Maybe McNabb wants out of Philly
I was going to write a column about how, now that the dust from the Eagles' worst season in six years has settled, the team should try to work through the issues with Terrell Owens and Donovan McNabb and figure out a way to keep Owens and return to 2004 glory. But, instead this column is about why the Eagles should keep Owens and trade golden boy, Donovan McNabb.
McNabb is living a lie and the worst part about the lie is that he is lying mostly to himself. McNabb is not only a divisive force on the Eagles, but he is self-destructive and the Eagles should cut their losses now by trading him immediately. If you didn't see the McNabb interview on ESPN, you can read it right here--provided you're able to follow him aimlessly wandering from first-person point of view, to second-person and back to first-person. Granted, this is clearly another case of ESPN stoking the flames of disdain between Owens and McNabb to generate ratings, but try to see through the all of the propaganda and hear what McNabb is actually saying.
About the distraction that T.O. allegedly caused the Eagles this season, McNabb claimed it didn't bother him, but it negatively affected some of his less focused teammates. Hello! That's a back-handed, passive-aggressive criticism of his teammates. Yet the media portray McNabb as the model teammate. If McNabb has a problem with the way his teammates handled things this past season, he should have taken some of his own advice and spoken to those individuals face to face.
About the infamous Brett Favre comment (remember--T.O. didn't even make the comment), McNabb said that because Owens agreed that Favre (a white quarterback) would be better for the Eagles, that was some sort of black-on-black crime (a gross misnomer) and it was tantamount to McNabb having said that the Eagles would be better off with "Steve Largent or Joe Jurevicious." McNabb is wrong on so many levels it's difficult to decide where to begin skewering him. First of all, Largent has been retired since 1989. So, if Largent were actually a better player than Owens, then McNabb is still living in and commenting on the wrong decade. Apparently, in McNabb's twisted reality, it's politically incorrect to compare or contrast Donovan McNabb with a white quarterback. When the race card is played by someone else, McNabb is great at playing the poor little victim, but, McNabb has now conveniently used the issue of race, rather poorly I might add, to further his own agenda against Owens. His assertion, aside from being hypocritical, is preposterous.
McNabb goes on to divulge the details of a phone conversation he had with Owens in 2004. McNabb claims he told Owens, "I brought you here for a reason, for people to understand the chemistry that we have and the things we can do, which will lead us to winning a Super Bowl.'" Look at the tremendous ego McNabb has, all of a sudden thinking he is QB, coach and GM all at once. Get over yourself, Donovan.
McNabb is arrogant, insecure, passive-aggressive and (worst of all) an over-rated quarterback. It's no wonder a player of Owens' caliber couldn't get along with McNabb or deal with having to constantly defer to a player that shows up to camp portly from all of that Campbell's chunky soup his mom feeds him. If the Eagles have any desire to remain competive, in what is now a much stronger NFC East than the division they dominated for four years, they will keep Owens and trade McNabb for a quarterback who is a more accurate passer and who isn't nearly as self-absorbed.
In the interview, McNabb goes on ad-infinitum about how if you have a problem with him, go talk to him, face to face. I wonder if McNabb will have me over for a delightful little, face to face chat. Unfortunately, that's about as likely as the Eagles shipping him out of town.
3 comments:
Wow Andrew, strong words. I have to say I have always agreed with you on the overrated part, but you may be going over the top. It true that it gets old listening athletes complain about being disrespected these days. He might be a little sensitive to his critics at times, but sometimes Donovan seems to get unjustly criticized.
To say that McNabb is a problem and needs to be traded is crazy. The problem was TO from the beginning. Owens was a problem before the season began and everyone knew it. I remember some conversations with my friend Eddie Abruzzi at that time and the big debate was whether or not to give Owens the contract extension. Looking back, the Eagles were wise not to give him his extension, they may have been better off cutting him before the season even began. TO is a glory hound who will never be satisfied no matter how much they pay him. Even if the contract situation were ironed out, Owens would start up some other controversy next year. Keeping him in favor of McNabb wouldn't solve anything.
To fully respond to all of Andrew's wrong-headedness in this post would be like trying to explain the long-term effects of the Industrial Revolution on a postcard. But there is one point that is so insanely naive, it deserves specific shaming:
So, if Donovan was traded, T.O. would suddenly get along with a new Q? That, Andrew, is a joke.
But the point is this: Andrew, if you think Donny needs to be traded, who do you want in his place?
I assume you have an answer in mind and I'd be curious to know who it is. Big Ben is blissful in Blitzburgh, Dapper Tom is happy in Foxborough, Peyton is pretty much mayor of Indy, Michael Vick is a crappy quarterback, Brett Favre is collecting social securiy, Eli Manning has years of piss-poor passing ahead of him, Carson Palmer's hurt indefinitely, Matt Hasselback is bald, Dunte Culpepper is Donovan's altar ego....
Anyway, you get my point. Who do you think is a better fit?
First, let me address Byner's comments. I don't think the idea of trading McNabb is over the top at all. In fact, I disagree that he wasn't the problem. Yes, Owens is the one who wanted a new contract and when he made that known NcNabb should have piped up and said that T.O. deserves one, particularly because he had far and away the best season of his career with Owens on the team. The conventional perception of McNabb is that he does no wrong and is a great team leader, but I see otherwise and, evidently, so do some of his teammates. I see a guy who wants to be a "team leader" on his, and only his, terms. He made that abundantly clear in the ESPN interview. Go re-read it if you have to.
Mark, I would gladly take Culpepper. If you compare the two QBs' stats in 2004 (the last year they were both healthy for the whole year) Culpepper had 39 Tds, 11 INTs and a rating of 110.9. Meanwhile, McNabb had 31/8/104.7. Culpepper is probably slightly better than McNabb--definitely a better passer--but the only problem is he is coming off of reconstructive knee surgery, which is a wild-card. Furthermore, Culpepper doesn't seem nearly as self-absorbed as McNabb.
That trade will never happen, Mark, but, you know, I'd be happy even with a QB like Hasselbeck or of similar caliber. Would T.O. sing his praises on a weekly basis? No. But, Hasselbeck is rather experienced and is an accurate passer--something McNabb still has yet to become. Given a choice between two upper echelon players (as McNabb is generally perceived) I would choose Owens. He is the type of player that comes along--maybe--every ten years. He is elite at his position and in the entire league. We've already established in earlier debates that McNabb is basically a middle of the pack QB. Who in their right mind would choose an average player over one of the best to ever play the game? Especially when the average player has an incredible ego complex.
Post a Comment