and Vince Young and Tim Tebow without mcnabb? Yeah, probably, but McNabb certainly helped make that pill much easier to swallow for teams with his development and success.
 
-- [B]Surrounding talent.[/B] I'm not saying people should stay up crying for mcnabb at night but who are the other HOFers he played with? Westbrook was great, Staley was good, Owens was awesome for one year ... Chad Lewis? Jon Runyan? I don't know, it's an OK cast but it's not like he was playing with harrison/wayne/james/clark (which isn't a knock on manning, by the way) or holt/faulk/bruce/hakim.
 
Is he a HOFer? I don't know. Probably not. I don't really care one way or the other, but it's not crazy for people to make a pretty compelling argument.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?