Who was it, in here, talking about...

[Yonivore]

...equilibrium in the media?

Kucinich on the Fairness Doctrine (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/ecfd59a3-ac48-42d7-806e-f668249e6525)

Yeah, yeah, I know -- Trent Lott is an idiot too, just like Boxer and Clinton.

[Wild Cobra]

That link is no longer good. However, I think this is the link for Kucinich is one of these:

Kucinich Discusses Fairness Doctrine on Lou Dobbs ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jvknNioWbo)
Kucinich talks about Fairness Doctrine on Hannity & Colmes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfqsFLoUgQ)

Liberal Alan Colmes and Steve Cohen on the Fairness document:
Alan Colmes is a Punk ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkhrdpuwyQw)

Now did you mean this Clinton and Boxer?:
Hillary:
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2042.html

A more complete account:
Inhofe on Clinton/Boxer Conversation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6zroLt4aAE)

Cavuto-Inhofe-Boortz (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROjgAY-mF-k) on the Fairness Document and the Clinton/Boxer remark.

Some so-called-facts presented by a progressive source:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf

I noticed on one local station where I live they listed all non-liberals as conservatives! Nice way to spin it. They also list KPAM early in the document, but don’t break it down.

[Wild Cobra]

The New and Improved "Hush Rush" bill:

HR 501; Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.501:)

Think this isn't what Boxer, Clinton, and Kucinich aren't supporting anyone?

Sponsor:

Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] (introduced 2/1/2005)

Cosponsors:

Rep Case, Ed [HI-2] - 5/5/2005
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 11/17/2005
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 12/16/2005
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] - 5/5/2005
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 2/1/2005
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 2/1/2005
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 2/1/2005
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 2/1/2005
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 2/17/2005
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 2/1/2005
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 11/16/2005
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 11/4/2005
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 2/1/2005
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 2/1/2005
Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-11] - 2/1/2005
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 5/5/2005
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 12/6/2005
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 2/1/2005
Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] - 5/5/2005
Rep Sanders, Bernard [VT] - 5/5/2005
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 5/5/2005
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 2/1/2005
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 2/1/2005

[FromWayDowntown]

Oh noes!! I've been disproven because Dennis Kucinich sees things differently than I do. For shame, for shame. I'll never post here again!!

For what it's worth, my original point wasn't to argue that there's some sort of absolute equilibrium in terms of media partisanship. To the contrary, Yonivore hypothesized that one reason that it's easier to find instances of misconduct by Republicans was because the media is largely liberally-oriented and, ostensibly, more inclined to root out stories about wayward Republicans.

My point was to say that his reasoning didn't hold water because the proliferation of conservative-oriented viewpoints in talk radio and the blogosphere make it significantly less likely that the transgressions of one side will go ignored while the transgressions of the other side are, in essence, overreported. Yonivore, of course, changed subjects and didn't ever really respond to my point, except to imply that I am stupid while repeating his cannards about the mainstream media, which I had already accounted for in my reasoning.

I still think it's exceedingly unlikely that Democrats are able to avoid detection in terms of reports of purported misconduct and I don't think its a valid response in a discussion about relative ethics to say that there's just more reporting of Republican wrongdoing.

[Wild Cobra]

My point was to say that his reasoning didn't hold water because the proliferation of conservative-oriented viewpoints in talk radio and the blogosphere make it significantly less likely that the transgressions of one side will go ignored while the transgressions of the other side are, in essence, overreported.Well then, it's obvious that you don't listen to conservative talk radio because verifiable issues of ethics is a common item brough up about democrats that do go ignored by the mainstream!
Yonivore, of course, changed subjects and didn't ever really respond to my point, except to imply that I am stupid while repeating his cannards about the mainstream media, which I had already accounted for in my reasoning.
At this point, I don't know what thread you are referring to. I see this as a thread about the fairness doctrine.

I still think it's exceedingly unlikely that Democrats are able to avoid detection in terms of reports of purported misconduct and I don't think its a valid response in a discussion about relative ethics to say that there's just more reporting of Republican wrongdoing.But they are. If you really do some fact checking, the difference in how conservatives and/or republicans vs. how liberals and/or democrats are treated is blatantly clear of negative reporting. Republicans get accused of something and right or wrong, it makes the news for days. Democrats however only get mentioned in the news when the facts can no longer be ignored by the mainstream.

[Nbadan]

Well then, it's obvious that you don't listen to conservative talk radio because verifiable issues of ethics is a common item brough up about democrats that do go ignored by the mainstream!

What verifiable issues of ethics are those? The only once I have seen posted have turned out to be complete bunk.

[Nbadan]

...and that's how conservative radio really works. They repeat each others exagerations and distortions until the sheeple buy it....

[FromWayDowntown]

Well then, it's obvious that you don't listen to conservative talk radio because verifiable issues of ethics is a common item brough up about democrats that do go ignored by the mainstream!

It wasn't my argument. I was simply responding to Yonivore's suggestion that underreporting is a reason for difficulty in finding stories about supposed misconduct by Democrats. I think you've probably made my point. If these occurrences are ignored by the mainstream media, but are reported by talk radio and the blogosphere, it should be fairly easy to find references to such bad acts.


At this point, I don't know what thread you are referring to. I see this as a thread about the fairness doctrine.

I'm referring to the thread in which I "was . . . in here, talking about" media equilibrium. That is, after all, the somewhat provocative title of this thread.


But they are. If you really do some fact checking, the difference in how conservatives and/or republicans vs. how liberals and/or democrats are treated is blatantly clear of negative reporting. Republicans get accused of something and right or wrong, it makes the news for days. Democrats however only get mentioned in the news when the facts can no longer be ignored by the mainstream.

But, wait. You just told me that stories of the mainstream media ignoring verifiable issues of Democratic misconduct is a frequent topic on conservative talk radio. If so, those stories are being reported somewhere. I don't see that your argument holds any water if there are reports of such misconduct somewhere -- such reporting should be relatively easy to find, contrary to Yonivore's initial suggestion and the point you're making here. I don't really care if they're supposedly underreported by mainstream outlets. My points are that the media today comprises significantly more than just mainstream outlets and that it's ridiculous to contend that alternative media somehow aren't worth counting in assessing whether a matter is underreported. If it's harder to find proof of Democratic scandal, it just might be that there are fewer Democratic scandals -- and, of course, if you're able to come up with more examples of Democratic scandals than Republican scandals, Yonivore's original point will have been completely debunked.

[Yonivore]

Oh noes!! I've been disproven because Dennis Kucinich sees things differently than I do. For shame, for shame. I'll never post here again!!
How 'bout Dianne Feinstein? Agree with her?

Sen. Feinstein: ‘Looking At’ Revival of Fairness Doctrine (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2133.html)


"I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious, correct reporting to people." Senator Feinstein said she is 'looking at' reviving the fairness doctrine on 'Fox News Sunday' this morning. "I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way," Feinstein said.

Of course, there's also the reported Clinton-Boxer discussion overheard by Senator Inhofe.


For what it's worth, my original point wasn't to argue that there's some sort of absolute equilibrium in terms of media partisanship. To the contrary, Yonivore hypothesized that one reason that it's easier to find instances of misconduct by Republicans was because the media is largely liberally-oriented and, ostensibly, more inclined to root out stories about wayward Republicans.
So, you mean to tell me; if there was a video tape, introduced as evidence in a civil suit that showed President Bush, Vice President Cheney or any other leading Republican allegedly committing a felony and copping to another, it wouldn't be on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and NPR at the drop of a hat?

C'mon!


My point was to say that his reasoning didn't hold water because the proliferation of conservative-oriented viewpoints in talk radio and the blogosphere make it significantly less likely that the transgressions of one side will go ignored while the transgressions of the other side are, in essence, overreported. Yonivore, of course, changed subjects and didn't ever really respond to my point, except to imply that I am stupid while repeating his cannards about the mainstream media, which I had already accounted for in my reasoning.
Talk Radio and the blogosphere don't run teasers about the news, 24/7, during prime time and some of the most popular television shows. Do they?

Fucking 60 minutes beat the "fake but accurate" TANG story to death on the television.


I still think it's exceedingly unlikely that Democrats are able to avoid detection in terms of reports of purported misconduct and I don't think its a valid response in a discussion about relative ethics to say that there's just more reporting of Republican wrongdoing.
There's been noise in Talk Radio and the blogosphere for 5 years on the illegal fund raiser for Hillary Clinton's Senate Campaign and nothing from the Mainstream Press. It was the same with Gore illegal fund raiser with the Buddist Monks.

The Mainstream media won't touch a Democrat until there is irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing. They will drag a Republican through the mud on the slimmest of innuendo.

[xrayzebra]

What verifiable issues of ethics are those? The only once I have seen posted have turned out to be complete bunk.


Well dan, do you ever get tired of being
wrong?

Listen sometime, when Rush uses the
words of the dimms to refute what they
claim. He doesn't have to make it up
or keep saying the same thing over
and over. Just lets them do the talking
for him.

Did you ever seen the little film clip of
Clinton at Brown's funeral. If there
was ever a piece of film that truly
showed Clinton for what he was, that
was it.

[FromWayDowntown]

There's been noise in Talk Radio and the blogosphere for 5 years on the illegal fund raiser for Hillary Clinton's Senate Campaign and nothing from the Mainstream Press. It was the same with Gore illegal fund raiser with the Buddist Monks.

The Mainstream media won't touch a Democrat until there is irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing. They will drag a Republican through the mud on the slimmest of innuendo.

Yet, you are aware of it. I don't care who it is that's revealing these stories. Your argument was that Democratic wrongdoing goes underreported or unreported and that such underreporting is the reason why there are fewer specific instances found in an internet search. My point has always been that reports of such wrongdoing, if any, are available, even if not from the mainstream media. Are you arguing that talk radio and the blogosphere are not credible media? or are you just complaining that allegations of Democratic wrongdoing is frequently relegated to those sources? are you equally concerned that allegations of Republican wrongdoing are frequently either dismissed or disregarded by pro-conservative portions of the media as well?

[xrayzebra]

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z273/xrayzebra/fairnessDoc.gif

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well dan, do you ever get tired of being
wrong?

Listen sometime, when Rush uses the
words of the dimms to refute what they
claim. He doesn't have to make it up
or keep saying the same thing over
and over. Just lets them do the talking
for him.

Did you ever seen the little film clip of
Clinton at Brown's funeral. If there
was ever a piece of film that truly
showed Clinton for what he was, that
was it.

Hey ray have you ever wondered why hush doesn't have democratic guests on? I would think a fan like yourself would love to hear him catch a dem in a lie. maybe because what he says is indefensible? not verifiable? I read somewhere that he was called a shadow boxer of soundbites... After i thought about it I realized that Lush destroys defenesless soundbites as part of his schtick..he then goes into a monologue of explaining how i feel because he knows libs like the back his hand. what's funny is that dude is wrong about almost everything but hey he's an entertainer and he has sucker like you drooling over every word..

[xrayzebra]

Hey ray have you ever wondered why hush doesn't have democratic guests on? I would think a fan like yourself would love to hear him catch a dem in a lie. maybe because what he says is indefensible? not verifiable? I read somewhere that he was called a shadow boxer of soundbites... After i thought about it I realized that Lush destroys defenesless soundbites as part of his schtick..he then goes into a monologue of explaining how i feel because he knows libs like the back his hand. what's funny is that dude is wrong about almost everything but hey he's an entertainer and he has sucker like you drooling over every word..

My-o-my. Obviously you do listen to him. Doesn't he
also say that he is a conservative, makes no bones
about it. He doesn't claim to want to tell the dimm side
of anything. Like he says he is the other side of the
dimm argument. He has very few guest on his show
they are almost non-existent.

What makes him a thorn in the side of people like you
is that he tells the truth. Like I said, he uses the
dimms own words to show them for what they are.
He tells you in a heart beat that he is an "entertainer".
Also tells you he loves to make the money and enjoys
the status.

[George Gervin's Afro]

My-o-my. Obviously you do listen to him. Doesn't he
also say that he is a conservative, makes no bones
about it. He doesn't claim to want to tell the dimm side
of anything. Like he says he is the other side of the
dimm argument. He has very few guest on his show
they are almost non-existent.

What makes him a thorn in the side of people like you
is that he tells the truth. Like I said, he uses the
dimms own words to show them for what they are.
He tells you in a heart beat that he is an "entertainer".
Also tells you he loves to make the money and enjoys
the status.


Tells the truth? How can you pretend to tell the truth when it's 99% is his opinion? He never relies on facts it's merely his own thoughts that make him right.. and of course the dead enders like yourself eat it up..he tells you what you want to here.. "dems are bad..etc.) and you love it.. no facts needed just an occasional soundbite and a quote he can take out of context.

[Yonivore]

Yet, you are aware of it. I don't care who it is that's revealing these stories. Your argument was that Democratic wrongdoing goes underreported or unreported and that such underreporting is the reason why there are fewer specific instances found in an internet search.
Whether you like to admit it or not, the Mainstream Media is where the vast majority of the population get their news. Period.

If it's not reported by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and their various "News" programs on television -- many people remain unaware.

And, I never mentioned "internet searches"


My point has always been that reports of such wrongdoing, if any, are available, even if not from the mainstream media.
I highlighted that word because the mainstream media doesn't just make information "available" -- they push it 24/7 from their own biased perspective.


Are you arguing that talk radio and the blogosphere are not credible media?
No. I'm not arguing that.


or are you just complaining that allegations of Democratic wrongdoing is frequently relegated to those sources?
I'm asking where is 60 minutes on what could be the largest campaign finance scandal ever. Is it proven? No. But, that's never stopped them on allegations of Conservative wrongdoing.

Hell, we just went through a 24/7 MSM cycle of allegations about Tom Delay that were never proven. And, in the process, the Mainstream Media managed to leave out all the Democrats that were tied to that lobbyists money. In fact, the amounts directed to Democrats was more than was directed to DeLay or other Republicans.

How come Pelosi's alleged quid pro quo to the Tuna industry wasn't hashed out in the news? Or, Reids dealings with the Indian Tribes... Both of those scandals have feet. More feet than TANG or DeLay.


are you equally concerned that allegations of Republican wrongdoing are frequently either dismissed or disregarded by pro-conservative portions of the media as well?
Which "pro-conservative portions of the media" are you talking about?

[Yonivore]

Hey ray have you ever wondered why hush doesn't have democratic guests on? I would think a fan like yourself would love to hear him catch a dem in a lie. maybe because what he says is indefensible? not verifiable? I read somewhere that he was called a shadow boxer of soundbites... After i thought about it I realized that Lush destroys defenesless soundbites as part of his schtick..he then goes into a monologue of explaining how i feel because he knows libs like the back his hand. what's funny is that dude is wrong about almost everything but hey he's an entertainer and he has sucker like you drooling over every word..He doesn't have many guests to begin with. But, he's invited liberals on the show to rebut, however, like the Fox Debates, they boycott his show.

He does move liberal callers to the front of the line...that's like many conservatives that have call-in shows. Neal Boortz makes the same offer, as does Michael Medved.

I've never heard a host on Air Ameriscam make that offer.

[Yonivore]

Tells the truth? How can you pretend to tell the truth when it's 99% is his opinion? He never relies on facts it's merely his own thoughts that make him right.. and of course the dead enders like yourself eat it up..he tells you what you want to here.. "dems are bad..etc.) and you love it.. no facts needed just an occasional soundbite and a quote he can take out of context.
We all have opinions. That doesn't make them lies.

I can think your opinions are wrong without thinking you're a liar. Where a line is crossed is when, in the process of stating an opinion, you misrepresent the facts supporting that opinion.

Can you name a time that's been done on the Limbaugh show? Honestly, I don't listen to him much anymore. Comes on at the wrong time for me.

[clambake]

Rush recognizes where he receives support. When it was made clear that he is drug abusing racist, most people stop listening. Only the far right seem to turn the other cheek. I find that very interesting.

[Yonivore]

Rush recognizes where he receives support. When it was made clear that he is drug abusing racist, most people stop listening. Only the far right seem to turn the other cheek. I find that very interesting.
Racist? Where do you draw that conclusion?

[clambake]

He made his feelings about race very clear. That's why he's no longer on that show. Fired after the airing of day one.

[Yonivore]

He made his feelings about race very clear. That's why he's no longer on that show. Fired after the airing of day one.
His comments were about the media and their race-pimping. He disagreed with the media hyping, who was it?, Donovan McNabb (I think) as being some messianic quarterback and said that he doubts the media would have been so keen on McNabb had he not been black.

That doesn't make him a racists. That makes him alleging the media is racist. Which, in that case, may or may not be true -- it would depend on whether or not you believed they were hyping McNabb because he was black or because he was the greatest thing since sliced bread -- which, if you recall, was exactly how the media treated him leading up to Limbaugh's comments.

Frankly, McNabb proved to be as mediocre as Limbaugh thought him to be. Not because he's black but because he's mediocre.

Limbaugh-haters took the opportunity to mischaracterize his words and turn it into a racial issue. I'll give 'em this, they were successful.

It goes back to what I said in that other thread. If you say anything negative about a black person, you're a racist.

Now, if Rush Limbaugh had said McNabb was an inferior quarterback because he was black, you'd have a point.

[xrayzebra]

He made his feelings about race very clear. That's why he's no longer on that show. Fired after the airing of day one.


Did you ever listen to his "racist" remarks, I assume you
mean ESPN? Because it wasn't racist, he told it like it
was that the media was giving what's his face all the
benefits of the doubt because he was a black QB. And
that he wasn't that good. Which I agree and now
everyone else does. Including some of his teammates.

[xrayzebra]

By the way two of my favorite columnist are Thomas Sowell and
Walter Willaims. Both black. Does that make me a black lover.
Or maybe someone who enjoys good writing that makes sense.

Oh, and I cant stand Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, both black,
so guess I am racist. Also I don't like my Congressman,
Charlie Gonzalez. So guess I hate all Mexicans too.

By the way there are a bunch of whites I don't like either.

[George Gervin's Afro]

His comments were about the media and their race-pimping. He disagreed with the media hyping, who was it?, Donovan McNabb (I think) as being some messianic quarterback and said that he doubts the media would have been so keen on McNabb had he not been black.

That doesn't make him a racists. That makes him alleging the media is racist. Which, in that case, may or may not be true -- it would depend on whether or not you believed they were hyping McNabb because he was black or because he was the greatest thing since sliced bread -- which, if you recall, was exactly how the media treated him leading up to Limbaugh's comments.

Frankly, McNabb proved to be as mediocre as Limbaugh thought him to be. Not because he's black but because he's mediocre.

Limbaugh-haters took the opportunity to mischaracterize his words and turn it into a racial issue. I'll give 'em this, they were successful.

It goes back to what I said in that other thread. If you say anything negative about a black person, you're a racist.

Now, if Rush Limbaugh had said McNabb was an inferior quarterback because he was black, you'd have a point.


The reason why hush was kicked off the show was because he made these baseless claims (sorry his 'opinion') about the media and sportswriters wanting mcnabb to succeed because of his race. Hush picked out the wrong people to lie about. These 'media' folks were fortunate enough to have an avenue in which to defend themselves when they all called limpdick a dumbass for making the statements he made. not only did he piss sportswriters, and other media types off, he enraged his co anchors who happened to be black. They along with any other football fan realized that it doesn't matter whether your QB is white or black what they want is to go to the superbowl. I mean McNabb has only led his to team to the NFC championship games at least 4 times and the SB once. So limpdick was trying to convince people that the media was still trying to socially engineer society by calling MCNabb a great QB.In fact McNabb has been a top tier qb for the better part of the decade.. Hush bit off more than he could chew on that one..

[George Gervin's Afro]

Did you ever listen to his "racist" remarks, I assume you
mean ESPN? Because it wasn't racist, he told it like it
was that the media was giving what's his face all the
benefits of the doubt because he was a black QB. And
that he wasn't that good. Which I agree and now
everyone else does. Including some of his teammates.


Not that good? His team has won the division like 5 times in a row? Been to the NFC championship game 4 times? SB once? You say everyone else agress with you now that he's not that good..please tell me who is in your corner?


Hey Ray I tell you what I'd take the McNabb as my QB anytime... oh wait that means I only want him to be good because he's black.. :rolleyes

[clambake]

I came from Ireland and fell in love with american football. I watch as many games as possible, and I can tell you that McNabb is not mediocre, far from it.

Rush could have pimped anybody, but he chose a topic that is near and dear to him. Probably the drugs gave him courage to speak his mind.

The words of a drunk man are his thoughts when he's sober.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I came from Ireland and fell in love with american football. I watch as many games as possible, and I can tell you that McNabb is not mediocre, far from it.

Rush could have pimped anybody, but he chose a topic that is near and dear to him. Probably the drugs gave him courage to speak his mind.

The words of a drunk man are his thoughts when he's sober.


clam you just want McNabb to succeed because he's black .. :rolleyes

[xrayzebra]

Well......how bout.....

McNabb-ulous: What Donovan, Eagles Can Expect in 2007 Print
Written by Kevan Lee
Scribe
Saturday, 23 June 2007
Donovan McNabb must wake up every morning and ask himself, “How did I get here?”

The Eagles franchise quarterback has been treated like a washed-up retread of late, and it's hard to find a reason for his fall from grace.

After a knee injury ended McNabb's 2006 season, Jeff Garcia quarterbacked the Eagles to a division title and a playoff victory. In the offseason, with Garcia gone to Tampa Bay, the Eagles drafted Houston quarterback Kevin Kolb—which had the national media all but ready to run McNabb out of Philadelphia with pitchforks and lanterns.

Somewhere, Rush Limbaugh is smiling.

Poor Donovan must wonder what it'll take to sate the appetites of his blood-hungry detractors. Three straight championship game appearances didn’t do it. Neither did a trip to the Super Bowl. Year-in and year-out, McNabb is forced to "prove" himself—and 2007 will be no different.

Donovan McNabb is the Philadelphia Eagles, whether the team likes it or not...and apparently they don't. Regardless, the Eagles’ hopes in the upcoming season rest squarely on the quarterback's ability to show that he isn't finished in Philly.

And rest assured—he's not.

Expect 2007 to serve as Exhibit A that McNabb has more than a little left in the tank. He understands the Andy Reid offense better than anyone, and he knows how to effectively captain the team. He's a leader on the field and in the locker room. He makes his teammates better.

There is, in the end, nothing more beautiful than a McNabb touchdown bomb—and nothing more awkward than his Michael Jackson touchdown dance.

A return to form after a season-ending injury shouldn't be too tall an order for McNabb, especially given his successful recoveries in years past. More importantly, he's taking over an offense that's firing on more cylinders than at any point since Terrell Owens' departure.

If anything, their late-season success under Garcia gave the Eagles O a badly-needed shot of confidence.

Brian Westbrook enjoyed one of his finest seasons, showing up in big moments with timely touchdown runs and proving his versatility as a receiver out of the backfield. As always, the biggest concern about Westbrook is durability—but he's coming off a full year of health, and rookie Tony Hunt out of Penn State should provide some bruising relief when Westbrook needs it.

Wide receiver Reggie Brown also blossomed last year and should continue to flourish with McNabb at quarterback. Kevin Curtis is too white to replace Donté Stallworth—but he'll at least stay on the field more than his predecessor, and could conjure images of James Thrash.

Though the Eagles’ receiving corps may never be spectacular, it's more than enough for McNabb to work with.

The offensive line, meanwhile, has jelled into one of the finest units in the game. The big guys up front range from downright scary (Shawn Andrews and Jamaal Jackson) to downright hairy (Jon Runyan). No team in the NFC East can match their size, strength, and power—and when this group gets going, Eagles running backs are nearly impossible to stop.

Speaking of not stopping the run, the Philly defense will continue to struggle up front. The unit that played like a turnstile last year has been further weakened with the loss of Darwin Walker. On a team built for postseason success, this glaring weakness is troubling.

Fortunately, the team’s linebacking corps got a boost from the addition of Takeo Spikes, and the secondary should remain dominant so long as Brian Dawkins is flexing his muscles (literally) at safety.

The bottom line: The Philadelphia Eagles have a chance to be very good in 2007. The offense will be as strong as ever, and if defensive coordinator Jim Johnson can find a way to patch the holes in the run defense, Philly will be the team to beat in the NFC East..if not all of the NFC.

Donovan McNabb might still be asking himself, “How did I get here?”...but if things go right, he may just be referring to the Super Bowl.

Projected finish: 10-6, 1st in NFC East

Keep your eyes on: OG Shawn Andrews—quickly becoming one of the NFL’s best guards.

Take your eyes off: DT Brodrick Bunkley—quickly becoming a regular at Carl’s Jr.


Bleacher Report is the web's only Open Source Sports Network. If you've got something to say, let our writers hear it—or register for free to write your own editorial.

Responses

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well......how bout.....

McNabb-ulous: What Donovan, Eagles Can Expect in 2007 Print
Written by Kevan Lee
Scribe
Saturday, 23 June 2007
Donovan McNabb must wake up every morning and ask himself, “How did I get here?”

The Eagles franchise quarterback has been treated like a washed-up retread of late, and it's hard to find a reason for his fall from grace.

After a knee injury ended McNabb's 2006 season, Jeff Garcia quarterbacked the Eagles to a division title and a playoff victory. In the offseason, with Garcia gone to Tampa Bay, the Eagles drafted Houston quarterback Kevin Kolb—which had the national media all but ready to run McNabb out of Philadelphia with pitchforks and lanterns.

Somewhere, Rush Limbaugh is smiling.

Poor Donovan must wonder what it'll take to sate the appetites of his blood-hungry detractors. Three straight championship game appearances didn’t do it. Neither did a trip to the Super Bowl. Year-in and year-out, McNabb is forced to "prove" himself—and 2007 will be no different.

Donovan McNabb is the Philadelphia Eagles, whether the team likes it or not...and apparently they don't. Regardless, the Eagles’ hopes in the upcoming season rest squarely on the quarterback's ability to show that he isn't finished in Philly.

And rest assured—he's not.

Expect 2007 to serve as Exhibit A that McNabb has more than a little left in the tank. He understands the Andy Reid offense better than anyone, and he knows how to effectively captain the team. He's a leader on the field and in the locker room. He makes his teammates better.

There is, in the end, nothing more beautiful than a McNabb touchdown bomb—and nothing more awkward than his Michael Jackson touchdown dance.

A return to form after a season-ending injury shouldn't be too tall an order for McNabb, especially given his successful recoveries in years past. More importantly, he's taking over an offense that's firing on more cylinders than at any point since Terrell Owens' departure.

If anything, their late-season success under Garcia gave the Eagles O a badly-needed shot of confidence.

Brian Westbrook enjoyed one of his finest seasons, showing up in big moments with timely touchdown runs and proving his versatility as a receiver out of the backfield. As always, the biggest concern about Westbrook is durability—but he's coming off a full year of health, and rookie Tony Hunt out of Penn State should provide some bruising relief when Westbrook needs it.

Wide receiver Reggie Brown also blossomed last year and should continue to flourish with McNabb at quarterback. Kevin Curtis is too white to replace Donté Stallworth—but he'll at least stay on the field more than his predecessor, and could conjure images of James Thrash.

Though the Eagles’ receiving corps may never be spectacular, it's more than enough for McNabb to work with.

The offensive line, meanwhile, has jelled into one of the finest units in the game. The big guys up front range from downright scary (Shawn Andrews and Jamaal Jackson) to downright hairy (Jon Runyan). No team in the NFC East can match their size, strength, and power—and when this group gets going, Eagles running backs are nearly impossible to stop.

Speaking of not stopping the run, the Philly defense will continue to struggle up front. The unit that played like a turnstile last year has been further weakened with the loss of Darwin Walker. On a team built for postseason success, this glaring weakness is troubling.

Fortunately, the team’s linebacking corps got a boost from the addition of Takeo Spikes, and the secondary should remain dominant so long as Brian Dawkins is flexing his muscles (literally) at safety.

The bottom line: The Philadelphia Eagles have a chance to be very good in 2007. The offense will be as strong as ever, and if defensive coordinator Jim Johnson can find a way to patch the holes in the run defense, Philly will be the team to beat in the NFC East..if not all of the NFC.

Donovan McNabb might still be asking himself, “How did I get here?”...but if things go right, he may just be referring to the Super Bowl.

Projected finish: 10-6, 1st in NFC East

Keep your eyes on: OG Shawn Andrews—quickly becoming one of the NFL’s best guards.

Take your eyes off: DT Brodrick Bunkley—quickly becoming a regular at Carl’s Jr.


Bleacher Report is the web's only Open Source Sports Network. If you've got something to say, let our writers hear it—or register for free to write your own editorial.

Responses




The Eagles franchise quarterback has been treated like a washed-up retread of late, and it's hard to find a reason for his fall from grace.

Where did he fall from Ray? I thought you and hush said he sucked?

:lol :lol :lol :lol

You realize that all of the questions are surrounding his 2006 knee injury ray don't you? Find an article from 2000 to 2006 when he was healthy to justify your claim.. earth to Ray football players abilities decline with age as do all athletes..but this has nothing to do with your hero's baseless claims that got him fired from ESPN

[clambake]

Thats hilarious ray. McNabb was injured. Philly and NY media love to stir up football stew. You are a sponge that absorbs stupid.

[Yonivore]

Let's review: McNabb, he said, is "overrated ... what we have here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well—black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well."

"There's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Let's take the football stuff first. For the four seasons prior to the comment, the Philadelphia Eagles have had one of the best defenses in the National Football League and had failed to make it to the Super Bowl primarily because of an ineffective offense—an offense run by Donovan McNabb. McNabb was a great college quarterback, in my estimation one of the best of the '90s while at Syracuse. He is one of the most talented athletes in the NFL, but that talent has not translated into greatness as a pro quarterback.

McNabb started for the Eagles beginning in the 2000 season. In that time, the Eagles offense never ranked higher than 10th in the league in yards gained. In fact, their 10th-place rank in 2002 was easily their best; in their two previous seasons, they were 17th in a 32-team league. They ranked 31st at the time of Limbaugh's comment in 2003.

In contrast, the Eagles defense in those four seasons never ranked lower than 10th in yards allowed. In 2001, they were seventh; in 2002 they were fourth; and in 2003, when the comment was made, fifth. It shouldn't take a football Einstein to see that the Eagles' strength over the preceding few seasons had been on defense, and Limbaugh is no football Einstein, which is probably why he spotted it.

The news that the Eagles defense has "carried" them over that period should be neither surprising nor controversial to anyone with access to simple NFL statistics—or for that matter, with access to a television. Yet, McNabb had received an overwhelming share of media attention and thus the credit. Now why was that?

Let's look at a quarterback with similar numbers who also played for a team with a great defense. I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson one of the best quarterbacks in pro football—which is how McNabb was often referred to. In fact, I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson, on the evidence of his 10-year NFL career, much more than mediocre. Yet, Johnson's NFL career passer rating, as of the Sunday after Limbaugh's comment, was 7.3 points higher than McNabb's (84.8 to 77.5), he had completed his passes at a higher rate (61.8 percent to 56.4 percent), and had averaged significantly more yards per pass (6.84 to 5.91). McNabb excelled in just one area, running, where he had gained 2,040 yards and scored 14 touchdowns to Johnson's 467 and seven. But McNabb had also been sacked more frequently than Johnson—more than once, on average, per game, which negated much of the rushing advantage.

In other words, in just about every way, Brad Johnson had been a more effective quarterback than McNabb and over a longer period.

And even if you say the stats don't matter and that a quarterback's job is to win games, Johnson comes out ahead. Johnson had something McNabb didn't, a Super Bowl ring, which he went on to win after his Bucs trounced McNabb's Eagles in 2002' NFC championship game by a score of 27-10. The Bucs and Eagles were regarded by everyone as having the two best defenses in the NFL that year. When they played in the championship game, the difference was that the Bucs defense completely bottled up McNabb while the Eagles defense couldn't stop Johnson.

In terms of performance, many NFL quarterbacks should have been ranked ahead of McNabb. But McNabb has represented something special to all of us since he started his first game in the NFL, and we all know what that is. He's black.

Limbaugh was excoriated for making race an issue in the NFL. This is hypocrisy. I don't know of a football writer who didn't regard the dearth of black NFL quarterbacks as one of the most important issues in the late '80s and early '90s. (The topic really caught fire after 1988, when Doug Williams of the Washington Redskins became the first black quarterback to win a Super Bowl.)

To that point, no black quarterback had been able to dominate a league in which the majority of the players were, and still are, black. To pretend that many people didn't want McNabb to be the best quarterback in the NFL because he's black is absurd. To say that people shouldn't root for a quarterback to win because he's black -- and breaking a race barrier -- is every bit as nonsensical as to say that we shouldn't have rooted for Jackie Robinson to succeed because he was black.

Consequently, it is equally absurd to say that the sports media haven't overrated Donovan McNabb because he's black. Instead of calling him overrated, many sports writers wish they could be admiring his Super Bowl rings. But the truth is that many fans and sportswriters chose for the few years, preceding Limbaugh's comment, to see McNabb as a better player than he has been because they wanted him to be...because he was black.

Rush Limbaugh didn't say Donovan McNabb was a bad quarterback because he is black. He said that the media had overrated McNabb because he is black, and Limbaugh was right. He didn't say anything that he shouldn't have said, and in fact he said things that other commentators should have been saying for some time.

If ESPN didn't hire Rush Limbaugh to say things like that, what did they hire him for? To talk about the prevent defense? :lmao

[Yonivore]

You realize that all of the questions are surrounding his 2006 knee injury ray don't you? Find an article from 2000 to 2006 when he was healthy to justify your claim.. earth to Ray football players abilities decline with age as do all athletes..but this has nothing to do with your hero's baseless claims that got him fired from ESPN
Care to go back and look at McNabb's individual stats for the 2000 to 2003 seasons.

Face it. They were a defensive team. The offense sucked -- in large part because of McNabb.

[ChumpDumper]

In case you were wondering, Yoni the lying hypocrite plagiarized that from slate.com.

[clambake]

In case you were wondering, Yoni the lying hypocrite plagiarized that from slate.com.
Doesn't matter. This thread coupled with the "risk of suffering" thread seems to have established his feelings.

Just the idea of protecting someone like Rush is comical. It's indicative of how far they've fallen.

[ChumpDumper]

Since Yoni passes off Allen Barra's thoughts as his own, he must also agree with his book review:

Douglas Brinkley's epic account of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath stops short of laying blame where it belongs: On President Bush. (http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/06/27/brinkley/)

[Yonivore]

Doesn't matter. This thread coupled with the "risk of suffering" thread seems to have established his feelings.

Just the idea of protecting someone like Rush is comical. It's indicative of how far they've fallen.
Okay, dissect Rush's comment for me and tell me how it is racist.

Oh, and SpunkChomper, I plagiarized the piece from Slate -- Not exactly your bastion of Conservation or Racist thought.

Plus, the stats on McNabb from 2000-2003 speak for themselves. He was a mediocre quarterback getting a big boost from the media because he is black.

[ChumpDumper]

I plagiarized the piece from SlateI just said you did, asshole. Thanks for confessing after you were nailed again.

[clambake]

Okay, dissect Rush's comment for me and tell me how it is racist.

Oh, and SpunkChomper, I plagiarized the piece from Slate -- Not exactly your bastion of Conservation or Racist thought.

Plus, the stats on McNabb from 2000-2003 speak for themselves. He was a mediocre quarterback getting a big boost from the media because he is black.
I said it might be the drugs that gave him courage to speak his true feelings. What's your excuse?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Okay, dissect Rush's comment for me and tell me how it is racist.

Oh, and SpunkChomper, I plagiarized the piece from Slate -- Not exactly your bastion of Conservation or Racist thought.

Plus, the stats on McNabb from 2000-2003 speak for themselves. He was a mediocre quarterback getting a big boost from the media because he is black.



He was a mediocre quarterback getting a big boost from the media because he is black.[/

And nothing to back that up... just Yoni's opinion.. as to the reason why he ws propped up. of course some of the writers he critcized came back and denied everything he proclaimed. Instead of actually believing the actual reporters Yoni chooses to stick with Hush..

[ChumpDumper]

I said it might be the drugs that gave him courage to speak his true feelings. What's your excuse?Internets anonymity.

[Marcus Bryant]

Limbaugh aside, I don't like the idea of the government dictating media content. Should that extend to print media? online media? Will the government start regulating bloggers? F that.

[xrayzebra]

Where did he fall from Ray? I thought you and hush said he sucked?

:lol :lol :lol :lol

You realize that all of the questions are surrounding his 2006 knee injury ray don't you? Find an article from 2000 to 2006 when he was healthy to justify your claim.. earth to Ray football players abilities decline with age as do all athletes..but this has nothing to do with your hero's baseless claims that got him fired from ESPN

Damn, you ask a question, I gave you an answer. I am
not particularly impressed with McNabb nor any
number of other QB's. And Rush didn't say he sucked
he said the media was putting McNabb on a
pedestal and building him as a "great" QB, which he
isn't, because he was black. It was a statement
against the press not McNabb or his race. Give me
a break.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Damn, you ask a question, I gave you an answer. I am
not particularly impressed with McNabb nor any
number of other QB's. And Rush didn't say he sucked
he said the media was putting McNabb on a
pedestal and building him as a "great" QB, which he
isn't, because he was black. It was a statement
against the press not McNabb or his race. Give me
a break.


He was called out on it and rightfully so. Lush's mistake was that normally he makes unfounded accusations against people who can't defend themselves. This time he picked on people who have the platform to call him on it..they did and he slid back under his rock.

[xrayzebra]

Limbaugh aside, I don't like the idea of the government dictating media content. Should that extend to print media? online media? Will the government start regulating bloggers? F that.

That could very well happen. I heard something on the
radio this morning about the Supreme Court ruled about
the election laws.

So maybe someone is starting to pay attention to all
the laws that have been passed silencing the voice of
the people. Thank God that the Internet came along as
well as places like this where people can exchange
views. One think I could never understand is why
anyone would put anyone on ignore. You don't agree,
so what! Put your two cents in. I do....so I go on
ignore for some folks..... :lol

[xrayzebra]

He was called out on it and rightfully so. Lush's mistake was that normally he makes unfounded accusations against people who can't defend themselves. This time he picked on people who have the platform to call him on it..they did and he slid back under his rock.

Huh!

[Yonivore]

And nothing to back that up... just Yoni's opinion.. as to the reason why he ws propped up. of course some of the writers he critcized came back and denied everything he proclaimed. Instead of actually believing the actual reporters Yoni chooses to stick with Hush..
What are you talking about? The piece I pilfered gave statistics and rationale dating back to McNabb's inaugural season with the Eagles to show that he was, at best, a mediocre quarterback enjoying a fawning press simply because he was black.

Oh yeah, the author is an "actual reporter."

[Yonivore]

He was called out on it and rightfully so. Lush's mistake was that normally he makes unfounded accusations against people who can't defend themselves. This time he picked on people who have the platform to call him on it..they did and he slid back under his rock.
He got fired, he didn't slide anywhere...he didn't change his opinion either.

Oh, and who did he pick on that called him on it? Oh yeah, the press.

[George Gervin's Afro]

What are you talking about? The piece I pilfered gave statistics and rationale dating back to McNabb's inaugural season with the Eagles to show that he was, at best, a mediocre quarterback enjoying a fawning press simply because he was black.

Oh yeah, the author is an "actual reporter."


a mediocre quarterback enjoying a fawning press simply because he was black.

that is your opinion Yoni..

[Wild Cobra]

Is it normal for these threads to get sidetracked so easily?

Wasn't this about the Fairness Doctrine?

How does McNabb fit into that angle?

[Wild Cobra]

Back to the Fairness Doctrine. Anyone think it's necessary? According to Talkers Magazine, there are a fair amount of liberals and progressives in the Top 100.

Ed Shultz (liberal) makes #5, Randi Rhodes makes #13 and Alan Colmes is #16.

It seems to me that the primary reason that we don’t see more liberal radio hosts is that they cannot get the ratings to bring in advertisers. I believe there are several factors for this. I believe the primary reason is that the mainstream media already leans left. Talk radio of the left only amplifies what is already mainstream news. Talk radio of the right shows a different perspective.

Talk radio has little to do with a station owners views and more to do with profit. The higher the demand for a host, the more money that can be charged for advertisement. I’m sure some owners will take a position and flaunt it, but I only see that one small ownerships, not across mass markets. Paul Allen is a prime example. He owns the Jail Blazers, and he owns a local station, AM 750 KXL. Guess what gets preempted anytime a Blazers game is on!

Now there are a couple corporate owners who have only conservative programming. I would contend this is because conservative formats are profitable, and as soon as the mix it up with liberal programming, they will lose listeners. One station I listen to is AM 860, KPAM. They have Sean Hannity, Victoria Taft, and Larry Elder. I like listening to them. I often miss the start of Victoria’s show because they have Mark Levin on just before her. I don’t like him. He is a conservative, but one with bad manners. I sometimes listen to him just because he precedes Victoria’s show. Now before they changed the lineup, they had Tom Leykis before Victoria, and Lionel after her. A liberal before and after her. They tried the “fair” approach, and the listeners rebelled. Now Larry Elder is a libertarian, but his leaning is primarily right.

The fairness doctrine amounts to regulating free speech. In a time of limited TV and radio stations, it was a good thing to have. It is no longer needed, and that’s why it was completely abandoned some years back.

Link:

Talkers Magazine top 100 list (http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=44)

[xrayzebra]

^^WC haven't they tried the same thing with the "fairness" in
political campaigns? The Supreme's just shot down part of that
law and when it was written the writers, like McCain, made sure
that his big contributors weren't included. You know like the
American Indian tribes.

I heard on a talk radio program the other day a caller who
explained it better than any explanation I have previously
heard. The reason the conservative talk shows are so
popular is because they express the views of the biggest
portion of the public.

And as you stated radio owners are going where the money is.
If liberal radio was popular you can bet your booties that is
what would be on the air.

Some on here criticize Rush about his show, but think about
it, he has about 20 million listeners. And how many radio
stations that carry his program somewhere, I think, in
excess of 600. That is quite something. And his show is on
for three hours daily, as well as Hannity, who I think is
rated #2 or is it Beck. No matter all are conservative talk
shows.

The dimm-0-craps, liberals, have thrown everything they can
to blunt these shows and have failed. Now they want to give
their next effort a wonderful sounding title: Fairness, and
silence these folks. It is so blasted typical of the liberals. They
control every other media except radio and now they want to
legislate their control over it.

I would like to issue a challenge to those on this board that
always criticize Rush.

Listen to him, then come on to this board and show the rest of
us where he is wrong in his statements, sound bites and
articles he cites. I wont accept just outright criticism of his
views, I mean the meat of his assertions. He will give you the
source of all his material. Now isn't that 'fair'.

[Oh, Gee!!]

In case you were wondering, Yoni the lying hypocrite plagiarized that from slate.com.


I'm shocked!

[Yonivore]

KERRY FOR FAIRNESS DOCTRINE; CORRECT 'IMBALANCE' (http://youtube.com/watch?v=6pwU0FygLlY)

[Yonivore]

a mediocre quarterback enjoying a fawning press simply because he was black.

that is your opinion Yoni..
That was Rush's opinion. Frankly, I wasn't paying attention at the time.

And, according to my pilfered Slate article, that particular writer agreed with Rush.

[Yonivore]

Today's Hill (http://www.hillnews.com/) carries Alexander Bolton's story (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-preps-for-talk-radio-confrontation-2007-06-27.html) on Republican preparation to do battle against the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine. Bolton quotes media critic Dick Durbin, who seems to be unaware of news media other than radio:


Democratic leaders say that government has a compelling interest to ensure that listeners are properly informed.

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
What happened to the First Amendment principle that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press?

[DarkReign]

Limbaugh-haters took the opportunity to mischaracterize his words and turn it into a racial issue. I'll give 'em this, they were successful.

Wait, let me get this straight.

Rush Limpballs, the guy who has made a career out of mischaracterizing what other people say, then espousing his opinions as fact, had someone else mischaracterize his words and got him fired?

Define irony.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Wait, let me get this straight.

Rush Limpballs, the guy who has made a career out of mischaracterizing what other people say, then espousing his opinions as fact, had someone else mischaracterize his words and got him fired?

Define irony.



:clap


I could not have said it any better myself. bravo!!..

but wait limpballs shadow boxes with soundbites.. :ihit

[xrayzebra]

Wait, let me get this straight.

Rush Limpballs, the guy who has made a career out of mischaracterizing what other people say, then espousing his opinions as fact, had someone else mischaracterize his words and got him fired?

Define irony.


Refer you to a statement I made earlier: Want to
take the challenge

I would like to issue a challenge to those on this board that
always criticize Rush.

Listen to him, then come on to this board and show the rest of
us where he is wrong in his statements, sound bites and
articles he cites. I wont accept just outright criticism of his
views, I mean the meat of his assertions. He will give you the
source of all his material. Now isn't that 'fair'.

[clambake]

Refer you to a statement I made earlier: Want to
take the challenge

I would like to issue a challenge to those on this board that
always criticize Rush.

Listen to him, then come on to this board and show the rest of
us where he is wrong in his statements, sound bites and
articles he cites. I wont accept just outright criticism of his
views, I mean the meat of his assertions. He will give you the
source of all his material. Now isn't that 'fair'.
Nobody listens to the "rights" Rosie O'Donnell. I, myself, try to shield my ears from incoherent ramblings that emanate from drug addicted racist.

[xrayzebra]

Nobody listens to the "rights" Rosie O'Donnell. I, myself, try to shield my ears from incoherent ramblings that emanate from drug addicted racist.

Ah yes, typical Liberal rantings. No, no I wont listen, but
I will comment on how the is a drug addicted racist.

Oh, what a guy you are. Cant stand on your own arguments.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Refer you to a statement I made earlier: Want to
take the challenge

I would like to issue a challenge to those on this board that
always criticize Rush.

Listen to him, then come on to this board and show the rest of
us where he is wrong in his statements, sound bites and
articles he cites. I wont accept just outright criticism of his
views, I mean the meat of his assertions. He will give you the
source of all his material. Now isn't that 'fair'.


Ray I do listen to him regularly.. I don't need for him or anyone else to interpret statements made by other people. how many times has he had to 'explain' what someone mean't to say?If his listeners are to stupid to figure out what people are saying then they deserve him!

[Yonivore]

Wait, let me get this straight.

Rush Limpballs, the guy who has made a career out of mischaracterizing what other people say, then espousing his opinions as fact, had someone else mischaracterize his words and got him fired?

Define irony.
Your unsupported assertion that Rush Limbaugh mischaracterized other's words and presented opinion as fact aside, are you claiming two wrongs make a right?

And, it's at least progress to see you acknowledge his words were mischaracterized.

[Wild Cobra]

That was Rush's opinion. Frankly, I wasn't paying attention at the time.

And, according to my pilfered Slate article, that particular writer agreed with Rush.
OK, we just cannot stay on topic...

OK...

What I remember of the time was it was during McNabb's first season. He couldn't throw any long ones accurately. The receivers were scrambling to catch his throws. He resorted to running the ball himself more than other quarterbacks, while blaming his bad throws on the receivers!

Rush called it like he saw it, and since he was a white conservative correctly criticizing a black man, he was drummed out.

McNabb did get much better, but there was a time he was not worthy!

[Wild Cobra]

Refer you to a statement I made earlier: Want to
take the challenge

I would like to issue a challenge to those on this board that
always criticize Rush.

Listen to him, then come on to this board and show the rest of
us where he is wrong in his statements, sound bites and
articles he cites. I wont accept just outright criticism of his
views, I mean the meat of his assertions. He will give you the
source of all his material. Now isn't that 'fair'.

Ditto

[Bear Grylls]

OK, we just cannot stay on topic...

OK...

What I remember of the time was it was during McNabb's first season. He couldn't throw any long ones accurately. The receivers were scrambling to catch his throws. He resorted to running the ball himself more than other quarterbacks, while blaming his bad throws on the receivers!

Rush called it like he saw it, and since he was a white conservative correctly criticizing a black man, he was drummed out.

McNabb did get much better, but there was a time he was not worthy!


Not right at all

The Limbaugh incident occured in 2003 right when Rush joined countdown.

Here is exactly what he said after a few of the other guys were talking about McNabb playing poorly.

I think the sum total of what you're all saying is, Donovan McNabb is regressing, he's going backwards. And my, I'm sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well, for instance, black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there is a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he really didn't deserve.... The defense carried this team, I think, and he got credit for it

[Wild Cobra]

Well Bear, I'm basing that on my own observation of watching McNabb not be able to throw long and accurate.

I agree with Rush's comments. How is his pointing out the media hype wrong? He made an observation that many of us believe, but the PC police took him to task on it.

Now I don't recall the quote, I assume you quoted it correctly. It is just what I saw. The reast of the team was compensating for McNabb's sloppy arm, and McNabb ran the ball way too much.

He was good at running it, but a QB is normally throwing!

[Bear Grylls]

The reast of the team was compensating for McNabb's sloppy arm, and McNabb ran the ball way too much.

He was good at running it, but a QB is normally throwing!


Hmmm.... I dont think you watched McNabb real close then.

Im not going to count McNabb's first year because he only started 6 games.

2000, In McNabb's 2nd year he threw for almost 3,400 yards had 21 TD's and 13 INT's including 45 completions that went for more than 20 yards. Had a 77.8 QB rating

2001, In McNabb's 3rd year he threw for 3,200 yards had 25 TD's and only 12 INT's includinig 44 completions that went for more than 20 yards. Had a 84.3 QB rating which was actually higher than Peyton Mannings.

2002, In McNabb's 4th year he only played 10 games because of an injury he threw for almost 2,300 yards had 17 TD's and only 6 INT's including 27 completions that went for more than 20 yards. Had a 86.0 QB rating only 2 points lower than Peyton Mannings.



Those are McNabb's first 3 seasons as a starting QB passing numbers. I would hardly call them sloppy.


List of the recievers McNabb had to throw to in those 3 seasons

Na Brown
Dameane Douglas
Charles Johnson
Todd Pinkston
Torrance Small
Alex Van Dyke
Freddie Mitchell
Gari Scott
James Thrash
Antonio Freeman


Now, those recievers I would call sloppy.

[Wild Cobra]

Hmmm.... I dont think you watched McNabb real close then.

I didn’t watch real close until right after Rush made the comment. His aim was bad for all long throws. The receivers didn’t miss on the games I watched, he threw the ball out of their range. And really, he ran the ball more than a QB is suppose to.


Im not going to count McNabb's first year because he only started 6 games.

Fine


2000, In McNabb's 2nd year he threw for almost 3,400 yards had 21 TD's and 13 INT's including 45 completions that went for more than 20 yards. Had a 77.8 QB rating

Link:

Donovan McNabb #5 (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4650/career)

330 completions out of 569 attempts for 58% and 3365 yards. That’s an average of 210.3 yards per game and 5.9 yards per attempt. He rushed 86 times for 629 yards. He throws 13 interceptions and gets sacked 45 times for a loss of 262 yards.


2001, In McNabb's 3rd year he threw for 3,200 yards had 25 TD's and only 12 INT's includinig 44 completions that went for more than 20 yards. Had a 84.3 QB rating which was actually higher than Peyton Mannings.

285 completions out of 493 attempts for 57.8% and 3233 yards. That’s an average of 202.1 yards per game and 6.6 yards per attempt. He rushed 82 times for 482 yards. He throws 12 interceptions and gets sacked 39 times for a loss of 273 yards.

Now let’s be clear about something the PC types ignore. McNabb’s teammate, fellow QB A.J. Feeling had a 2001 QB rating of 114, yet they played McNabb. Affirmative action anyone? He also had a 71.4 completion average for 10.2 yards per attempt.


2002, In McNabb's 4th year he only played 10 games because of an injury he threw for almost 2,300 yards had 17 TD's and only 6 INT's including 27 completions that went for more than 20 yards. Had a 86.0 QB rating only 2 points lower than Peyton Mannings.

There is still nothing stellar about his stats. Round to the nearest integer and it’s three points. Manning had a 88.8! Please don’t exaggerate.

211 completions out of 361 attempts for 58.4% and 2289 yards. That’s an average of 228.9 yards per game and 6.3 yards per attempt. He rushed 63 times for 460 yards. Add 6 TD’s rushing to your number! Shouldn’t he be someone running the ball, not a QB? He throws 17 interceptions and gets sacked 28 times for a loss of 273 yards.

McNabb’s teammate, fellow QB Koy Detmer had a 2002 QB rating of 115.8, yet they played McNabb. Affirmative action angain? He also had a 67.9 completion average for 8 yards per attempt.


Those are McNabb's first 3 seasons as a starting QB passing numbers. I would hardly call them sloppy.

I cannot attest to those first few years myself. I do know that without his rushing TD's the rating would be lower. Again, he couldn't throw the ball well.

275 completions out of 478 attempts for 57.5% and 3216 yards. That’s an average of 201 yards per game and 6.7 yards per attempt. He rushed 71 times for 335 yards. He throws 11 interceptions and gets sacked 43 times for a loss of 253 yards.

Don’t you McNabb supporters get it? He is appears to be a product of affirmative action. With the two years before playing him instead of better quarterbacks from the same team, people wonder why the criticism? Also, only in the 2004 season was McNabb able to do a 60% passing average and 7 yard per attempt with is considered the standard measure of a good QB!

Should we compare that to another QB? How about my Seahawks, Matt Hasselbeck; link:

Matt Hasselbeck #8 (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4416/career):

2000:
10 completions out of 19 attempts for 52.6% and 104 yards. That’s an average of 6.5 yards per game and 5.5 yards per attempt. He rushed 4 times for a 5 yard loss. He throws 0 interceptions and gets sacked once for a loss of 2 yards.

Looks like a pretty slow season…

2001:
176 completions out of 321 attempts for 54.8% and 2023 yards. That’s an average of 155.6 yards per game and 6.3 yards per attempt. He rushed 40 times for 141 yards. He throws 8 interceptions and gets sacked 38 times for a loss of 251 yards.


2002:
267 completions out of 419 attempts for 63.7% and 3075 yards. That’s an average of 192.2 yards per game and 7.3 yards per attempt. He rushed 40 times for 202 yards. He throws 10 interceptions and gets sacked 26 times for a loss of 143 yards.

Hasselbeck made the gold standard now of 60%/7 yards.

2003:
313 completions out of 513 attempts for 61% and 3841 yards. That’s an average of 240.1 yards per game and 7.5 yards per attempt. He rushed 36 times for 125 yards. He throws 15 interceptions and gets sacked 42 times for a loss of 246 yards.

Gold standard two years in a row.

Look at the trends. Hasselbeck gets better and McNabb is pretty much flat over the same timeframe. Consider this. Hasselbeck has a 60.2% career passing average for 7.1 yards per attempt. McNabb’s is 58.2% and 6.8 yards.

Cool... Gold standard for a career average for Hasselbeck... Donovan, where are you?

He is above average for a QB in overall ratings now, but not so special before. Rush is right in that the only reason he had as much media attention as he did is that he is a black QB! During 2001 and 2002, he had just above average QB ratings. It’s good to see he was able to make himself better, but the hype about him in 2000 to 2003 was overrated. It was just for PR and PC reasons.

QB stat links:

2001 (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/stats/byposition?pos=QB&conference=NFL&year=season_2001&timeframe=All&qualified=0&sort=49&old_category=QB)

2002 (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/stats/byposition?pos=QB&conference=NFL&year=season_2002&timeframe=All&qualified=0&sort=49&old_category=QB)

Now the two other QB’s I mentioned were rally not that good for career averages, but they did rather well with the same receivers McNabb had. It supports the rumor I heard that McNabb was the weak link, not the receivers. Have to consider when you are replacing the regular, hard to stay in a zone unless you have several consecutive quarters too.

I did some fact finding. In wiki’s entry for Rush; link:

Rush’s Sports casting career (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh#Sportscasting_career):

Sportscasting career

On the September 28 episode of Countdown, Limbaugh commented about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb's role in his team's 0-2 start to the season:
“ Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.”

On October 1, 2003, Limbaugh resigned from ESPN with the statement:

“ My comments this past Sunday were directed at the media and were not racially motivated. I offered an opinion. This opinion has caused discomfort to the crew, which I regret. I love Sunday NFL Countdown and do not want to be a distraction to the great work done by all who work on it. Therefore, I have decided to resign. I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of the show and wish all the best to those who make it happen.”

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well Bear, I'm basing that on my own observation of watching McNabb not be able to throw long and accurate.

I agree with Rush's comments. How is his pointing out the media hype wrong? He made an observation that many of us believe, but the PC police took him to task on it.

Now I don't recall the quote, I assume you quoted it correctly. It is just what I saw. The reast of the team was compensating for McNabb's sloppy arm, and McNabb ran the ball way too much.

He was good at running it, but a QB is normally throwing!



How is his pointing out the media hype wrong?

If that is all Limpballs would have said he would have been alright. What the dumb ass said was the the rest of the media was trying to make him better because they, the media, wanted a black QB to succeed. So in other words he got called on something and he backtracked. Hush is so used to making stupid comments like that because he never has to answer for his remarks. This time he got hammered for it and rightfully so.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I didn’t watch real close until right after Rush made the comment. His aim was bad for all long throws. The receivers didn’t miss on the games I watched, he threw the ball out of their range. And really, he ran the ball more than a QB is suppose to.

Fine

Link:

Donovan McNabb #5 (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4650/career)

330 completions out of 569 attempts for 58% and 3365 yards. That’s an average of 210.3 yards per game and 5.9 yards per attempt. He rushed 86 times for 629 yards. He throws 13 interceptions and gets sacked 45 times for a loss of 262 yards.

285 completions out of 493 attempts for 57.8% and 3233 yards. That’s an average of 202.1 yards per game and 6.6 yards per attempt. He rushed 82 times for 482 yards. He throws 12 interceptions and gets sacked 39 times for a loss of 273 yards.

Now let’s be clear about something the PC types ignore. McNabb’s teammate, fellow QB A.J. Feeling had a 2001 QB rating of 114, yet they played McNabb. Affirmative action anyone? He also had a 71.4 completion average for 10.2 yards per attempt.

There is still nothing stellar about his stats. Round to the nearest integer and it’s three points. Manning had a 88.8! Please don’t exaggerate.

211 completions out of 361 attempts for 58.4% and 2289 yards. That’s an average of 228.9 yards per game and 6.3 yards per attempt. He rushed 63 times for 460 yards. Add 6 TD’s rushing to your number! Shouldn’t he be someone running the ball, not a QB? He throws 17 interceptions and gets sacked 28 times for a loss of 273 yards.

McNabb’s teammate, fellow QB Koy Detmer had a 2002 QB rating of 115.8, yet they played McNabb. Affirmative action angain? He also had a 67.9 completion average for 8 yards per attempt.

I cannot attest to those first few years myself. I do know that without his rushing TD's the rating would be lower. Again, he couldn't throw the ball well.

275 completions out of 478 attempts for 57.5% and 3216 yards. That’s an average of 201 yards per game and 6.7 yards per attempt. He rushed 71 times for 335 yards. He throws 11 interceptions and gets sacked 43 times for a loss of 253 yards.

Don’t you McNabb supporters get it? He is appears to be a product of affirmative action. With the two years before playing him instead of better quarterbacks from the same team, people wonder why the criticism? Also, only in the 2004 season was McNabb able to do a 60% passing average and 7 yard per attempt with is considered the standard measure of a good QB!

Should we compare that to another QB? How about my Seahawks, Matt Hasselbeck; link:

Matt Hasselbeck #8 (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4416/career):

2000:
10 completions out of 19 attempts for 52.6% and 104 yards. That’s an average of 6.5 yards per game and 5.5 yards per attempt. He rushed 4 times for a 5 yard loss. He throws 0 interceptions and gets sacked once for a loss of 2 yards.

Looks like a pretty slow season…

2001:
176 completions out of 321 attempts for 54.8% and 2023 yards. That’s an average of 155.6 yards per game and 6.3 yards per attempt. He rushed 40 times for 141 yards. He throws 8 interceptions and gets sacked 38 times for a loss of 251 yards.


2002:
267 completions out of 419 attempts for 63.7% and 3075 yards. That’s an average of 192.2 yards per game and 7.3 yards per attempt. He rushed 40 times for 202 yards. He throws 10 interceptions and gets sacked 26 times for a loss of 143 yards.

Hasselbeck made the gold standard now of 60%/7 yards.

2003:
313 completions out of 513 attempts for 61% and 3841 yards. That’s an average of 240.1 yards per game and 7.5 yards per attempt. He rushed 36 times for 125 yards. He throws 15 interceptions and gets sacked 42 times for a loss of 246 yards.

Gold standard two years in a row.

Look at the trends. Hasselbeck gets better and McNabb is pretty much flat over the same timeframe. Consider this. Hasselbeck has a 60.2% career passing average for 7.1 yards per attempt. McNabb’s is 58.2% and 6.8 yards.

Cool... Gold standard for a career average for Hasselbeck... Donovan, where are you?

He is above average for a QB in overall ratings now, but not so special before. Rush is right in that the only reason he had as much media attention as he did is that he is a black QB! During 2001 and 2002, he had just above average QB ratings. It’s good to see he was able to make himself better, but the hype about him in 2000 to 2003 was overrated. It was just for PR and PC reasons.

QB stat links:

2001 (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/stats/byposition?pos=QB&conference=NFL&year=season_2001&timeframe=All&qualified=0&sort=49&old_category=QB)

2002 (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/stats/byposition?pos=QB&conference=NFL&year=season_2002&timeframe=All&qualified=0&sort=49&old_category=QB)

Now the two other QB’s I mentioned were rally not that good for career averages, but they did rather well with the same receivers McNabb had. It supports the rumor I heard that McNabb was the weak link, not the receivers. Have to consider when you are replacing the regular, hard to stay in a zone unless you have several consecutive quarters too.

I did some fact finding. In wiki’s entry for Rush; link:

Rush’s Sports casting career (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh#Sportscasting_career):


do you understand sports in general? I almost fell out of my chair reading that you think Mcnabb only played because he was black. You go on to say that their were others better than him but he played because of affirmative action. Let me let you in on a little secret about professional sports. They want to win at any cost so whether the QB is white or black the bottom line is winning and not making a social statement. I am in a state of disbelief right now because I could swear someone just said that affirmatice action played a part in sports. Another important aspect of team sports is that most young players have a rough time their first few years..(that's a secret don't tell anyone) and most teams allow these players to take their lumps to gain experience.

[clambake]

do you understand sports in general? I almost fell out of my chair reading that you think Mcnabb only played because he was black. You go on to say that their were others better than him but he played because of affirmative action. Let me let you in on a little secret about professional sports. They want to win at any cost so whether the QB is white or black the bottom line is winning and not making a social statement. I am in a state of disbelief right now because I could swear someone just said that affirmatice action played a part in sports. Another important aspect of team sports is that most young players have a rough time their first few years..(that's a secret don't tell anyone) and most teams allow these players to take their lumps to gain experience.


Careful, you're going to encourage a few posters to break out their white hoods.

[ChumpDumper]

I hear McNabb called Hasselbeck an asshole.

[Wild Cobra]

I almost fell out of my chair reading that you think Mcnabb only played because he was black.I never said "ONLY" but yes, his race was an obvious factor considering the lack of black QB's in the NFL. Look at the media covering ‘the black QB”

Why can’t we be a colorblind society? It is obviously a race thing. Limbaugh is the type that would have made the same remark if McNabb was white, but because NcNabb was Black, the truth is not acceptable, and automatically dubbed racist!

You go on to say that their were others better than him but he played because of affirmative action. Let me let you in on a little secret about professional sports. They want to win at any cost so whether the QB is white or black the bottom line is winning and not making a social statement.Consider what the statistics say. You threw a bunch at me, so I threw some back. Right or wrong, there are clear perceptions that can be drawn for how well the other two Eagles QB's played in McNabbs absence. This was BEFORE the Limbaugh remark

I am in a state of disbelief right now because I could swear someone just said that affirmatice action played a part in sports.Warning... the next sentence is not serious, but an example of correcting racial imbalance:

Maybe it should have affirmative action in sports so we can have a ratio of white that reflects society?

Another important aspect of team sports is that most young players have a rough time their first few years..(that's a secret don't tell anyone) and most teams allow these players to take their lumps to gain experience.
No shit...

And all that, and McNabb still falls short of the standard that requires a 60% pass completion and 7 yard average.

Explain that!

How can anyone consider him a top QB when he misses that critical mark?

Could that be the whole basis of the Limbaugh remark?

Why are so many people so prejudice that they always think a critical remark from a white directed at a black is racist. Give me a break, and stop focusing on color.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I hear McNabb called Hasselbeck an asshole.


But that's ok because Tony Romo called Hasselbeck an asshole first.

[Wild Cobra]

But that's ok because Tony Romo called Hasselbeck an asshole first.
I wonder what Rosie really says about his sister-in-law?

[ChumpDumper]

I wonder what Rosie really says about his sister-in-law?I bet you do. Fits in with the whole celebrity obsession of the righties here.

[Yonivore]

If that is all Limpballs would have said he would have been alright. What the dumb ass said was the the rest of the media was trying to make him better because they, the media, wanted a black QB to succeed. So in other words he got called on something and he backtracked. Hush is so used to making stupid comments like that because he never has to answer for his remarks. This time he got hammered for it and rightfully so.
Wait a minute. That is all he said.

He said McNabb was getting all the media attention because the press wanted to see a black succeed at quarterback.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Wait a minute. That is all he said.

He said McNabb was getting all the media attention because the press wanted to see a black succeed at quarterback.


No. he started his comment that mcnabb was overhyped by the media. that in itself was a legit opinion. when he went on to say that the sports world had become another avenue for liberals to espouse their ideology and that they wanted an african american to succeed because he black was dumb. he was called on it and backtracked back under the rock he came out from.

[Wild Cobra]

I bet you do. Fits in with the whole celebrity obsession of the righties here.
LOL... I was making a joke. The lone conservative voice on "The View" is Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Married to Giant's Tim Hasselbeck, Matt's brother. Rosie O'Donnel quit right after being bested by Hasselbeck in an argument.

No obsession, but how could anyone miss that news?

[Yonivore]

do you understand sports in general? I almost fell out of my chair reading that you think Mcnabb only played because he was black. You go on to say that their were others better than him but he played because of affirmative action. Let me let you in on a little secret about professional sports. They want to win at any cost so whether the QB is white or black the bottom line is winning and not making a social statement. I am in a state of disbelief right now because I could swear someone just said that affirmatice action played a part in sports. Another important aspect of team sports is that most young players have a rough time their first few years..(that's a secret don't tell anyone) and most teams allow these players to take their lumps to gain experience.
For the record, I never said McNabb was anything less than a mediocre NFL quarterback. Now, in the universe of NFL quarterbacks vs. all others, he's a damn fine one.

But, that's not the issue here. He wasn't quarterback at the Eagles because he was black. He was quarterback because he was the best QB they had on the roster. They signed him thinking he was the best fit for the team.

Now, having said all that, it is true that he was, at best, a mediocre NFL quarterback in the years leading up to the Limbaugh comment and that is the point in question. Limbaugh opined, and I agree, that he was hyped by the media because they wanted a black quarterback to be the best in the league. Period.

I didn't read all of WC's posts but, I just want it clear that I think McNabb is a damn good quarterback and any team would be fortunate to have him on the roster.

If you'll look back at my plagiarized post, the author actually compared McNabb to another quarterback that same year and pointed out why McNabb probably didn't -- except for his race and the media's desire -- deserve all the accolades he was given.

But, seriously, I'm with GGA on this one, there's no professional sports team in existence that practices affirmative action. Their single purpose in life is to win the championship game/series for whatever sport they're in. Period.

[George Gervin's Afro]

For the record, I never said McNabb was anything less than a mediocre NFL quarterback. Now, in the universe of NFL quarterbacks vs. all others, he's a damn fine one.

But, that's not the issue here. He wasn't quarterback at the Eagles because he was black. He was quarterback because he was the best QB they had on the roster. They signed him thinking he was the best fit for the team.

Now, having said all that, it is true that he was, at best, a mediocre NFL quarterback in the years leading up to the Limbaugh comment and that is the point in question. Limbaugh opined, and I agree, that he was hyped by the media because they wanted a black quarterback to be the best in the league. Period.

I didn't read all of WC's posts but, I just want it clear that I think McNabb is a damn good quarterback and any team would be fortunate to have him on the roster.

If you'll look back at my plagiarized post, the author actually compared McNabb to another quarterback that same year and pointed out why McNabb probably didn't -- except for his race and the media's desire -- deserve all the accolades he was given.

But, seriously, I'm with GGA on this one, there's no professional sports team in existence that practices affirmative action. Their single purpose in life is to win the championship game/series for whatever sport they're in. Period.



:smchode:


Yoni please provide me with something else besides someone's opinion on the media wanting mcnabb to succeed because he was black? any objective source not including a right wing website, talk radio host..? anything?

[Wild Cobra]

when he went on to say that the sports world had become another avenue for liberals to espouse their ideology and that they wanted an african american to succeed because he black was dumb. What? Show me a quite inferring DUMB please
he was called on it and backtracked back under the rock he came out from.I'm not aware of any backtracking.

Rush can be an arrogant ass, but he is not prejudice.

[Yonivore]

No. he started his comment that mcnabb was overhyped by the media. that in itself was a legit opinion. when he went on to say that the sports world had become another avenue for liberals to espouse their ideology and that they wanted an african american to succeed because he black was dumb. he was called on it and backtracked back under the rock he came out from.
That was a true statement as well.

Jeeze! Remember all the crap the media made about two black coaches being in the Super Bowl?

The media is the one introducing race...not the teams and not Rush Limbaugh.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That was a true statement as well.

Jeeze! Remember all the crap the media made about two black coaches being in the Super Bowl?

The media is the one introducing race...not the teams and not Rush Limbaugh.


the only person who brought mcnabb's race into was hush limbaugh!!

[Yonivore]

:smchode:


Yoni please provide me with something else besides someone's opinion on the media wanting mcnabb to succeed because he was black? any objective source not including a right wing website, talk radio host..? anything?
Well, it's been a few years so my google skills may be tested but, I'll try. The author of my document alluded to the 90's being full of such examples so, who knows, I may have some luck.

I do remember, as I mentioned in my last post, how big a deal the media made out of it when the two black coaches went to the Super Bowl.

[Yonivore]

the only person who brought mcnabb's race into was hush limbaugh!!
I think he was relating the medias hype of McNabb to all the other race-related media attention during the 90's and concluded the only reason the media would be holding McNabb up as the greatest thing since sliced bread was because he was a black quarterback that was performing reasonably well. Period.

I guess you don't remember how big a deal it was back then.

[clambake]

They were the 1st black coaches Yoni.

That gas station deal really fucked you up.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, it's been a few years so my google skills may be tested but, I'll try. The author of my document alluded to the 90's being full of such examples so, who knows, I may have some luck.

I do remember, as I mentioned in my last post, how big a deal the media made out of it when the two black coaches went to the Super Bowl.


I think we can agree that it we should have taken note that this was the first time 2 black head coaches met in the SB. Just like jackie Robinson was , and still is, celebrated for his breaking the color barrier. I also agree that it was over done and the coaches admitted as such however I do not believe that the medai was overtly trying to push a social agenda when running away with the story.

[ChumpDumper]

There should be several articles from the mainstream media back then saying McNabb is great because he's black. Google away.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm not sure why a media that fawns over Peyton Manning and Tom Brady can be said to have had an agenda to push a black quarterback -- except, of course, to the extent that some who wish to decry the media seem anxious to foment racial tension by making such stupid statements.

The notion that McNabb was just some mediocre quarterback in the years preceding the Limbaugh incident is beyond ludicrous to me. McNabb played on teams that had horrendous wide receivers -- guys who couldn't get open playing against air. At the same time, his teams never had anyone who could consistently run the ball. It's amazing what a difference those guys can make to a team -- it's likewise remarkable that a quarterback who lacked those sorts of weapons for years could, nevertheless, manage to play his team into championship games on an annual basis.

I don't know of any quarterback who can put up exceptional numbers when his best receiving threats are consistently his tight end and a running back. Somehow, everyone in the Limbaugh camp is anxious to overlook what was around McNabb, fails to see just how much McNabb elevated his team to the upper limits that those players were capable of achieving, and managed to run an effective offense that was short on real threats.

In 2000, McNabb's first year as a starter, the Eagles top rusher not named McNabb was Duce Staley who gained a whopping 344 yards. McNabb's top target that year? His tight end, Chad Lewis, who had 69 catches for 735 yards. His best WR caught 56 passes.

In 2002, the Eagles got Duce Staley back from injury, but he only managed 604 yards rushing on 3.6 yards per carry. McNabb's top targets that year were his running back, Staley, who caught 63 passes, and a journeyman WR named James Thrash.

In 2003, Staley was the first back during McNabb's tenure to reach 1000 yards rushing, rolling to 1029 yards, placing him 16th among all rushers in the league. McNabb's best target was the tissue soft Todd Pinkston, who grabbed 60 passes.

In 2004, McNabb finally had a major league target to throw to -- Terrell Owens -- and for the first time in his career, had a receiver catch more than 70 passes and eclipse 1000 receiving yards. Not surprisingly, finally flushed with actual threats to assist his effort, McNabb had a statistically remarkable season.

In 2005, McNabb was forced again to deal with a team who's best receiving threats were its tight end and tailback. Not surprisingly, his numbers faded a bit.

My point is that I don't think you can judge a quarterback on his numbers without looking at what exists around him. McNabb made due for a lot of years without the sorts of offensive help that guys like Manning or Gannon or Culpepper or Trent Green had surrounding them.

In fact, the closest equivalent during that time is Tom Brady, who's teams for many years didn't have great threats. In the years surrounding Limbaugh's idiot statement, Brady and McNabb were statistically very similar. In 2001, McNabb was 7th in the NFL in QB rating; Brady was 6th. In 2002, McNabb was 8th; Brady was 9th. In 2003, McNabb was 16th; Brady was 10th. In 2004, McNabb was 4th; Brady was 9th.

Somehow, nobody calls Brady mediocre or argues that he's experienced success only because his team's defense was carrying the day. Brady's teams go to the Super Bowl (with great defense -- in 2003 and 2004 (both Patriots' championship years) the Pats had a better defense than the Eagles did) and nobody is suggesting that hailing Brady as a great quarterback is some racially-motivated ploy to push a white player into greatness. McNabb's teams play in 4 consecutive conference title games and in one Super Bowl and McNabb is deemed a fraud.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm not sure why a media that fawns over Peyton Manning and Tom Brady can be said to have had an agenda to push a black quarterback -- except, of course, to the extent that some who wish to decry the media seem anxious to foment racial tension by making such stupid statements.

The notion that McNabb was just some mediocre quarterback in the years preceding the Limbaugh incident is beyond ludicrous to me. McNabb played on teams that had horrendous wide receivers -- guys who couldn't get open playing against air. At the same time, his teams never had anyone who could consistently run the ball. It's amazing what a difference those guys can make to a team -- it's likewise remarkable that a quarterback who lacked those sorts of weapons for years could, nevertheless, manage to play his team into championship games on an annual basis.

I don't know of any quarterback who can put up exceptional numbers when his best receiving threats are consistently his tight end and a running back. Somehow, everyone in the Limbaugh camp is anxious to overlook what was around McNabb, fails to see just how much McNabb elevated his team to the upper limits that those players were capable of achieving, and managed to run an effective offense that was short on real threats.

In 2000, McNabb's first year as a starter, the Eagles top rusher not named McNabb was Duce Staley who gained a whopping 344 yards. McNabb's top target that year? His tight end, Chad Lewis, who had 69 catches for 735 yards. His best WR caught 56 passes.

In 2002, the Eagles got Duce Staley back from injury, but he only managed 604 yards rushing on 3.6 yards per carry. McNabb's top targets that year were his running back, Staley, who caught 63 passes, and a journeyman WR named James Thrash.

In 2003, Staley was the first back during McNabb's tenure to reach 1000 yards rushing, rolling to 1029 yards, placing him 16th among all rushers in the league. McNabb's best target was the tissue soft Todd Pinkston, who grabbed 60 passes.

In 2004, McNabb finally had a major league target to throw to -- Terrell Owens -- and for the first time in his career, had a receiver catch more than 70 passes and eclipse 1000 receiving yards. Not surprisingly, finally flushed with actual threats to assist his effort, McNabb had a statistically remarkable season.

In 2005, McNabb was forced again to deal with a team who's best receiving threats were its tight end and tailback. Not surprisingly, his numbers faded a bit.

My point is that I don't think you can judge a quarterback on his numbers without looking at what exists around him. McNabb made due for a lot of years without the sorts of offensive help that guys like Manning or Gannon or Culpepper or Trent Green had surrounding them.

In fact, the closest equivalent during that time is Tom Brady, who's teams for many years didn't have great threats. In the years surrounding Limbaugh's idiot statement, Brady and McNabb were statistically very similar. In 2001, McNabb was 7th in the NFL in QB rating; Brady was 6th. In 2002, McNabb was 8th; Brady was 9th. In 2003, McNabb was 16th; Brady was 10th. In 2004, McNabb was 4th; Brady was 9th.

Somehow, nobody calls Brady mediocre or argues that he's experienced success only because his team's defense was carrying the day. Brady's teams go to the Super Bowl (with great defense -- in 2003 and 2004 (both Patriots' championship years) the Pats had a better defense than the Eagles did) and nobody is suggesting that hailing Brady as a great quarterback is some racially-motivated ploy to push a white player into greatness. McNabb's teams play in 4 consecutive conference title games and in one Super Bowl and McNabb is deemed a fraud.


Anyone with a lick of football sense knows your only as good as your surrounding teammates are. Of course the hush defenders here are only concerned with stats and qb ratings (by the way david carr was one of the highest rated QBs last year and he was the worst QB in the league).

[Oh, Gee!!]

Anyone with a lick of football sense knows your only as good as your surrounding teammates are. Of course the hush defenders here are only concerned with stats and qb ratings (by the way david carr was one of the highest rated QBs last year and he was the worst QB in the league).


besides everyone knows it's defense that wins championships

[Yonivore]

I think we can agree that it we should have taken note that this was the first time 2 black head coaches met in the SB. Just like jackie Robinson was , and still is, celebrated for his breaking the color barrier. I also agree that it was over done and the coaches admitted as such however I do not believe that the medai was overtly trying to push a social agenda when running away with the story.
My point was, the media was doing the same damn thing with black quarterbacks all during the late 90's and early 00's. And, with McNabb, they overdid it as well -- giving the impression they thought he was the second coming of Joe Montana.

It was on that Rush Limbaugh was commenting.

Oh, and I was wrong about professional sports not practicing affirmative action. I had forgotten all about the requirement to interview minorities for coaching slots. I even believe a team was fined for not interviewing a minority.

As far as finding "media hype" from the period, I'm not finding anything. What I do find is plenty of people talking about televised post-game summaries, game commentary, and pre-game shows that were full of McNabb worshipping in the time period leading up to the Limbaugh comment. But, you said you didn't want to see that.

[Yonivore]

Here's an interesting Sports Illustrated article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/writers/peter_king/09/30/mcnabb_limbaugh/index.html) by Peter King



Open mouth, insert foot
Limbaugh's comments on McNabb aren't racist, but they are boneheaded

I had to shake my head this morning when I heard about Rush Limbaugh's comments on Donovan McNabb. You may have heard them by now, but if you haven't, Limbaugh said on ESPN's Sunday pre-game show that he didn't think the Eagles quarterback was as good as the media made him out to be.

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL,'' Limbaugh said. "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well ... McNabb got a lot of the credit for the performance of the team that he really didn't deserve.''

Limbaugh was not making a racist statement about black quarterbacks. He was making a racist statement about me. Actually, about me and my colleagues. But I feel like he was talking to me. I am not going to make this about any political view Limbaugh might hold about affirmative action--or about anything, really, except his exact words. And I can tell you that they are incredibly absurd.

Last week, the editors at Sports Illustrated sent me to Philadelphia to look into why McNabb was playing so poorly early in the season. The Eagles were 0-2, and McNabb had been brutal in those eight quarters, completing 45 percent of his passes with no touchdowns and three interceptions. Last Thursday, in search of answers, I interviewed McNabb, coach Andy Reid, tight end Chad Lewis and center Hank Fraley. I interviewed the Bucs' Warren Sapp, who had opposed the Eagles in Week 1.

I went to NFL Films and watched some tape of two games -- Game 2 in 2002 and Game 2 in 2003. What a dichotomy: McNabb was 26-of-38 passing and scrambled for a touchdown in a masterful 37-7 Monday night rout of the Redskins in 2002, then was a pitiful 18-of-46 in a 31-7 New England rout of the Eagles one year later. Anyone who watched those two tapes would say that McNabb looked confident, strong-armed, bold and accurate in the 2002 game. They would also say that the 2003 McNabb, at least based on the tape I watched, was totally discombobulated.

So, before flying to Buffalo for this past Sunday's game, I developed my theories. I thought McNabb was rushing his throws and was mechanically unsound, throwing off his back foot and from other faulty angles. I thought he had happy feet, maybe nervous happy feet because his protection was breaking down so quickly. I thought he was missing open receivers on at least a third of his incompletions and not taking time to see the whole field. I thought he wasn't running nearly enough for such a talented runner; he didn't leave the pocket against the carnivorous Bucs in week one through the first 31 minutes of the game. I thought his weapons were lacking, and that Reid was trying to make studs out of second- and third-receiver types.

I also thought McNabb was getting no help from his running game. And I thought, as I have thought (and said, and written) in the past, that McNabb was simply not accurate enough to be a truly great player; his career completion rate of 56.6 percent over four-plus years demonstrated that.

I was all set to put down my theories in writing at the Bills-Eagles Sunday in Buffalo. But then a funny thing happened on the way to the rip job. McNabb played well. Not other-worldly, but well. He led the Eagles to two scores in a hostile house on their first two drives, and he had them up 16-0 three-quarters of the way into the game. His first and third plays were not the plays of an overrated, media-propped-up bum. The first was a beautifully thrown and timed 27-yard sideline fade to Todd Pinkston. The third was a logical scramble for 25 yards.

And so, after winning a huge game on the road by 10 points and very likely salvaging the Eagles' season, McNabb was hardly due for an SI story questioning his skills and the ability of those around him. He was owed some kudos for rising to the occasion and playing the best game he'd played in probably 10 months. We've got a saying among those who cover the sport about waiting till Sunday night to write your game stories. Something like, That's why they play the games. I believe Chris Berman, just to Limbaugh's right on ESPN's set, says that quite a lot.

Maybe McNabb's fundamental difficulties are still there. If the Eagles' season eventually goes down in flames and they go 6-10 and McNabb stinks, we'll write about it. But to suggest, as Limbaugh did on ESPN, that we in the media have even deep-background or off-the-record discussions in press boxes or magazine offices about propping up black coaches and quarterbacks is incredible.

Maybe, I thought, I'm being naïve here. Maybe someone here has an agenda I haven't heard of. I called Reuben Frank of the Burlington County (N.J.) Times. He has covered the Eagles' beat since 1987. He's covered quarterbacks white (Bubby Brister, Bobby Hoying, Ty Detmer, Koy Detmer) and black (Randall Cunningham, Rodney Peete, McNabb), and coaches white (Rich Kotite, Reid) and black (Ray Rhodes).

I wondered in the past 17 seasons whether Frank had ever heard in the press room or on the practice field, or while having a few beers the night before games, a colleague talking about how great it was to see a black quarterback or coach succeeding. I wondered whether Frank had ever heard a fellow journalist say that he and his peers should write nice things about the black people and not such nice things about the white people. "In all the years I've covered this team,'' Frank said, "nobody I've heard has ever said anything remotely along those lines. I don't think of Donovan McNabb as a black quarterback and I didn't think of Rhodes as a black coach. They're a quarterback and a coach. Maybe someone in our business thinks the way Limbaugh said, but I haven't met him.''

Now, there is something that Limbaugh said that I do agree with. He stated that McNabb had gotten credit for the defense playing so well and winning games. Welcome to the real world. When you win in football, the quarterback gets too much credit, unless he's Spergon Wynn or Trent Dilfer. That's just the way life is. Quarterbacks get too much credit if the team wins and too much blame if the team loses. That's why they make the big dough.

The bottom line is that yes, I agree McNabb is overrated. He would have been on my top 10 list of quarterbacks in 2001 -- when he played two terrific playoff games and had a good regular season -- but he's been too inconsistent since then to be called a premier quarterback.

Last week, I pitched a story idea to my editor, Mark Godich, about how rookie quarterbacks should be developed. I told him how well I thought Titans coach Jeff Fisher had done in developing a raw but potentially great quarterback, Steve McNair, who happens to be black. My point was that Fisher thought it best to spoonfeed McNair slowly -- not because he was black, but because he thought a quarterback coming from relatively small Alcorn State to the NFL needed a couple of years to get adjusted to playing big-league football. In Limbaughworld, Godich would have said, "Let's do it, and let's blow it up big. McNair's the top-rated quarterback in football, and he's black!'' But in the real world, Godich took a pass, and I'll write about something else this week.

I'm white, as you probably know. This is 2003. Who cares?
Two things I don't believe this guy considered is that Rush Limbaugh wasn't asserting there is an overt, deliberate, conspiracy, by the press, to hype black quarterbacks; it is a manifestation of the politically correct mindset that tends to inappropriately interject race into matters that should probably be left alone -- like making a big deal out of two black coaches reaching the Super Bowl.

The second glaring omission in the article is that he only talked about print media. Much of the hype took place on television during or near game times.

But, I posted the article because it supports the premise that a) McNabb was overhyped and b) he was, at the time, a mediocre NFL quarterback.

[ChumpDumper]

Can a quarterback be hyped for reasons other than race?

That's the big thing Yoni the lying racist idiot is ignoring. He is inappropriately interjecting race into matters that should probably be left alone. Just like Rush did.

[clambake]

Can a quarterback be hyped for reasons other than race?

That's the big thing Yoni the lying racist idiot is ignoring. He is inappropriately interjecting race into matters that should probably be left alone
Hey. Back off. You weren't accosted at a gas station and currently being stalked by Al and Jesse. shut it

[FromWayDowntown]

My point was, the media was doing the same damn thing with black quarterbacks all during the late 90's and early 00's. And, with McNabb, they overdid it as well -- giving the impression they thought he was the second coming of Joe Montana.

But when they hailed a QB who was statistically similar to McNabb (Brady) to Montana they were perfectly in line?


It was on that Rush Limbaugh was commenting.

I'm sure Rush thinks Brady is great. Brady is statistically similar to McNabb. Rush thinks McNabb is mediocre. I see a problem with his objectivity in that analysis.


As far as finding "media hype" from the period, I'm not finding anything. What I do find is plenty of people talking about televised post-game summaries, game commentary, and pre-game shows that were full of McNabb worshipping in the time period leading up to the Limbaugh comment. But, you said you didn't want to see that.

Plenty of people talking about televised post-game summaries, game commentary, and pre-game shows were full of Brady worshipping in the time period leading up to the Limbaugh comment, too. Again, if Brady is great and McNabb is statistically similar (at least in terms of a universal metric used to measure QB's) why wasn't Rush out of line in mischaracterizing McNabb and seeking to inject race into that analysis?

It's ridiculous.

[smeagol]

Yoni, you come accross as quite a racist.

[Yonivore]

Yoni, you come accross as quite a racist.
Sorry. I don't mean to.

[Yonivore]

But when they hailed a QB who was statistically similar to McNabb (Brady) to Montana they were perfectly in line?
How many Super Bowl rings does Brady have vs. McNabb?


I'm sure Rush thinks Brady is great. Brady is statistically similar to McNabb. Rush thinks McNabb is mediocre. I see a problem with his objectivity in that analysis.
Post the side by sides, let's compare. But, you can't argue with results. Super Bowl Rings are one category Brady flat smacks McNabb down on.


Plenty of people talking about televised post-game summaries, game commentary, and pre-game shows were full of Brady worshipping in the time period leading up to the Limbaugh comment, too. Again, if Brady is great and McNabb is statistically similar (at least in terms of a universal metric used to measure QB's) why wasn't Rush out of line in mischaracterizing McNabb and seeking to inject race into that analysis?
Again, New England, with Brady at the helm, has won 3 Super Bowls. He deserves accolades.


It's ridiculous.
Yeah, it is ridiculous for you to leave out the single biggest measuring criteria.

[ChumpDumper]

Wow, Yoni really jumped to the defense of the white quarterback quickly.
Yeah, it is ridiculous for you to leave out the single biggest measuring criteria.Pallor.

[FromWayDowntown]

How many Super Bowl rings does Brady have vs. McNabb?

Post the side by sides, let's compare. But, you can't argue with results. Super Bowl Rings are one category Brady flat smacks McNabb down on.

Side-by-sides, like I did above? Okay.

Ranking in QB Rating
2001
McNabb 7
Brady 6

2002
McNabb 8
Brady 9

2003
McNabb 16
Brady 10

2004
McNabb 4
Brady 9



Again, New England, with Brady at the helm, has won 3 Super Bowls. He deserves accolades.

Philadelphia, with McNabb at the helm, appeared in 4 consecutive conference championship games. Brady's team was #1 in the league in 3 of the 4 years noted above. McNabb's was no worse than 4th in each of the years noted above. In the one year that Brady's team didn't win the Super Bowl, his team didn't even qualify for the playoffs. In that year, McNabb's played for the conference championship.

My point isn't to suggest that McNabb was better than Brady; it's to dispel your nonsensical argument that McNabb was overrated.

And don't tell me that McNabb's defense carried him to such heights without any intervention by Donovan. In the Patriots last 2 Super Bowl years (2003 and 2004), their defense was ranked #1 and #2 in the NFL. If the Eagles' defense carried McNabb, then I'm hard pressed to understand why Brady somehow carried the Patriots' defense to championships.


Yeah, it is ridiculous for you to leave out the single biggest measuring criteria.

It's not the single biggest measuring criteria, because football is a team game. Teams win championships, not quarterbacks. You choose to call it the single biggest measuring criteria because it supports your argument. I doubt that you believe that Trent Dilfer or Ben Roethisberger were better entering last season than Peyton Manning, but if championships are the single biggest measuring criteria (or even a single biggest measuring criteria) you would have to say that each of those guys was better than Manning -- and, I suppose, that Manning was really just mediocre. But then again, Peyton is caucasian, which might tilt the balance in his favor to at least look at his stats, despite the fact that McNabb has played in more conference title games and as many Super Bowls without ever having gone through the sort of playoff flameouts that Peyton has.

[Yonivore]

Side-by-sides, like I did above? Okay.

Ranking in QB Rating
2001
McNabb 7
Brady 6

2002
McNabb 8
Brady 9

2003
McNabb 16
Brady 10

2004
McNabb 4
Brady 9

Philadelphia, with McNabb at the helm, appeared in 4 consecutive conference championship games. Brady's team was #1 in the league in 3 of the 4 years noted above. McNabb's was no worse than 4th in each of the years noted above. In the one year that Brady's team didn't win the Super Bowl, his team didn't even qualify for the playoffs. In that year, McNabb's played for the conference championship.
Super Bowls, Baby!


My point isn't to suggest that McNabb was better than Brady; it's to dispel your nonsensical argument that McNabb was overrated.
Hey, I posted an article, written contemporaneously to the event, by a Sports Illustrated author who said McNabb was overrated...he just disagreed with it having to do with any media conspiracy to hype a black athlete.

Argue with him. He's certainly more familiar with the incident, and better qualified to comment, than am I.


And don't tell me that McNabb's defense carried him to such heights without any intervention by Donovan. In the Patriots last 2 Super Bowl years (2003 and 2004), their defense was ranked #1 and #2 in the NFL. If the Eagles' defense carried McNabb, then I'm hard pressed to understand why Brady somehow carried the Patriots' defense to championships.
To paraphrase the majority of the comments I saw in the articles I read when I google "Brady vs. McNabb," McNabb sucked in clutch situations and Brady stepped up and pulled his team out of more than a few jams. Again, you're arguing with the wrong person on this.

I say Super Bowl rings determine the difference between Tom Brady and Donovan McNabb.


It's not the single biggest measuring criteria, because football is a team game. Teams win championships, not quarterbacks.
I beg to differ. There are quarterbacks who, through their leadership and refusal to give up, (and play calling) have led their teams to Super Bowl wins -- against the odds.


You choose to call it the single biggest measuring criteria because it supports your argument. I doubt that you believe that Trent Dilfer or Ben Roethisberger were better entering last season than Peyton Manning, but if championships are the single biggest measuring criteria (or even a single biggest measuring criteria) you would have to say that each of those guys was better than Manning -- and, I suppose, that Manning was really just mediocre. But then again, Peyton is caucasian, which might tilt the balance in his favor to at least look at his stats, despite the fact that McNabb has played in more conference title games and as many Super Bowls without ever having gone through the sort of playoff flameouts that Peyton has.
I didn't follow any of their seasons. I was merely commenting on the McNabb phenomenon back when Limbaugh made his comment. And, to my credit, I found a reputable sports outlet -- Sports Illustrated -- that agreed. McNabb was overrated.

Now, the only argument I see left is whether or not he was being overrated because he was a black quarterback or for some other reason.

What's your take?