Rush Limbaugh Was Right

Slate (Of all places) ^ | 10/2/03 | Allen Barra

[William McKinley]

In his notorious ESPN comments last Sunday night, Rush Limbaugh said he never thought the Philadelphia Eagles' Donovan McNabb was "that good of a quarterback."

If Limbaugh were a more astute analyst, he would have been even harsher and said, "Donovan McNabb is barely a mediocre quarterback." But other than that, Limbaugh pretty much spoke the truth. Limbaugh lost his job for saying in public what many football fans and analysts have been saying privately for the past couple of seasons.

Let's review: McNabb, he said, is "overrated ... what we have here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well—black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well."

"There's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Let's take the football stuff first. For the past four seasons, the Philadelphia Eagles have had one of the best defenses in the National Football League and have failed to make it to the Super Bowl primarily because of an ineffective offense—an offense run by Donovan McNabb. McNabb was a great college quarterback, in my estimation one of the best of the '90s while at Syracuse. (For the record, I helped persuade ESPN Magazine, then called ESPN Total Sports, to put him on the cover of the 1998 college-football preview issue.) He is one of the most talented athletes in the NFL, but that talent has not translated into greatness as a pro quarterback.

McNabb has started for the Eagles since the 2000 season. In that time, the Eagles offense has never ranked higher than 10^th in the league in yards gained. In fact, their 10^th-place rank in 2002 was easily their best; in their two previous seasons, they were 17^th in a 32-team league. They rank 31^st so far in 2003.

In contrast, the Eagles defense in those four seasons has never ranked lower than 10^th in yards allowed. In 2001, they were seventh; in 2002 they were fourth; this year they're fifth. It shouldn't take a football Einstein to see that the Eagles' strength over the past few seasons has been on defense, and Limbaugh is no football Einstein, which is probably why he spotted it.

The news that the Eagles defense has "carried" them over this period should be neither surprising nor controversial to anyone with access to simple NFL statistics—or for that matter, with access to a television. Yet, McNabb has received an overwhelming share of media attention and thus the credit. Now why is this?

Let's look at a quarterback with similar numbers who also plays for a team with a great defense. I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson one of the best quarterbacks in pro football—which is how McNabb is often referred to. In fact, I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson, on the evidence of his 10-year NFL career, much more than mediocre. Yet, Johnson's NFL career passer rating, as of last Sunday, is 7.3 points higher than McNabb's (84.8 to 77.5), he has completed his passes at a higher rate (61.8 percent to 56.4 percent), and has averaged significantly more yards per pass (6.84 to 5.91). McNabb excels in just one area, running, where he has gained 2,040 yards and scored 14 touchdowns to Johnson's 467 and seven. But McNabb has also been sacked more frequently than Johnson—more than once, on average, per game, which negates much of the rushing advantage.

In other words, in just about every way, Brad Johnson has been a more effective quarterback than McNabb and over a longer period.

And even if you say the stats don't matter and that a quarterback's job is to win games, Johnson comes out ahead. Johnson has something McNabb doesn't, a Super Bowl ring, which he went on to win after his Bucs trounced McNabb's Eagles in last year's NFC championship game by a score of 27-10. The Bucs and Eagles were regarded by everyone as having the two best defenses in the NFL last year. When they played in the championship game, the difference was that the Bucs defense completely bottled up McNabb while the Eagles defense couldn't stop Johnson.

In terms of performance, many NFL quarterbacks should be ranked ahead of McNabb. But McNabb has represented something special to all of us since he started his first game in the NFL, and we all know what that is.

Limbaugh is being excoriated for making race an issue in the NFL. This is hypocrisy. I don't know of a football writer who didn't regard the dearth of black NFL quarterbacks as one of the most important issues in the late '80s and early '90s. (The topic really caught fire after 1988, when Doug Williams of the Washington Redskins became the first black quarterback to win a Super Bowl.)

So far, no black quarterback has been able to dominate a league in which the majority of the players are black. To pretend that many of us didn't want McNabb to be the best quarterback in the NFL because he's black is absurd. To say that we shouldn't root for a quarterback to win because he's black is every bit as nonsensical as to say that we shouldn't have rooted for Jackie Robinson to succeed because he was black. (Please, I don't need to be reminded that McNabb's situation is not so difficult or important as Robinson's—I'm talking about a principle.)

Consequently, it is equally absurd to say that the sports media haven't overrated Donovan McNabb because he's black. I'm sorry to have to say it; he is the quarterback for a team I root for. Instead of calling him overrated , I wish I could be admiring his Super Bowl rings. But the truth is that I and a great many other sportswriters have chosen for the past few years to see McNabb as a better player than he has been because we want him to be.

Rush Limbaugh didn't say Donovan McNabb was a bad quarterback because he is black. He said that the media have overrated McNabb because he is black, and Limbaugh is right. He didn't say anything that he shouldn't have said, and in fact he said things that other commentators should have been saying for some time now. I should have said them myself. I mean, if they didn't hire Rush Limbaugh to say things like this, what they did they hire him for? To talk about the prevent defense?

[William McKinley]

I happen to agree with this comment by Robert A. George earlier today:

I'm not feeling sorry for Rush today (the drug story aside, which seems like a cheap shot). He did what what we hate in liberals: Gratuitously introducing race in a discussion where it doesn't belong. McNabb may be over or he may not be. Some columnists have compared his first few years' stats favorably with John Elway. Others suggest that he makes poor decisions and doesn't have great arm strength. That is not the question here. The issue is whether there is some media reticence to call him ove because he is black. Limbaugh introduced this element with no supporting evidence (the NFL's idiotic minority-hiring policy is a separate issue). Hey, some people think Jake Plummer (formerly Arizona QB, now with Denver) is over , but a discussion of his abilities focuses on his stats, not his color.

But this article is right as well. The drug stuff, we'll know more later. Good people get hooked on drugs (which is one reason they are illegal- if they weren't so dangerous and addictive and destructive then there would be no reason for them to be illegal). But the football comment stuff is just silly. Rush was dumb for injecting race into the discussion, but that is mitigated by the fact that he happens to be right on his comment; the problem is that people don't look to sports for reality, but rather for an idealized fantasy of how things should be. Or how we would like to think them to be.

But commenting on an affirmative-action mindset within the media is NOT racism. It may not be smart or wise for a conservative commentator masquerading as a football analyst to delve into, but it is not indicative of any sort of racial bigotry.

And it is not wrong for conservatives to rally around a man being strung up by a rabid, results oriented media lynching.

[Support Free Republic]

I would like to take a moment to ask for donations.

It should be clear to all conservatives by now that the left intends to demonize us. They don't just disagree with us, they hate us. And worse, they want to get other people to hate us.

Places like Free Republic drive the left batty.

Please donate. Thanks for your consideration.

[jwalsh07]

William, it's much easier to rally about a man who is holding his ground and fighting rather than one who is resigning.

Now, perhaps he resigned because this drug thing came up and he felt he couldn't fight the war on two fronts but until we hear from Rush, there's no way of knowing.

[Ichneumon]

I'm not a sports geek: What the heck does "ove" mean?

[William McKinley]

Please don't take this the wrong way, because I don't mean to snap at allies.

But don't you think that less than 24 hours is way too short of a timeframe to say someone is not fighting and just resigning? Yes, he stepped down at ESPN, but let's be honest- he was probably fired and given a chance to resign instead. As for the rest of the response, just because we now live in a 24/7 media hurricane, doesn't mean that it isn't wise to step back and think for a while before deciding what's the best way to fight.

One thing that always irritates me with politics is how everyone demands answers right now for everything. When in history has that ever been the wise way to respond to things?

We are conservatives. We should appreciate more than anyone else deliberative, careful, and well-thought out responses.

[staytrue]

I happen to think Rush is wrong. The NFL wants name players to promote. The NFL was rooting for Tim Couch to succeed along with McNab because they were high profile names. Kelly Holcomb may be better than either, but is not a big name.

But the reason Rush is really wrong is because we on the right hate it when we are accused of racism. Bob Ehrlich was called a Nazi in 2002, Dan Issa was called a Nazi in 2003. Both were wrongly accused. And here, Rush called the NFL brass, affirmative action, pro black bigots. And he did it without much proof if any to back him up. It is almost as if he pulled a "Jesse Jackson" where he gins up a racism issue where there is none.

If you are going to call some one racist, either pro or anti black, you should have a lot of evidence to back it up.

[William McKinley]

It means that I need to have the Admin Moderator fix what got screwed up. I think it meant overrated.

Maybe it was like the Fonz trying to say he was wrong.

"McNabb is ove...ove....ove........."

[Ol' Sparky]

The fact the Eagles ranked only 10th in offense last year wasn't because of McNabb. They had no legitimate deep threat at receiver and medicore running back. Depsite that, the still ranked third in the NFL in point scored last year, largely because of McNabb. He isn't a great quarterback, but he is a very good one.

There are racial double standards in sports. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out. But, I don't agree McNabb is an example of that.

[William McKinley]

If you search in forum, you will find that earlier today I tended to agree with the stance you just took.

This article convinced me I was wrong. (I guess that means I think you are wrong now)

[William McKinley]

I think McNabb is better than average. Kinda like Brad Johnson, for that matter.

But if someone disagreed, and thought he is not good and that he was considered to be one of the best for other reasons, should such a person be considered racist for thinking so?

[okie01]

You're right. Rush could've said simply that "Donovan McNabb is overrated." True and undeniable statement.

But I would argue that it was not the injection of "skin color" into the issue that got him. It was the injection of "the media" attitudes...

[Archie Bunker on steroids]

From CBS sportsline & the hypocrisy of the media

if ESPN is going to come down on Limbaugh for his comments -- you know his resignation was forced with a foot out the door -- they should watch closely what Bryan Cox says, too. Cox has said several times that Falcons linebacker Keith Brooking isn't nearly as good as people think and that the only reason he gets the props he does is because he's white. Isn't that the same thing Limbaugh said, yet nobody said a word? Both were wrong.

[jocon307]

Thanks for this post William, esp. the part from Slate. I happen to agree with that more, and indeed it explains Rush's statements better.

The larger point here is the destructiveness of political correctness, and how it reveals the quest for "equality of outcomes" dictated by the Stalinist still amoung us. By which they mean equality for thee, superiority for me. As a caller to NPR noted today, how can we ever have a dialogue about racial issues when people who state non-compliant remarks are told "shut up you're fired" immediately? Indeed, must it now be a give that all black quarterbacks are GREAT! Can they ever be mediocre, not to mention lousy, or would that be instantly denounced as "racism".

But I do have one question, why does the word-part "rated" not appear in either of the articles. In someplaces it says "ove" and in others "over" when it seems plain the word used is "over-rated". Was this just some wierd computer gremlim moment? They do infest cyberspace, you know.

Again, great post, thanks!

[jwalsh07]

I see the drug thing as much more important to Rush than the ESPN stuff and as such have not offered an opinion since Rush obviously needs time to think about it. It is also why I couched my criticism of his resigning.

However, he should have just allowed them to fire him. While I think his comments concerning the media can be defended I think they were ill advised when conservatives are in favor or meritocray and equality in America.

Despite my opinion on the matter Rush was obviously hired by ESPN because he offers strong opinions and being fired for offering same is stupid.

One other thing, this author has credibility with me. He scored the de La Hoya vs Sugar Shane Mosely fight the same way I did. 7-4-1 de La Hoya. And to be honest I like Mosely better than de La Hoya. Just in case anybody was thinking of firing me from FR for being a racist. :-}

[Ichneumon]

It means that I need to have the Admin Moderator fix what got screwed up.

LOL! Okay, thanks. I just thought it was some kind of sports lingo.

[Redbob]

You think Rush was wrong, take a look at McNabb's stats, and come up with one reason other than "affirmative action" (not racism - affirmative action) that Donnie McNabb is still getting paid to stand behind center.

[William McKinley]

Because

1) He doesn't fumble like Tony Banks. If racism was the reason bad QBs stay in their jobs, TB would be a starter.
2) His team has been to the NFC Championship twice. Peyton Manning, who has a great OL (which the Iggles don't), a great RB (which the Iggles kinda sorta had during one of his seasons but not the rest), and a great WR (which the Iggles have not had), has been unable to get that far.
3) Because if Jon Kitna can have a job, dagnabit, so should he!

[auntdot]

This whole flap has nothing to do with Rush being racist.

His comment did not denigrate black athletes at all.

Whom he did bite was the (ultra-liberal) sports media in general.

He accused them of ginning up the performance of black quarterbacks and coaches because of their race.

The new kid on the sportscasting block, he blandished his fellow club members as being racist on the subject.

Whether he was right or wrong in this case, I have no idea. I do not follow sports.

But he had committed an offense that his fellow 'journalists' could not abide.

I am surprised that Rush behaved so foolishly, he has been in the opinion pushing business a long time and should knows the rules.

Maybe he has just be able to do his own thing for so long, he forgot the rules, or maybe it was a brain fart.

In any event, you don't sit with a bunch of sportswriters, call them racists, and expect to be back next week.

[RinaseaofDs]

Either you didn't read Rush's quote, and for sure you didn't read his comments on black coaches, or you didn't understand them.

He's right. McNabb has cost the Eagles the Super Bowl, probably twice. Read McKinley's analysis.

Look at the NBA. It's doing the same thing - casting about looking for the next Jordan. A white guy in that role will NOT do. White guys do not sell shoes.

They had big plans for that kid in Detroit before he got injured. He had endorsement deals with Sprite and other products.

There isn't an iota of racism about Limbaugh's comments. The NFL is ENTERTAINMENT, and its driven by demographics. That's why the category isn't called 'men, ages 18 - 45', it's called 'WHITE men, ages 18-45' and 'BLACK men . . .'

So, if you think that looking at the market that way is inherently racist, then it's time to fire a whole bunch more people over at Nielsen, BBDO, and other marketing firms.

Wake up and smell the Old English 800 malt liquor, the izod golf shirts, and the 'hello kitty' lunch boxes - they are aimed at racial demographic groups. How dare they!

[William McKinley]

Read McKinley's analysis

I am not sure that my analysis can be read that he cost the Eagles any Super Bowls. I don't think that, at all.

What I think is that he is an average to above average quarterback (like Dante Culpepper or Mark Brunell) who, unlike those two, has never had great skill position players complimenting him on offense. He's Brad Johnson with a lesser defense and no Keyshawn. He's Aaron Brooks with a great defense. He's Jon Kitna with wheels and a great (well, until this year) defense.