Quote:
Originally Posted by punch it in
He also had lackluster talent at the wr position for years in Philly. Also Westbrook was a great pass catching rb, but there was no true run game and that makes it very hard to open up the passing game. Yet he did it in a big way. The one year he had TO they went to the superbowl. The guy has thrown for almost 40,000 yards. When he became less mobile he still won alot of games. His career ended ugly and he comes across as a borderline jerk, but at his peak in Philly he was one of the best.
Edit: i guess what im getting at is that I think Mcnabb covered up for alot of inefficiencies on that offense - run game, wr talent. As opposed to the other way around.
|
To be fair, I blame the run game on Reid. He seemed to refuse to commit to it. When he did, Westbrook had some really good rushing games.
As for the whole TO thing. McNabb completed plenty of deep passes without him. As well as they won every playoff game that year that TO did not play in and lost the only one that TO did play in. Having bad WR's wasnt one of McNabbs problems. McNabbs problem was that if you took away the deep game and had LB's that could stop the screen game, The Eagles offense stalled due to the fact that it could only do three things, and Andy Reid was allergic to running the ball, so the Eagles offense only did two things. Reid schemed both into his plays. If McNabb found one or the other, good things happened. Otherwise, not so much. Pick your poison and McNabb posted great stats, able to stop both and McNabb became average at best.