Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: dcsportsbog and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Has Donovan McNabb been unclutch?


(By Jonathan Newton - TWP)


Donovan McNabb got the ball at his own 38 yard-line on Sunday, with more than two minutes on the clock and three timeouts in his pocket, needing perhaps 30 20 yards to be in field-goal range. That didn't happen. Instead, the Redskins went 5-yard completion, sack, incompletion, incompletion. Not to go down this road for the millionth time, but I think we all know what the reaction would have been had No. 17 been responsible for that particular drive.

Now, as a card-carrying member of the Jason Campbell Haters Club, I was happy enough to meticulously run through Campbell's performance in clutch situations last season. (And I love Jason Campbell the guy, I just sided with many of his football critics.)

Looking at situations where Campbell got the ball back in tied games or down by one score with less than six minutes remaining in the fourth quarter or in overtime, I found that Campbell was 44-for-86 for 584 yards and two touchdowns in 17 applicable games, not counting spikes and times he got the ball back with virtually no time left. He also had four interceptions, was sacked five times, and fumbled three times. That was good for a 61.4 rating. The Redskins were 4-13 in those games.

McNabb has already had seven chances at such drives with the Redskins, spread out over three games. The seven drives have produced two field goals, one missed field goal, one interception, two punts, and one turnover on downs.

McNabb's numbers in those drives have been, I dare say, Campbellian: 14-22 for 135 yards, with an interception and three sacks. The QB rating? Try a nearly identical 61.7. The Redskins are 1-2 in these games, rallying to beat the Packers while failing to come up in the clutch against the Texans or the Colts.

Krem's Sports also compared McNabb through six games this season to Campbell through six games last season. Might as well add Campbell through six games in 2008, too.

McNabb '10: 78.8 QB rating, 58.1 completion percentage, 1,561 yards, 5 TD, 5 INT, 0 fumbles lost, 3-3 record
Campbell '09: 82.9 QB rating, 65.6 completion percentage, 1,197 yards, 6 TD, 6 INT, 2 fumbles lost, 2-4 record
Campbell '08: 96.2 QB rating, 64.2 completion percentage, 1,262 yards, 6 TD, 0 INT, 0 fumbles lost, 4-2 record

Now I'll go ahead and quote Matt Kremnitzer, who exactly nailed my feelings:

I am in no way trying to say that I'd rather have Campbell as the quarterback of the Redskins than McNabb. McNabb simply brings things to the table that Campbell never will: better pocket presence, a quicker release, the ability to create plays, and being better at throwing deep passes. Simply put, McNabb's career numbers dwarf Campbell's, and McNabb is unquestionably the better quarterback -- not exactly a stunning statement. Still, the Redskins need McNabb to play much better than he has, meaning that he needs to do a better job of hitting open receivers and completing a higher percentage of his passes.

That seems like an accurate paragraph.

(And yes, this headline was just a cheap ploy to get angry comments.)

By Dan Steinberg  | October 19, 2010; 2:24 PM ET
Categories:  Redskins  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Football Insider Live Webcast
Next: LaRon Landry's fumble recovery

Comments

Campbell is somewhere with that lost look on his face with his mouth wide open. Ask a Raider fan how that is working out.

Posted by: davispond | October 19, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Stats are for losers. We would be 0-6 with Captain Checkdown under center. Most underreported story of the year is how Shanahan snookered Al Davis. Shanahan HATES Al Davis. He never would have traded JC to him if he thought he could play at all. Now Raider fans are literally calling for Kyle Boller while JC throws to the flats on 3rd and 8. Meanwhile, the Skins are leading the league in plays over 50 yards.

We are so damn lucky to finally have a real QB under center.

Posted by: MylesMonroe | October 19, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the problems in '08, '09 and '10 had more to do with the 10 guys on offense other than the QB.

Posted by: disgruntledfan | October 19, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe the problems in '08, '09 and '10 had more to do with the 10 guys on offense other than the QB."

That's right, it's never Campbell's fault. It's always the guys around him.

Please. Guy a coach killer. Will be out of the league soon.

Posted by: MylesMonroe | October 19, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

If McNabb would complete a few of those easy mid-game passes, maybe we wouldn't need all those heroics at the end.

Posted by: skins_fan_22 | October 19, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

A real quarterback under center would have spotted Fred Davis wide open on 4th and 10 with the game on the line. A real franchise would have 2 high draft picks in 2011 instead of a quarterback who is consistently inconsistent and on the verge of turning 34 years old in November.

Posted by: pearlbullets | October 19, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

*CORRECTION-The 37th pick in the 2010 draft and a 3rd round pick in 2011

Posted by: pearlbullets | October 19, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Dan,

How does sampling the "first six games" serve as a basis for comparison of two Quarterbacks? Especially when you failed to mention the strength of schedule year to year.

Your argument here is based on Campbell's numbers being slightly better than McNabbs, right?

Mcnabb has faced Dallas (underperforming), Houston (where the defense blew the game after a stellar McNabb performance), Rams (much improved, just beat SD), and then the Eagles, Packers, and Colts all of which are tough opponents.

Campbell faced a cupcake Giants team (needed Osi to score to win), Rams (terrible at time), Detroit (Terrible at time), Tampa (terrible at time), Carolina (terrible at time), and Kansas City(terrible at time).

Offense under Mcnabb put up 113 points through first 6 in 2010.

Offense under Campbell put up 79 points through first 6 in 2009.

I would argue that McNabb has done a BETTER job against TOUGHER opponents to outshine Campbell, who never would've made the deep throw required to beat Green Bay. McNabb has also been a master at avoiding sacks to give his team a chance when Campbell would've been on the ground.

Posted by: jamieflo | October 19, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

He always HAS been unclutch...why would he be different now ?

Didn't you watch him play for the last 11 years ?

Posted by: petebowling1 | October 19, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Finally a critical look at McNabb's performance. I agree with you and Kremnitzer that it's better having McNabb as the quarterback but that he has to play much better. I do take exception to one point that you two make - that McNabb throws a great deep ball. Yeah, I know that going into the game on Sunday he was leading the league in the number of long pass completions, but I think that he has misfired on way too many long throws. Look at the two on Sunday where Armstrong had his guy beat by two steps and Banks had at least a step on his defenders and neither of the throws even had a shot. He also missed a clutch throw to a very open Joey Galloway at the goal line late in the Texans game that would have iced a victory. Even the TD completion to Armstrong in the Packers game was more the result of Armstrong making a great adjustment on an underthrown ball. What particularly frustrates me is the number of deep balls down the sideline where he's not kept the ball in the field of play to even give his receiver a chance of making a play on the ball.
I know that statistics don't tell the whole story but they do tell something. I'm hoping that his mediocre start isn't telling us that he is starting to enter the downside of his career. This is the last year of his contract and he has indicated that he is worthy of compensation as an "elite" quarterback, considering himself to be closer to the range of Peyton or Brady. Right now, I think at best he's more in the range of the middle of the pack guys. My concern is that the Redskins are going to way overpay to keep him around for three or four years and if he is indeed on the downside,they are going to be burdened with a huge contract for a quarterback who isn't very productive. I'm hoping that his performance thus far is the result of still getting accustomed to a new system, but I'm nervous where it leaves us if it's not.

Posted by: willypops | October 19, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

I'm also incredibly frustrated with McNabb. He makes some damn good plays, then throws in some horrible, bone-headed plays, leaving a real mixed bag. Of course, comparing him to Campbell is a pointless exercise. I'd much rather have McNabb than Campbell. However, I'd also rather have at least 10 other starting NFL QBs than McNabb.

And I suspect that Shanny's view is pretty similar. Not a bad idea to pick up McNabb for this season, but I'm sure we'll be drafting an early round QB next year and/or trying to pick up another QB free agent. McNabb's liabilities are just too big and come awfully close to negating his assets.

Posted by: gringoinmiami | October 19, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

The past six games have been emblamatic of McNabbs entire career: great at times and incredibly frustrating at others. He makes the SAME mistakes over and over...there's never a progression. He is a good NFL QB with a big upside, but don't kid yourselves, Reid gave up for a reason.

Posted by: dbunkr | October 19, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Didn't the Skins set a record last season for facing winless teams in something absurd like each of their first 5 or 6 games?

I like stats and think this post and agree in general, but that is a pretty glaring omission.

Posted by: Dancy1 | October 19, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

There's no question that McNabb is much better than Campbell and gives te Skins a greater chance of winning.

There's also no question that up until this point in this season McNabb has been mediocre at best and that he has disappeared at key moments. The pass he is getting for that atrocious performance on the final drive against Indy is amazing. The game was tree for the taking and he took us 3 and out. THAT was the situation he was brought here for. Unless he starts playing better this team has no chance.

Posted by: thediesel | October 19, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

I would rather have Kevin Kolb, if Bruce Allen is smart, he will not resign McNabb.

Posted by: TheSmurfs | October 19, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Just get the man a receiver taller than a gerbil.

Posted by: jburnetti | October 19, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

I was not angry with your blog. I totally agree with you. Mcnabb have to step it up.

Posted by: rayjay1 | October 19, 2010 11:44 PM | Report abuse

if u want to critique and knitpick..

There are a lot of things in the game that needs to be pointed out besides Mcnabb. Mcnabb had a lot more positives in this game than negatives... it's just unfortunate some people have to the QB when the game is on the line...

Loook at Peyton Manning... he looked pretty human in the last 5minutes of the game... he could have closed the game for good, but went on a scoring drought...

Mcnabb is a really good QB. Better than 3/4 of the starters in this league. He's going to have his moments especially when the O-line can't gets man handled by Freeney & Co. There were also some dropped or catchable passes dropped in the critical minutesof the game.

We lost as a team... Couldnt keep up with one of the best offenses in the league.. and the best QB playing the game. It happens... let it go. And stop pointing ur finger at Mcnabb. He's done a helluva job thus far.

Posted by: regxjin | October 20, 2010 12:09 AM | Report abuse

go ez on mcnabb people...maybe if cooley catches that easy ball in the flat that was dropped or if the o-line and running backs could pass protect a little longer. maybe if the defense could get off the field a few more times and give the offense more chances.

dmcnabb should definitely be resigned...who else are u going to get??? tony romo?

this team is so much better than the last 18 years. we won 4 games last year. and they've only been together for 6 games.

Posted by: boricuabopper | October 20, 2010 12:47 AM | Report abuse

go ez on mcnabb people...maybe if cooley catches that easy ball in the flat that was dropped or if the o-line and running backs could pass protect a little longer. maybe if the defense could get off the field a few more times and give the offense more chances.

dmcnabb should definitely be resigned...who else are u going to get??? tony romo?

this team is so much better than the last 18 years. we won 4 games last year. and they've only been together for 6 games. and they've played some pretty good teams and have been smart and competitive in all of the games.

Posted by: boricuabopper | October 20, 2010 12:48 AM | Report abuse

Galloway hasn't been helping him out, either. Neither has Cooley's and Moss's 2 unexplained drops per game.

The thing is, QB is over-rated. McNabb makes amazing plays. He misses open guys sometimes. Whatever.

Unless you're Peyton Manning, you're a guy distributing the ball fairly accurately.

O Line, Scheme, Defense, Running game, Team Chemistry are all important.

I hope people didn't really think McNabb was going to make us better. I'm just glad we didn't mortgage our future on Sam Bradford, who would probably be hurt by now.

PS - I like Campbell. I think his confidence is shot now. He looked like hammered dung in Oakland last weekend. Tom Cable is a moron. His receivers stink. And everybody knows all they have is Bush. The O Line is the worst I've EVER seen, and I've been watching the Redskins the last two years. Yes, they are worse than we were last year. A most painfully boring team to watch. The Oakland / 49er game last weekend made me wish there were a soccer game on. Or even a cribbage tournament.

Posted by: Thinker_ | October 20, 2010 1:27 AM | Report abuse

OH, and PPS - WTF are you talking about "McNabb needs to play better?!" He IS who we THOUGHT he was. He's not gonna just start "playing better" because we'd like him to!

If that were the case, we should have just yelled at Campbell to "play better!"

"Play better, starting right NOW!"

"Ready... GO!"

"Better!"

Needs to play better, lol!

Good point. That's all it is. The guy isn't unclutch... If only he could play better, though.

Maybe we can bring Zorn back and tell him to Coach Better.

McNabb aint getting better. Campbell had better numbers and look at our team last year. I'd say, by that measure, McNabb IS playing as better as he can.

Posted by: Thinker_ | October 20, 2010 1:32 AM | Report abuse

PPPS - Dont talk bad about McNabb!

PPPPS - Campbell Sucks!

Posted by: Thinker_ | October 20, 2010 1:34 AM | Report abuse

Oaklands line is not that bad. Teams just bring the house when JC is under center because they know he doesn't see the whole field and won't make them pay. Seriously, enough with the excuses.

Posted by: MylesMonroe | October 20, 2010 1:41 AM | Report abuse

all you McNabb haters obviously have forgotten the skins of the last 10 years - we sucked!!! there was no O-line, defense was rare, our special plays prodcued squat and boy, don't get me started about the quarterback! but now we actually have a bonafide quaterback that makes plays, that have the stands filled up till the last two mimutes of the last quarter; are we better off than we we were at this time last season? how about two seasons? Hell yeah, how about the 8-9 seasons before that?? so you idiots should watch the game and then watch the games the skins were in the last 10 years. give McNabb a break, something will happen soon, we'll win more games and lose some but i think we're definitely going to be better than last season. and then watch out for 2012, 'cos we're going to be contenders!

Posted by: eddypotomac | October 20, 2010 2:55 AM | Report abuse

I have never posted but have read comments & this is what I'll say, this is a transition year for this team; take a look at your freakin roster overall & realize that this isnt a very good team to begin with, your fortunate to be 3-3 so can it with the McNabb BS. I'm starting to notice some similarities with Eagle fans now, you want to be labeled with that unclassy ungrateful bunch? By all means keep it up & you will; McNabb doesn't have much to work with on his offense I mean jeez the line hasn't blocked effectively & consistently through all the games save th Texans game which given time McNabb was lights out; he doesn't have a big game receiver & the ones he has are close to past their prime & the others unproven. The RBs are influx, overall running game has been subpar & sporadic at best; the defense leads the league giving up over 420+ yards a game, can't get off the field & can barely get to the QB! You have a new head coach, new D coordinator, new O coordinator & new QB who really isnt familiar or has gelled with this whole bunch & yet your b!tching about McNabb's play; I followed Donovan his whole career & am a huge Donovan fan & yes I will admit he could play much better BUT I didn't really expect much consider the leve of talent & the mess Cerrato & Snyder left for Shanahan to work with; Redskins didnt have much to work with draft wise picking up a 1st round talent save an offensive lineman so with that being said WTF are you b!tching about? Redskin fans are fortunate to be 3-3 with a chanc to go 4-3 this Sunday BUT its going to fall on the defense NOT McNabb. If this team's defense could stop giving up big plays running & passing they could be 4-2 or 5-1 despite McNabb's play. Look at McNabb's season with Jackson, Maclin, Celek & McCoy last season with the Eagles; despite the Eagles pathetic defense he led the team to an 11-5 record and one of his best passing seasons in years with 3900+ yards & 22 TDs with 9 Ints! Are you fukkin kidding me and your b!tching about him; remember he was comfortable with the offensive system with the Eagles for 11 years too so for him he wasn't playing as inconsistent as he is now because WHY? He's with a new team & new scheme so its going to take awhile to adjust; the same can be said for the defense! They played & ranked better last year than this year BUT now that they have adjusted you see SOME improvements (Landry) but on the flipside you see some glaring weaknesses as well. Of course Manning & Brady are going to be playing well & blah blah blah; who's the fukkin team they're playing on? The SAME fukkin team & system they've been playing in their whole effing careers so their's no adjustment or transition they have to go through; be patient ppl! Its gonna take time AND some more talent offensively before Donovan can be more consistent. Despite his inconsistent play this team could still make the playoffs, consider all the other intangibles he has brought to this team and be grateful, stop b!tching!

Posted by: bigrele | October 20, 2010 3:24 AM | Report abuse

Why are we talking about McNabbs performance???????????

Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????

Our defense is ranked dead last!!!!!!!!!!!

DEAD LAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I sincerely hope Shanahan is looking for a new defensive coordinator. The offense has improved this year. The defense however has reached Chilean Miner status!!!

Posted by: skins91r | October 20, 2010 4:21 AM | Report abuse

Oaklands line is not that bad. Teams just bring the house when JC is under center because they know he doesn't see the whole field and won't make them pay. Seriously, enough with the excuses.

Posted by: MylesMonroe | October 20, 2010 1:41 AM

Dude. Gradkowski is out with a separated shoulder. Campbell has been beaten like a rag doll. Take Raiders' fans words for it:

http://justblogbaby.com/2010/09/13/oakland-offensive-line-is-downright-offensive/

OR...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/473314-oakland-raiders-offense-2010-what-is-the-problem-with-the-offensive-line

So, basically, shut your hole.
I'm not making excuses for anybody. I'd LOVE to see Tom Brady behind Oakland's line, believe me. You wanna see Giselle cry?

A bad O Line is a bad O Line. Ours is... OK. Which is a HUGE upgrade over last year. Oakland's line is worse than our line last year. I know. I watch the games.

By the way, just because you "bring the house" doesn't mean somebody sux. We "brought the house" on Peyton Manning and he's the best QB ever, hands down, no discussion. It's easy to bring the house when there is no rushing attack to worry about. (as is the case in Oakland and was the same HERE last year when Quinton Ganther was starting)

By the way, Rock Cartwright blocked a punt last week.

Tune in, Loudmouth. You might actually see why your foot is ankle-deep in your pie hole.

I'm surprised you didn't say that all we need is for McNabb to play a little bit better.

ding dong

Posted by: Thinker_ | October 20, 2010 6:03 AM | Report abuse

Just like someone said on this blog, The Deadskins should be an 0'fer. The Cowsills game was a gift by the dumbest coach in the NFL. McNabb did zero in that game. The Eagles game was a gift from Andy Reid "Time out on the 1 yard line anyone???" McNabb stunk in that game also - 8 completions??? Eagles are happy with Nate Allen BTW - former number 2 Deadskins pick. Let see how well McNabb does without Cooley (he's Chad Lewis and Brent Celek in a Deadskins Uni).

Posted by: Dog-1 | October 20, 2010 7:32 AM | Report abuse

Our shotty O-line and our suspect defense are causes for WAY MORE concern than Mcnabb's relatively steady & leadership play.

Seriously... are u really complaining about Mcnabb???? I mean.. really??? Have you forgotten the past 10 years of the unstable QB play??? We finally get a competent QB who could possibly take us back to relevancy... and you're knitpicking at his very few flaws??

The game was close..
We stayed competitive right to the very end. And we just lost to an elite team.
And that was do to a lot of factors.. which one is having Mcnabb at QB.

Do you remember the game against the Patriots where the score was like.. 40something to 3....? SOmething to rejog the minds of all the knitpicking haters...

Posted by: regxjin | October 20, 2010 7:35 AM | Report abuse

The main reason I liked McNabb as the Eagles QB was his ability to routinely throw the ball into the ground on third down passes.

Now, Redskin's fans get the joy of watching some amazing punt coverage.

Posted by: clandestinetomcat | October 20, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Rankings that matter (http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics):

Skin Pass Offense- 8th
Skin Rush Offense- 21st
Skin Offense overall- 11th

Skin Pass Defense- 31st
Skin Rush Defense- 26th
Skin Defense Overall- 32nd

In short, if rest of the team could catch up with the pass offense lead by McNabb, we will be 8th team in NFL going into NFC Championship game.

Posted by: SeedofChange | October 20, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

An Eagles fan was to happy to provide the below in thanking the Redskins for taking McNabb off their hands:

Eagles the past 7 years (excluding this year) are 4-18-1 in games decided by 5 points or less.

During one span, they went 3-1. Remarkably, Jeff Garcia was the starting quarterback.

Posted by: clorenz33 | October 20, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Its not McNabb. His passing game is on the money. McNabb needs a few receivers that can actually catch the ball. The number of dropped balls is costing games.

Posted by: pwhitedc2 | October 20, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Campbell was a total loser, that is without question now. McNabb was a very good QB who at this point of his career is playing okay.. but not by any means great. Problem is McNabb is on the downside of his career so can't say I see a future with him. He's fine this year maybe next but Skins need to draft a QB of the future in 2011 cause by 2012 we will need a new starter...

Posted by: sovine08 | October 20, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

It is unfair to compare the career numbers of two players with a 7-year difference in experience. Instead, compare Cambell and McNabb at similar points in their careers. You may be shocked to find that Campbell was better and he had less talent to work with.

www.coutertrey.blogspot.com

Posted by: skinsfan1010 | October 20, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

This is why McNabb will never be a great QB. He tends to under perform in games. His accuracy is average. And not really sure if ever changes the play at the line? With McNabb, you feel good about a last minute drive until it stalls and then you realize, he's just not someone you can't count on in the final two minutes, or big game. I can recall the Eagles having the lead with about 4 min to go in the game and he threw a quick out that was intercepted and returned for a TD or was inside the 20 under 20 seconds without any time outs, and he threw over the middle where the receiver was tackled for 5 yard gain but the clock ran out(Eagles needed a TD to win). And this wasn't during his rookie year, this was after he'd been in the league for more then 5 years. Each year you kept thinking, this was the year, only to be let down. Yeah, the Redskins are a better team then last year, but looking at each game played to date, they could just as easily be 0-6(thanks to 3 coaching blunders, Dallas not kneel down before half, Eagles not take a delay of game before half and GB kick a FG on 4th and goal). Also, I don't see McNabb staying in Washington after this year, even though Dan will probably throw lots of money his way. I look for him to go to either Arizona(his home) or Minnesota(more weapons, better SB chance and his old offensive Coord is head coach).

Posted by: larry40 | October 20, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Six games - 16 games - 12 years. It doesn't matter. Donovan McNabb is not a winner. He led the Eagles to five NFC Chammpionship games and won once. His only Super Bowl appearance ended with him puking in the huddle and not having the ability to lead the Eagles to a win. Take a look into his eyes during the last 2 minutes - he looked scared. When will the love for McNabb finally disappear? The Eagles dumped him for a guy with no experience and another who threw more passes in prison over the past three years. Before you all say he beat the Eagles - HE DIDN'T! Going 2 for 11 in the 2nd half doesn't count as leading a team to victory. If McNabb was a star QB the 'Skins would arguably be 6-0...Forget the past people, his career is on the downside. He couldn't win with a better team in Philly what makes you think he can win here? He can't. The Redskins need a QB with courage and balls and one who can complete a pass.

Posted by: hollywoodg1 | October 20, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Lately there has been a debate about what McNabb is worth to the Redskins going forward. Now part of the problem is McNabb is overhyped (and there really isn’t any question about that). The other problem is that the Redskins invested a lot to get McNabb, and they can’t just let him walk away this offseason and get nothing in return. Which unfortunately gives McNabb a ton of leverage, as does the fact that teams will always overpay for quarterbacks (see Matt Cassel).

To read the rest of my friend Steve's article on McNabb's next contract check out: http://fanspeak.com/steveospeak/2010/10/20/mcnabbs-next-contract/

Posted by: bmurph24 | October 20, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

I agree with you completely. McNabb has helped, but he has in no way lived up to expectations. He under and over throws the short passes much too often. Now given, he has a weak offensive line, but there were too many times he was out of the pocket and could have, should have thrown it away rather than take the sack.

And for Jason Campbell, he was simply thrown to the wolves. From Auburn to the Redskins, he went through 8 different offenses, and that is not fair to any quarterback. Then you send him to a more hapless team like Oakland; well I just pity the guy.

Many of you may be too young to remember the Jurgensen and Kilmer feuds, and I remain convinced to this day, if Jurgensen did not tear his Achilles tendon in 1972, the Redskins would have beaten Miami in that Super bowl. After all, the next year against the same Miami team Jurgensen came in a scored the winning touchdown with 1.38 left in the game. I wonder how many of you out there remember those games?

Winning is what counts, and if we win, then so goes McNabb. If we don’t, well don’t expect any contract extension any time soon.

A Die Hard Redskin Fan!

Posted by: JS00031 | October 20, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

I believe that McNaab was brought in for the reasons stated in this article. Someone who can perform in the clutch. I for one am not surprised that he is not getting it done. He sucks. The McNaab experiment will soon implode. Count on it.

Posted by: theBozyn | October 20, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Soup's 2010 rating: 61.1 (31st). He outchoked Alex Smith (73.9/27th) last game w/ a 10.7 rating. McNabb (78.8/24th), 67.5 last game.

Posted by: Realness1 | October 20, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

I give you 'skins fans a lot of credit. It took you less than 6 games to understand the frustration that we Philly fans endured for years. It wasn't until the Super Bowl loss that we started to understand that he won't change.

You'll feel our pain every trip into the red zone. McNabb did wonders for David Akers' stats, as he got a field goal almost every time the Eagles got it down there. You're only hope is for the running game to take over in those situations.

Posted by: eugkim | October 21, 2010 12:11 AM | Report abuse

Ha! The frustration you Philly fans felt for years huh? I suppose McNabb played for your worthless franchise all the years there has been a Superbowl too huh? Your pathetic Eagles have NEVER won a Superbowl & NEVER will with the pitiful front office you have now & the ones before it; I suppose you weren't frustrated when Jaworksi was QB either huh? Or Cunningham? Or Hoying? Or Peete? Or Detmer & so on; the Eagles & their fans are beyond laughable & always have been; the only problem I have with McNabb is that he shouldn't have WASTED 11 years of his career with such an inept ungrateful organization & their worthless ungrateful undeserving fans. It gives me GREAT pleasure knowing they have no Superbowls & are STARVED for a championship celebration they will NEVER see lmao!!!! McNabb wasted all those years trying to give a championship to a city that doesn't deserve it and I'm beginning to see some of the Deadskin fans are going to be among those I'll be wishing for no more success as well you ungrateful fukking pukes! Takes more than a great Qb's effort, it also takes talent on BOTH sides of the ball; you wanna complain about something b!tch about that 32nd ranked league leading defense that couldnt stop a freakin junior high football team you dumb fukks!

Posted by: bigrele | October 21, 2010 3:46 AM | Report abuse

Let's rank the league QBs and see where we stand:

1. Peyton
2. Tom Brady
3. Brees
4. Big Ben
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
After those 4, it gets tougher because the remaining QBs have yet to prove much.(no Favre cause he's gone after this year) I would rank it as:
5. ARODG
6. Rivers
7-9. Sanchize/Flacco/Ryan (order TBD)
10.Mcnabb or Romo????????

I love the Redskins and feel as though no one was more unclutch then JCAM. Mcnabb is better than Campbell by a mile, and I will always feel more comfortable with #5 at QB. I think the verdict is still out on Romo, though he has shown the signs of the dreaded "unclutchness" disease

Posted by: thelizardking175 | October 21, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Let's rank the league QBs and see where we stand:

1. Peyton
2. Tom Brady
3. Brees
4. Big Ben
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
After those 4, it gets tougher because the remaining QBs have yet to prove much.(no Favre cause he's gone after this year) I would rank it as:
5. ARODG
6. Rivers
7-9. Sanchize/Flacco/Ryan (order TBD)
10.Mcnabb or Romo????????

I love the Redskins and feel as though no one was more unclutch then JCAM. Mcnabb is better than Campbell by a mile, and I will always feel more comfortable with #5 at QB. I think the verdict is still out on Romo, though he has shown the signs of the dreaded "unclutchness" disease

Posted by: thelizardking175 | October 21, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company