Not sure about who's a better this or that, but the mention of Warren Moon reminds me of the best sign seen at a football game. Seen at a Minnesota game after Brad Johnson had replaced Warren Moon at QB:

"You've seen our Moon, now check out our Johnson"

Quoted: The 88-types will use the lack of a Super Bowl win by McNabb to say that black QBs are no good.  Leaving aside the mountain of superior stats that McNabb has compiled over the years, you can see this is total bunk.

That is bunch of BS. All Rush was saying was that the media wants a black QB to do well, that they will build up every decent black QB that comes along. McNabb is decent, but far from great. Blacks can play the QB position, but not everyone one of them is great. McNair isn't, Moon wasn't, McNabb isn't, nor is Vick. They are good QBs, but not great. Saying so does not make you an 88...

...now, do you want to talk hoops, because I am a diehard Pistons fan, and the last time they had a decent white guy it was Laimbeer...last time I checked their starting 5 is all black, and I still watch them...

...seems like your use of the 88 card was only to prove that McNabb is great...something his play on the field doesn't back up...

Quoted: Steve Young was a "running" quarterback and is considered to be among the best of all time, but without that Superbowl championship. he probably would not be as highly regarded. Troy Aikman was THE prototypical pocket passer and he won three Superbowls. Neither Young nor Aikman hurt their respective teams at crunch time with mistakes. Of the two, I'd take Steve Young over Aikman nine times out of ten because I always liked his leadership style and the fact that he seemed to have an iron will. The fact that he could run the ball almost as efficiently as any NFL running back didn't hurt.

Although Steve Young was a great runner, he didn't rely on it all the time. He was a great pocket passer as well, that could run.

Also, the reason he was able to win a Super Bowl was the Cowboys had a horrific 1st quarter in the championship game against the 49ers. If the Cowboys had played decent in that one quarter, Aikman would have won 4 Super Bowls imho...

Here's my Top Five Running Quarterbacks since 1980 (running skills only):

1. Michael Vick: Hands down. This guy has starting RB skills and then some. No QB has run the ball better.

2. Steve Young: Almost as good as a starting RB in terms of running skills and ability.

3. John Elway: Fast, elusive, and powerful, if you started watching the NFL in the early 90s, you missed his best work.

4. Doug Futie: Yes, Doug Flutie. Part of what made him such an effective runner was necessity. He's only 5'9" and can't see over his offensive linemen. It was his running ability that made him a credible NFL quarterback, not his passing skills.

5. Donovan McNabb: Pretty good runner, with agility and some speed.

Quoted: Here's my Top Five Running Quarterbacks since 1980 (running skills only): 4. Doug Futie: Yes, Doug Flutie. Part of what made him such an effective runner was necessity. He's only 5'9" and can't see over his offensive linemen. It was his running ability that made him a credible NFL quarterback, not his passing skills.

It always amazed me that defenses seemed to never be able to recognize or stop his bootleg left, especially in key moments...

Somewhere between the realm of "great quarterback" and that of "good quarterback" is the one where McNabb resides...Pro-Bowl quarterback.

his 2004 season was great, please do not argue against that as you'll look stupid and foolish.  His other seasons have been around the "above-average" to "very good" range.

His career has been, well, pro-bowl.



Limbaugh was an idiot trying to stir the pot (something that the fools at ESPN hired him to do--raise a ruckus every week and argue with Tom Jackson and friends) when he made his comment.  Limbaugh has/had no credentials to be on a sports program, and it was a wise choice for ESPN and he to part ways.

Does the media artificially try to boost black qb's?  Charlie Batch is considered a joke.  Throw in Jeff Blake and Tony Banks from recent years.  Aaron Brooks was never a media-favorite.  I don't see a hidden agenda.

If you will go back and listen to what RUSH originally said, he was talking about the media, not McNabb. He did not question McNabb's ability, he question why the media was so emphatic at desiring a black quaterback to de well in the NFL. He was talking about the media not McNabb. He even came to McNabb's defense on thursday...thats the truth.

Do like I did a couple of years ago, quit watching that crap.  Do something with your family, build something in the garage shop, or better yet, go to a gun range.  NFL as well as most professional sports, suck....

Quoted: Here's my Top Five Running Quarterbacks since 1980 (running skills only): 1. Michael Vick: Hands down. This guy has starting RB skills and then some. No QB has run the ball better. 2. Steve Young: Almost as good as a starting RB in terms of running skills and ability. 3. John Elway: Fast, elusive, and powerful, if you started watching the NFL in the early 90s, you missed his best work. 4. Doug Futie: Yes, Doug Flutie. Part of what made him such an effective runner was necessity. He's only 5'9" and can't see over his offensive linemen. It was his running ability that made him a credible NFL quarterback, not his passing skills. 5. Donovan McNabb: Pretty good runner, with agility and some speed.

I think Randall Cunningham would have to be in a top 5 list.
Fran Tarkenton had close to 4,000 yards rushing (to go with his 47,000 yards passing).

If you are a good QB you DO NOT NEED TO RUN!!!!!!!

Good QB's PASS THE BALL and effectively read defenses.

The Vikings were sucking with Dante culpecker at the helm because he could not read defenses. Now that they have a QB that can read defenses and not make stupid mistakes they are on a 6 game win streak.

Football is all about Win ands losses, stats dont mean shit.

Ask any player if they would rather have an MVP trophy, NFL record stats, or A SUPER BOWL RING.

I think you know what the answer will be.

WG, I think you and I are in agreement on the race issue.  I agree, it's not relevant.  I think the 88-crowd and the NAACP are both trying to use it to advance their agenda.  Shame on them.

Quoted: 1. McNabb is NOT a "great" QB. He is better than average, but that's the extent of it. The mark of a "great" quarterback is the ability to make your whole team better (well, the offense anyway). McNabb has not and does not fit this category. Part of what made John Elay a "great" QB was that he, too, was laden with painfully average teams.

Incorrect.  McNabb managed to make it to three (notice I left out the fourth) NFC Championship games with a woefully inadequate offense, mediocre special teams (beyond Akers, the kicker) and a better than average defense ("bend but don't break" ring a bell?  Very unlike the Monsters of the Midway).  

Let's look at the "help" McNabb had on offense.

Again, I repeat the list of scrubs that graced the position of "starting WR" (a QB's best weapons) during those NFC Championship game years.  James Thrash.  Charles Johnson.  Torrance Small.  Todd Pinkston.  Freddie Mitchell.  These guys are a joke!  No one can seriously contend that these WRs were on the same level as Terrell Owens (i.e. supercharge the offense).  

Only Andy Reid was willing to make these guys starters ... look at what happened after they left the team.  Johnson/Small:  played for NE one year, then out of the league.  Thrash:  relegated to #3 WR and ST by the Redskins.  Freddie Mitchell (one of Reid's #1 draft picks!) is now out of the league and could not walk onto the Green Bay roster after the Packers's WR corps was decimated by injury this year (e.g. Javon Walker).  Who drafted/signed these stiffs?  ANDY REID.

Let's look at the running game.  These guys were also a joke, and let's not forget that Andy Reid didn't like to run the ball so the offense was heavily reliant on McNabb and the passing game to get those three NFC championship game appearances.  Darnell Autry?  Correl "I live on the IR List" Buckhalter?  Hahaha.  Duce Staley was probably the best RB out of all of them ... and he was no Marshall Faulk.  Look at him now ... he can't even win back his starting job from an over-the-hill Jerome Bettis and a young Willie Parker at the Steelers.  The running game was no powerhouse, meaning McNabb was (again) responsible for the superior offense that allowed them to reach three NFCCGs in a row!

Hell, in 2000 McNabb was the leading rusher for the team!  None of the RBs could rush for more yards than the QB ... what does that tell you about the inadequacy of the Eagles' run game?

To recap, the Eagles, beyond McNabb and the kicker, were mediocre (at best) in those years.   Over-reliance on the passing game (thanks to the coach) and a bunch of WRs and RBs that may have qualified as starters for the XFL meant that McNabb was mostly responsible for those winning years.  

Quoted: Dan Marino is one of the few QBs who can be considered "great" even though he never won a Superbowl Championship. Part of this is because his teams were SO bad (no running game and no defense) and yet there was Danny Marino passing his team into the playoffs year after year after year. No top-flight QB ever had less to work with than him and yet he still willed his team to win games they had no business winning.

See above.  McNabb was also saddled with a piss-poor offense and even worse playcalling from the sidelines.  

And what about Jim Kelly?  No Super Bowl ring for old Jim and he had Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed, Don Beebe ... rather an impressive offense, no?  Yet Jim is in the HoF and rightfully considered a great QB.  He had a great supporting offensive (and defensive ... Bruce Smith ring a bell?) supporting cast, never won a SB yet is in the HoF and is a great QB.  Yet another example of how lack of a Super Bowl does not knock one out of consideration for being a great QB.

Again, the lack of a Super Bowl ring does not disqualify a great QB from being considered great, or being inducted to the HoF.  

Quoted: Quoted: The 88-types will use the lack of a Super Bowl win by McNabb to say that black QBs are no good.  Leaving aside the mountain of superior stats that McNabb has compiled over the years, you can see this is total bunk.   That is bunch of BS. All Rush was saying was that the media wants a black QB to do well, that they will build up every decent black QB that comes along. McNabb is decent, but far from great. Blacks can play the QB position, but not everyone one of them is great. McNair isn't, Moon wasn't, McNabb isn't, nor is Vick. They are good QBs, but not great. Saying so does not make you an 88... ...now, do you want to talk hoops, because I am a diehard Pistons fan, and the last time they had a decent white guy it was Laimbeer...last time I checked their starting 5 is all black, and I still watch them... ...seems like your use of the 88 card was only to prove that McNabb is great...something his play on the field doesn't back up...

First, where did I say anything about Rush and his statement?  I don't see Rush as an 88-type ... do you?  Rush only said that McNabb is overrated because of his race.  He said nothing about needing to win a SB to be considered a great QB.  

Second, you didn't refute any of the arguments made.  Simply stating he's decent but far from great holds no force of argument.  So what about the poor personnel decisions made by Andy Reid?  What about the poor playcalling?  What about the discounting of the run game?  What about not letting McNabb call his own plays?  What about putting each offensive call through 3 levels of checksteps such that McNabb only has 5-7 seconds left on the playclock?   And despite all those handicaps how did McNabb manage to propel the Eagles to four NFCCG appearances and one SB?  Or did you decide to just ignore those issues and fall back on "if I say it enough times, people will believe me"?

Last, this thread is not about hoops, it's about football. You want to derail this football discussion with a discussion on hoops, go right ahead.  You won't hear any argument (or get any participation) from me.

I repeat, the race issue is a smokescreen.  The big problem with the Eagles offense is not about the color of the QB, it's about the general manager and the head coach.

Quoted: Quoted: Here's my Top Five Running Quarterbacks since 1980 (running skills only): ... I think Randall Cunningham would have to be in a top 5 list. Fran Tarkenton had close to 4,000 yards rushing (to go with his 47,000 yards passing).

1. Any of those five QBs were better runners than Cunningham.

2. "Since 1980."

Quoted: Incorrect.  McNabb managed to make it to three (notice I left out the fourth) NFC Championship games with a woefully inadequate offense, mediocre special teams (beyond Akers, the kicker) and a better than average defense ("bend but don't break" ring a bell?  Very unlike the Monsters of the Midway).   To recap, the Eagles, beyond McNabb and the kicker, were mediocre (at best) in those years.   Over-reliance on the passing game (thanks to the coach) and a bunch of WRs and RBs that may have qualified as starters for the XFL meant that McNabb was mostly responsible for those winning years.

The point I was trying to make was this: "Great" QBs allow their teams to beat teams they have no business beating. McNabb, for anything and everything he has done, hasn't helped Philly beat any team that was significantly better than them, especially in the playoffs. Same goes for Peyton Manning. Sure, he's put up monster numbers, but when was the last time Indy beat somebody that was as good or better than them? It hasn't happened while Manning's been under center. Three conference championship losses by Philly only serves to underscore what I'm saying. McNabb's been pretty good, but he didn't have the wherewithall to lift Philly up and over a quality opponent in the NFC title game...three years running. Only when Philly had a SIGNIFICANTLY better TEAM did Philly make the Superbowl, which they then lost *to a better team.*

And what about Jim Kelly?  No Super Bowl ring for old Jim and he had Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed, Don Beebe ... rather an impressive offense, no?  Yet Jim is in the HoF and rightfully considered a great QB.  He had a great supporting offensive (and defensive ... Bruce Smith ring a bell?) supporting cast, never won a SB yet is in the HoF and is a great QB.  Yet another example of how lack of a Super Bowl does not knock one out of consideration for being a great QB.

Under no circumstances can I call Jim Kelly a "great" quarterback. None. Aside from the 2001 Rams, Kelly's Bills were the best team I've ever seen lose a Superbowl. IMO, Kelly, while he did make it into the HoF, is not in the same league as a John Elway, Joe Montana, or even Dan Marino. Marino's teams had no good reason to make the playoffs as much as they did, Kelly's Bills had no good reason to lose FOUR STRAIGHT Superbowls. Nope, Kelly is *not* a "great" QB. Very good? Yes. Same with McNabb. Very good? Sure. Anything more than that is giving him more than he's earned.

Quoted: If you will go back and listen to what RUSH originally said, he was talking about the media, not McNabb. He did not question McNabb's ability, he question why the media was so emphatic at desiring a black quaterback to de well in the NFL. He was talking about the media not McNabb. He even came to McNabb's defense on thursday...thats the truth.

That's your take, and you're entitled to it.

When pressed with "why do you think so, Rush?" wasn't his response basically that McNabb hadn't ever accomplished anything, blah blah blah i.e. that McNabb was being overblown?

My opinion is that the sports media does not have an agenda to push for a great black quarterback regardless of whether or not one exists.  I've seen enough black quarterbacks crucified for poor play and enough white quarterbacks put on a pedestal.  

Again, Limbaugh was doing what ESPN hired him to do--cause controversy.  He succeeded, but his football arguments were meritless.

Quoted: When pressed with "why do you think so, Rush?" wasn't his response basically that McNabb hadn't ever accomplished anything, blah blah blah i.e. that McNabb was being overblown?

Well, what has    he accomplished?

His teams have never risen higher than they were expected to. That's not the mark of a "great" quarterback.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here's my Top Five Running Quarterbacks since 1980 (running skills only): ... I think Randall Cunningham would have to be in a top 5 list. Fran Tarkenton had close to 4,000 yards rushing (to go with his 47,000 yards passing). 1. Any of those five QBs were better runners than Cunningham. 2. "Since 1980."

The stats certainly don't support that (the only one that may pass his avg and career numbers is Vick).

Vick is the only QB I've seen run better than Randall in the NFL - just my opinion.  I'd put Young right behind Randall by a slim margin.

Quoted: The point I was trying to make was this: "Great" QBs allow their teams to beat teams they have no business beating. McNabb, for anything and everything he has done, hasn't helped Philly beat any team that was significantly better than them, especially in the playoffs.

I can't agree with you there either.  If you have such a mediocre team (like you attributed to Dan Marino), then how could McNabb, as the only superstar quality offensive player on that team, not enable your run-of-the-mill team to beat teams that they have no business beating?   So those thirty five wins over three seasons (11 in 2000, 12 in 2001, and 12 in 2003) were all over the equivalent of the 2005 Detroit Lions (sorry, Lions fans)?  Really, that makes no sense.  

According to your own criterion, McNabb is a great QB as he has been saddled with a desperately mediocre team and he's certainly helped his team to a lot of wins that shouldn't have been.  Hell, who else could have made "4th and 26" in that playoff game against the Packers ... and to a slow-ass Freddie Mitchell as WR???

Quoted: Under no circumstances can I call Jim Kelly a "great" quarterback. None.

I see what you mean, but your opinion pales in comparison to the voters who make up the Hall of Fame committee.  I'm not busting on you as a person, as you seem to know your football -- unlike a lot of self-appointed experts who just parrot what they hear on SportsCenter.  The opinion of the guys who elected Jim into the Hall of Fame carries a lot more weight as to who's a great QB than your mere opinion (or mine, for that matter).  

Like it or not, Jim Kelly and Dan Marino are two QBs in the Hall of Fame w/o Super Bowl rings.  They don't let stiffs into the HoF.  That proves that you don't need a Super Bowl ring to be a great QB.  McNabb doesn't have a Super Bowl ring and may never get one ... but it won't disqualify him from being in Canton one day.

Quoted: If you have such a mediocre team (like you attributed to Dan Marino), then how could McNabb, as the only superstar quality offensive player on that team, not enable your run-of-the-mill team to beat teams that they have no business beating?   So those thirty five wins over three seasons (11 in 2000, 12 in 2001, and 12 in 2003) were all over the equivalent of the 2005 Detroit Lions (sorry, Lions fans)?  Really, that makes no sense.

The Eagles, as much as you have been discounting them as a team, haven't been a "mediocre" team over the last four or five years. They've been better than average. Same with McNabb. Not coincidently, that's *precisely* where the Eagles have finished over those five years: Not great, but better than average.

According to your own criterion, McNabb is a great QB as he has been saddled with a desperately mediocre team and he's certainly helped his team to a lot of wins that shouldn't have been.  Hell, who else could have made "4th and 26" in that playoff game against the Packers ... and to a slow-ass Freddie Mitchell as WR???

See above. BTW, sure, McNabb made the throw, but if you are resting your case on one throw in one game against a secondary that clearly blew its coverage assignment on that play, your argument is kinda weak, my friend. One play?

Quoted: Under no circumstances can I call Jim Kelly a "great" quarterback. None. I see what you mean, but your opinion pales in comparison to the voters who make up the Hall of Fame committee.  I'm not busting on you as a person, as you seem to know your football -- unlike a lot of self-appointed experts who just parrot what they hear on SportsCenter.  The opinion of the guys who elected Jim into the Hall of Fame carries a lot more weight as to who's a great QB than your mere opinion (or mine, for that matter).  That proves that you don't need a Super Bowl ring to be a great QB.  McNabb doesn't have a Super Bowl ring and may never get one ... but it won't disqualify him from being in Canton one day.

Dan Marino is clearly a HoF QB in my opinion. Jim Kelly's worst AFC Champion team was better than any team Marino ever had to work with (even the '84 Dolphins). Kelly, IMO squandered all those excellent Buffalo teams in the early 90s. Sure, my opinion doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but I'll bet alot of people agree with me when I say that Jim Kelly wasn't as good as the team around him. In other words, his team made HIM look better, not the other way around. That, my friend, is not the hallmark of a HoF quarterback.

Will McNabb make the HoF someday? My guess is if he continues playing at the same level he is now (and never wins a Superbowl), he will. It won't be because of what he did on the field, however, because no one, not even his biggest fans, can say with a straight face that his statistics (2,776 passing yards per season) are HoF worthy. Nope, his stats can't get him in. How about big wins? Hmmm.  

Get my point yet?

I just love how everyone on this board tiptoes around the race issue in nearly every discussion where it comes up. It must be maddening not being able to say what you REALLY feel, isn't it!

Quoted: I just love how everyone on this board tiptoes around the race issue in nearly every discussion where it comes up. It must be maddening not being able to say what you REALLY feel, isn't it!

I have said exactly what I feel in these threads.

Mostly they have been facts. You want an opinion? Here is mine.

I think there are few black QBs because the ones that have the ability also have the ability to play other more physically demanding roles.  ie WR,TE, RB.  Look at Vince Young.  He is an amazing college QB and still some people would rather use his amazing athleticism for a WR position.

Quoted: I just love how everyone on this board tiptoes around the race issue in nearly every discussion where it comes up. It must be maddening not being able to say what you REALLY feel, isn't it!

Eh?

Who's tiptoeing?