Donovan McNabb: Go To Oakland! Case Against McNabb in SF and For Him in Oakland

Joseph BurkeyAnalyst IApril 1, 2010

ARLINGTON, TX - JANUARY 9:  Quarterback Donovan McNabb #5 of the Philadelphia Eagles points in the first quarter against the Dallas Cowboys during the 2010 NFC wild-card playoff game at Cowboys Stadium on January 9, 2010 in Arlington, Texas. (Photo by Jamie Squire/Getty Images)
Jamie Squire/Getty Images

First and foremost, I am a 49ers fan. 

That said, I'm not a Raider hater.  In my dream of dreams, I imagine San Francisco edging out Oakland in the Superbowl. 

Now, as the 49ers find themselves surrounded by hope and show real promise and forward direction, the Raiders are seen with their backs to the wall—desperate to make a game-changing move.

And the correct move is to acquire Donovan McNabb.

As I awoke today, I heard a report that McNabb had been acquired by the Raiders for this year's second and next year's fourth round draft picks.  April-freaking-fools to Raider Nation.

I read about how "McNabb Wants to be a 49er", and I think "Now you want to be a 49er? Now that Smith is about to have a break-out year? Now that Crabtree has signed and proven that his potential is quickly followed by his talent? Now that Gore is a top-five running back? Now that Vernon Davis is a dominant tight end? Now???" 

We don't need you, we don't want you.

I don't care for fair-weather fans, and I certainly see no place on the team for a fair-weather quarterback.

Video Play Button
Videos you might like

A true man should go where he is needed, and the Raiders would sure love to have him (my Nation-thumping friends confirm this.)

Arguments against McNabb to the Raiders center around the state of the Raiders. I'll try to supply a rebuttal for each and every one:

Argument Against—They're not a good enough team.

Rebuttal—That's why a better quarterback is desired, to make it a better team (Duh!)

Argument Against—His salary with Russell's would be too expensive. 

Rebuttal—Restructure Russell's salary like the bench-warmer he deserves to be. If he won't do it, cut him.

Argument Against—McNabb won't mentor the lazy Russell. 

Rebuttal—Russell can, at the very least, learn by watching—although I doubt McNabb is that much of a jerk that he wouldn't take a troubled young quarterback under his wing.

Argument Against—He's too old; he'll get killed on the Raiders. 

Rebuttal—By who? The Chiefs? He's as mobile as he needs to be, and the Raiders line isn't weak—they're just a bit unorganized.  Good leadership cures poor organization and a quarterback should try to be a leader wherever he plays.

Argument Against—The Raiders would be a terrible place for an aging, banged-up, potential future Hall-Of-Famer. 

Rebuttal—Not true, it would be the perfect place.  Not only would he look awesome in silver and black, he could cement his place in Canton by turning the Nation into (Superbowl?) contenders.

Argument Against—He'd be one bad hit away from retirement behind a woeful offensive line. 

Rebuttal—Look at Steve Young; this is football.  The risk on injury is half the fun (I personally was led to super early retirement from the sport, due to said fun), and if the line is such a worry, address it in the draft and via free agency.

Argument Against—Nobody even watches Raiders games. 

Rebuttal—Nobody had a reason to watch, but McNabb could give them a really good reason to start.

Besides, Oakland has great weather, just as good as San Francisco does anyway.

And I really don't want him to go to Arizona.

slash iconYour sports. Delivered.

Enjoy our content? Join our newsletter to get the latest in sports news delivered straight to your inbox!