Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Follow PostSports on Twitter and Facebook  |  Newsletters: Redskins and Sports   |  RSS

Donovan McNabb vs. Michael Vick: An easy choice in the offseason

I've been asked this question too many times this week so I decided to answer it. If I had been making the decision for the Redskins last offseason, who would I have taken, Donovan McNabb or Michael Vick? Well, here's your answer, and here's why.

Both guys are incredible players, and contrary to what some say, both are really gifted quarterbacks. So if I had been in the position Bruce Allen was in, I would have taken McNabb for these reasons:

>> McNabb has been a high level professional since being drafted in '99;
>> he has been a class act on and off the field;
>> he has been a dependable player;
>> he has been a consistent player;
>> he has been a leader;
>> he has been a winner;
>> he has proven he can win with limited talent in key positions.

In other words, I know exactly what I'm getting if I make the move to bring McNabb here.

At this point in McNabb's career, it's safe to say that Vick brings more to the table physically. But we didn't see Vick too much last year, and the few times we did, he pretty much ran the ball out of a wildcat set.

These would be my questions looking at Vick:


>> Can he still play at a high level?
>> What type of guy would he be in the locker room and on the field?
>> Can I trust that he will be available?
>> Are we willing to handle all the media that will follow him?

In other words, with all of the misses in free agency we've had, is this the most sensible decision? Would I be making this team better by bringing Vick to this team?

It's easy to say he would have been cheaper, or look at how he's playing now, but at the time, we didn't know much about where Vick was except for on the depth chart which at the time was third behind McNabb and Kolb.

To me it's obvious that Allen and Coach Mike Shanahan want to win now, so the clear choice would be McNabb. He was a safer and a much more practical choice with all things given.

If you had been the GM, whom would you have picked this offseason, McNabb or Vick?

By LaVar Arrington  | September 30, 2010; 2:04 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Week 4 NFL picks
Next: Hard Hits Live: LaVar previews Redskins-Eagles

Comments

vick: younger, cheaper (trade compensation & salary) alternative.

Posted by: PaulK2 | September 30, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I would still take McNabb everyday of the week over Vick...except maybe on Sunday's

Posted by: 20Piece | September 30, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Definitely the incumbent(McNabb). For the same point LaVar hit on. Nobody knew how Vick would pan out, or even if he could become the threat he once was. Even now, sure he looks great, but he plays recklessly and has a history of getting hurt doing just that. McNabb has made the transition of becoming a pure pocket passer and recognizes that being protected by a line is much more comfortable than scrambling all the time and getting banged up. Call it a veteran's craftiness or whatever but you can tell he is going to take care of himself. If I were Andy Reid right now, I would have probably had a coronary watching Vick scramble up the middle. Just my opinion but I would definitely choose Dmac over Vick for safety reasons and his knowledge of the game.

Posted by: willfacc10 | September 30, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

McNabb all day long.

We have yet to see what Vick can do against a top notch defense aside from 1/2 of a game against Green Bay.

Posted by: alex35332 | October 1, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

McNabb! Based on his proven value, leadership, and character. He's got Vick beat in all of those areas.

People sure are fickle...Vick went from third string to demi-God in a few weeks, after barely beating Detroit and beating Jacksonville. I'm not taking away from the fact that he's played well, but he's not reestablished himself as a pro-bowler just yet in my eyes.

Posted by: dcjam2 | October 1, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Vick based on the fact that he is a more dangerous QB. You cannot defend against a guy like him. Not to mention you pick him up for a bargain basement price. McNabb will be gone next season regardless of the Skins record - he doesn't want to play for this team. If he did the ink would have already dried. Vick is going to eat the Skins alive Sunday, and that kills me to think about. Our DBs are just playing like crap, we don't get enough pushup front, and he'll scramble for a few big runs, which will tame the blitz happy D the Skins are running.

Posted by: dwilcox2 | October 1, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Vick based on the fact that he is a more dangerous QB. You cannot defend against a guy like him. Not to mention you pick him up for a bargain basement price. McNabb will be gone next season regardless of the Skins record - he doesn't want to play for this team. If he did the ink would have already dried. Vick is going to eat the Skins alive Sunday, and that kills me to think about. Our DBs are just playing like crap, we don't get enough pushup front, and he'll scramble for a few big runs, which will tame the blitz happy D the Skins are running.

Posted by: dwilcox2 | October 1, 2010 2:21 PM
----------------------------------
ok chicken little...the sky is falling!

Posted by: jcnjcnj | October 1, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

I would take McNabb because of his character and experience over Vick.

But I would have drafted a QB for McNabb to groom. I only want McNabb for 2 years. I dont think he can play at a high level for 3.

Posted by: Gibbs4Pres | October 2, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

QB in the NFL is about more than physical ability and knowledge of the game. It's primarily about being a good leader. Look at the QB's who win: Brees, Manning, Brady - leaders all. Although McNabb hasn't won a superbowl, he is just as good a leader as they are. Also, he has come under more scrutinty -some deserved - and prevailed. Being heavily scrutinezed is something that happens in DC. News is made here. This isn't Boston, Indianapolis or New Orleans. This is the Nations Capital and the Skins are our favorite sons - win or lose. Could Vick take that kind of pressure?

From all I've read, Vick has made a tremendous turnaround - work ethic wise - since his days in Atlanta. McNabb has demonstrated great work ethic since day one in Philly and day one in DC. How many other QB's have "Summer Camps" to get familiar with their Receivers?

Over the past few years - especially during the Zorn "era" the 'Skins were not known for work ethic. Could Vick have turned around - become the player he has been over the last three weeks - if he had come to DC? Possibly, but how much focus would he have to put into leading by example and being a leader - two vastly different things? Jason Campbell led by example...and we saw how that turned out.

Vick leads by ability based on his tremendous skills. The Skins needed the entire package. The Skins needed an experienced leader - not just one who models good behavior and is a suberb performer on Sundays. They needed someone who made decisions and got people on the right page. They needed someone to help them change the culture of the organization. They didn't need a Rypien or a Williams - both winners and by all accounts - nice guys. They needed a Theissman or a Jurgensen - QB's who are extremely confident, capable and ready on day 1, and that's what they got in McNabb.

Posted by: Moneypoet | October 2, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

McNabb. Shanahan would have had Vick on the bench next to Haynesworth and DThomas. Telling us "Vick hasn't shown us anything in practice"...........

Posted by: adjustments_Redskins | October 2, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

McNabb hands down.

Mike Vick has never been a good quarterback - he's a running back who has to throw the ball. Whether in high school, college, or pro football, Vick never made an impact throwing the ball - he always made it by running the ball.

Obviously McNabb has the character intangible though it would be hard to give Vick for any credit on character against anyone.

Vick is a gimmick - one that is one injury away from being a dud. Injure his wheels and force him to pass, and he'll be a third rate backup. Philly has to ride him as long as they can because he's all they have - and if Vick can't run, he is a threat to no one.

Posted by: laserwizard | October 2, 2010 5:18 PM | 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