Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan
I wonder why people make McNabb's age and longevity such an issue, but not Peyton Manning, who is also 34 years old, or Tom Brady who turned 33 years old today?
It's just a little annoying. And as far as injuries go, both Brady and Manning have had their share of injuries, although I think Manning is the probably the most durable of the three.
Point is, if Brady and Manning are about to ink long-term deals with their respective teams, I see no reason why we can't offer the same deference to Donovan McNabb who has had a stellar career in his own right.
|
12th, you can't seriously be suggesting that the injury records of McNabb and Manning/Brady are similar. Manning got sacked 10 times last year. 10. Not only has he yet to miss a game in his career, but he's getting hit less now than ever before. Brady's got a very good health record with the lone exception of the knee injury -- although in his case, he's getting hit more now than at any point of his Pats career.
Plus, I'd imagine that Brady and Manning can both decline physically a little bit before we would even be able to notice that any decline is occurring. McNabb, by all reports, is in excellent shape, but just a little bit of physical decline could be hazardous for his game. He gets hit a lot and relies on his cannon right arm to create a lot of plays. That's not going to age particularly well, just being honest.
The other obvious point here is that Brady and Manning are staying in the same system they've always played in, where experience can really help them overcome a few physical errors. McNabb had that consistency for a very, very long time in Philadelphia, but this next phase of his career takes him further away from the Brady/Manning category than he has ever been before.