Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: torpid
The only premise that you seem to be able to provide for "choking", was the 2 poor passes for INT's. I've already shown you that INTs aren't a good indicator of choking, as Bradshaw had 3 and won MVP. If you want yards&TDs, ok, Bradshaw had 309 and 2 TDs, McNabb had 357 and 3 TDs. Again, McNabb performed better overall than Bradshaw as MVP of Super Bowl XIV.
What? I am seriously baffled at your debating tatics. I have said about 400,000 times that the stat line means NOTHING AT ALL. Yet you took this to mean that you should quote more stat lines.
You've also said he "should have thrown 5 INTs and fumbled". No, he shouldn't have. The play was dead once his knees hit, why is that hard to understand, so what if it "looks bad"?
So what if it looks bad? Wasn't that my point, that he looked bad? Actually, now that I think about it, NO. That was not my point. My point was that even if it had been a fumble, it wouldn't have mattered much, because his performance at the end is what constitutes a choke. Are you disputing that he looked bad early? You seem to be despite all evidence to the contrary. I am not disputing that he looked quite good in most of the game. You seem to be ignoring that and focusing on the INTs and stat line.
Did the Pats "look bad" when the ground caused the fumble, and the Eagles ran out of the pile with the ball all happy? Who cares if it "looks bad"? Again, all that matters is what the refs say.
Yes, they did look bad. Quite bad in fact. They also looked bad because they couldn't capitalize on the turnovers. Again with the question who cares if it looks bad? Jesus. To you all that matters is stats at the end of the game. I swear you must be a fantasy football junkie.
The other 2 called back INTs was because NE was hit with penalties, why is that hard to understand? If a LB is holding your TE, then that's cheating (i.e. flag) and of course McNAbb had noone else to throw to, hence the called back INT. That's why they don't count. To theorize and say, he shoulda woulda thrown X INTs or Fumbled X times is invalid. That's why there are penalties and rules.
Too bad the penalties had nothing to do with the play because they were ticky tack penalties. Otherwise your argument would have made sense. Are you disputing that McNabb looked bad in the early parts of the game? That has been my one and only point about the interceptions, which really has nothing to do with the main argument, which is that he played poorly at the end and possibly cost them a win.
Your other reason for "choking" was poor and inaccurate throws at times. I gave you a reason for the pass across the middle w/ 45 secs, yet you chose not to respond (I will assume you agree that it was his only option). What other poor decisions do you think he made, specifically aside from the 2 INTs? There were a couple of plays where I thought he should have ran with the ball vs his incomplete passes, but that's hardly choking in comparison to the numbers he put up. Again, how did he "choke"? Let's break it down.
The 45 second pass... what? He clearly intended to make a complete pass. He wasn't trying to throw it away. It is obvious. When you want to throw it away you don't throw it in the middle of the field where it could be intercepted or caught for a loss. He correctly threw it away many other times under pressure, as did Brady.
Other bad decisions? How about passing in the middle of the field for all but one or two plays for the entire last two drives? What about the pass at the end again in the middle of the field? Maybe it's not his fault it was intercepted, but he would have been better off throwing it out of bounds or incomplete. Yeah, it was desperate. But it was still a bad play. That is another part of clock management, BTW. You don't make throws to the middle of the field if they are going to cost you the game when time runs out. Especially if you have time left and more downs.
Facebook
Twitter