Peyton Manning Rumors: Donovan McNabb Says Redskins Won't Pursue Colts QB
Only Donovan McNabb can be so right and so wrong all at the same time. After hearing his comments regarding Peyton Manning and the Washington Redskins, it's clear that McNabb's self confidence is not hindered by his 1-4 record in the NFC Championship Game.
McNabb did an interview with ESPN 980 in Washington recently. A notable opinion was taken away by Nate Davis of USA Today.
"Peyton's not gonna go there...
I don't see Peyton ending up in Washington. Because what happens is now you're bringing in another veteran who will be 35, 36, who's been in one offense throughout his career—it's the same situation [as McNabb in 2010]."
Let's start with the positive. McNabb is partially right. Manning and the Redskins are not an especially good fit and both parties would be better off looking in other directions.
Now that that's out of the way, there's one small problem with his comments—McNabb is, and never has been, anywhere near Manning's level. In his prime, Manning was a transcendent quarterback and one of the best the game had ever seen. At best, McNabb enjoyed two years where he was a top-five active QB.
Saying that Manning going to the Redskins would be the "same situation" as his trial run really ruins the entire argument. While there are similarities, objective proof also exists suggesting that these moves would be nowhere near on par with each other.
McNabb's final season in Philadelphia was 2009, so let's take a look at how the Eagles did that year vs. how they fared in 2010 with McNabb out of town.
|2009||11-5 (Won NFC Wild Card)||L-34-14 at Dallas. NFC Wild Card Round|
|2010||10-6 (Won NFC East)||L-21-16 vs. Green Bay Packers. NFC Wild Card Round|
The one-game difference is more than made up for by the fact that the 2009 Eagles were blown out in the playoffs against a team that was crushed the following week. The 2010 Eagles lost a close game to the Green Bay Packers, who went on to win the Super Bowl.
In other words, the Eagles were just as good with McNabb as they were without him.
Just in case any of you have short-term memories, take a look at how the Colts' 2010 season with Manning stacks up to the 2011 season, when he didn't play.
|2010||10-6 (Won AFC South)||L-17-16 vs. New York Jets. AFC Wild Card Round|
|2011||2-14 (Last Place, NFC South)||N/A. Missed Playoffs and had NFL's worst record|
Without McNabb, the Eagles barely missed a beat. When Manning missing a season, the Colts went from being one of the NFL's elite teams to a laughingstock.
If Peyton Manning went to the Redskins, would they be better in 2012 than they were in 2010 with McNabb?
The numbers prove that comparing McNabb's situation to one that Manning would face is asinine.
The reason the Redskins need to avoid Manning is that they need to find a real franchise quarterback. Remember, this is a franchise that won three Super Bowls in 10 years with three different men under center.
Now, they're not winning Super Bowls or even making the playoffs. The NFC East was won by a 9-7 team and the Redskins weren't even close to competing. They need to bring in a guy to lead the team in the future, not for a year or two.
Let's take a step back and really compare the careers of the two quarterbacks.
|Comp. %||Yards||TD||INT||Rating||W-L Record|
|Peyton Manning||64.9 %||54,828||399||198||94.9||141-67|
|Donovan McNabb||59 %||37,276||234||117||85.6||98-62-1|
McNabb only betters Manning in interceptions and that is partially because he played in less games. In all other areas, including winning percentage, Manning wins out.
If you want to say that Manning would not be a good fit in Washington, fine. But if you want to make that argument and use McNabb's failed tenure as a reason why, keep trying.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?