kmd24
Active Member
- Messages
- 3,436
- Reaction score
- 0
The really stupid thing about this whole mess is that Mike Irvin was simply making a point about GB's lack of talent when he said that about Favre.
The basic question was whether Favre was still good enough to win, and Irvin said that, if Favre were surrounded by better talent, then he could still win games. For example, if he were surrounded by the Philly talent, he might be undefeated. It was intended as praise for Favre, not disrespect for McNabb. Irvin did call McNabb out for playing poorly in the early part of the season, which may be why Philly came to his mind. But to suggest that the intent was to single out McNabb and propose replacing him with a white QB is ludicrous.
Owens never brought up Favre. Irvin's comments were twisted around and asked to Owens in an obvious attempt to bait Owens into taking a shot at McNabb. Owens gladly accepted the opportunity and brought up two things which I think are sore spots for Owens. First, he talked about Favre playing with injury. Then he mentioned Favre's deep knowledge of the QB position. These are thinly veiled shots at McNabb, and Favre was just a convenient vehicle for both the reporter and Owens. The fact that Favre is white is purely coincidental when you consider the chain of events.
The whole reason Favre is in the conversation is that HE WAS THE SUBJECT OF CONVERSATION TO BEGIN WITH! Basically, the discussion amounted to whether Favre could still win in a different situation.
Now, I feel that McNabb is hypersensitive to the race issue, perhaps rightfully so. However, it is 100% his responsibility for bringing race into the discussion. What follows is an excert (verbatim) from the interview that ESPN aired on sportscenter:
McNabb: [in response to TO's comments about Favre]...that's unreal. That's just like me going out on a limb and saying, you know, 'if we had Steve Largent,' you know, 'if we had, you know, Joe Jurevicius...'"
Michael Smith: Now, those are two guys who are of a different skin tone from Terrell Owens, with a completely different skill set than Terrell Owens. Do you feel that - now, I'm just connecting the dots here - but do you feel like that was not only disrespectful to Terrell Owens's quarterback, but as an African American QB, who has enough stuff to deal with as it is.
McNabb: It was definitely a slap in the face for me. It was a slap in the face because, as deep as people won't go into it, it was black on black crime. I mean, you have a guy that has been criticized just about all his career, and now the last criticism was that I'm selling out because I don't run anymore, um, by an African American. And to say, you know, that if we had Brett Favre, you know, that could be, you know, OK if we had, you know, another quarterback of a different descent, ethnic background, that we'll be winning. Or for me to say, again, you know, if we had a receiver like that, uh, that's kind of something that I thought about like, 'Wow!' I mean, it's different to say, 'Well, if we had Michael Vick...'
Michael Smith: Right
McNabb: Or if you say, if we had Daunte Culpepper,
Michael Smith: Steve McNair
McNabb: Steve McNair, Aaron Brooks, Byron Leftwich. But to go, you know, straight to Brett Favre, you know, that kind of just slapped me in the face, like, 'Wow!'
Now, to give McNabb the benefit of the doubt, he may not realize the history behind the Favre comments. But since he claimed to have watched the interview in which TO made the comments about Brett Favre, he should have observed that Owens didn't go "straight to Brett Favre." In fact, he should have heard the reporter ask the leading question that included the phrase "Michael Irvin recently said that if Brett Favre was the starting QB for the Philadelphia Eagles, they'd be undefeated right now." If you don't hear that portion of the interview, none of the rest of it makes sense, because Owens never mentioned Favre by name during the snippet of the interview that was aired on ESPN.
I also agree with Irvin, who questioned two things about McNabb from the interview. First, timing. Why bring it up now if not to get it into the spotlight? Then, Irvin fired back at McNabb's criticism of his teammates (Westbrook, perhaps) for being more concerned with their contracts than trying to put to get back to the Superbowl.
Irvin: Donovan, you have a $100 million contract. These guys have been playing well for quite a while. They are worried about being rewarded. Now, Donovan was playing poorly all season long. Let's be real here. He was playing poorly. I would like to have seen him or heard him say, "that I said, 'Guys, I am playing poorly, and I am going to do something to fix that.'" I know he's been hurt. That's what I would like to have heard him say.
I have to say that I have lost some respect for McNabb as a result of this interview.
The basic question was whether Favre was still good enough to win, and Irvin said that, if Favre were surrounded by better talent, then he could still win games. For example, if he were surrounded by the Philly talent, he might be undefeated. It was intended as praise for Favre, not disrespect for McNabb. Irvin did call McNabb out for playing poorly in the early part of the season, which may be why Philly came to his mind. But to suggest that the intent was to single out McNabb and propose replacing him with a white QB is ludicrous.
Owens never brought up Favre. Irvin's comments were twisted around and asked to Owens in an obvious attempt to bait Owens into taking a shot at McNabb. Owens gladly accepted the opportunity and brought up two things which I think are sore spots for Owens. First, he talked about Favre playing with injury. Then he mentioned Favre's deep knowledge of the QB position. These are thinly veiled shots at McNabb, and Favre was just a convenient vehicle for both the reporter and Owens. The fact that Favre is white is purely coincidental when you consider the chain of events.
The whole reason Favre is in the conversation is that HE WAS THE SUBJECT OF CONVERSATION TO BEGIN WITH! Basically, the discussion amounted to whether Favre could still win in a different situation.
Now, I feel that McNabb is hypersensitive to the race issue, perhaps rightfully so. However, it is 100% his responsibility for bringing race into the discussion. What follows is an excert (verbatim) from the interview that ESPN aired on sportscenter:
McNabb: [in response to TO's comments about Favre]...that's unreal. That's just like me going out on a limb and saying, you know, 'if we had Steve Largent,' you know, 'if we had, you know, Joe Jurevicius...'"
Michael Smith: Now, those are two guys who are of a different skin tone from Terrell Owens, with a completely different skill set than Terrell Owens. Do you feel that - now, I'm just connecting the dots here - but do you feel like that was not only disrespectful to Terrell Owens's quarterback, but as an African American QB, who has enough stuff to deal with as it is.
McNabb: It was definitely a slap in the face for me. It was a slap in the face because, as deep as people won't go into it, it was black on black crime. I mean, you have a guy that has been criticized just about all his career, and now the last criticism was that I'm selling out because I don't run anymore, um, by an African American. And to say, you know, that if we had Brett Favre, you know, that could be, you know, OK if we had, you know, another quarterback of a different descent, ethnic background, that we'll be winning. Or for me to say, again, you know, if we had a receiver like that, uh, that's kind of something that I thought about like, 'Wow!' I mean, it's different to say, 'Well, if we had Michael Vick...'
Michael Smith: Right
McNabb: Or if you say, if we had Daunte Culpepper,
Michael Smith: Steve McNair
McNabb: Steve McNair, Aaron Brooks, Byron Leftwich. But to go, you know, straight to Brett Favre, you know, that kind of just slapped me in the face, like, 'Wow!'
Now, to give McNabb the benefit of the doubt, he may not realize the history behind the Favre comments. But since he claimed to have watched the interview in which TO made the comments about Brett Favre, he should have observed that Owens didn't go "straight to Brett Favre." In fact, he should have heard the reporter ask the leading question that included the phrase "Michael Irvin recently said that if Brett Favre was the starting QB for the Philadelphia Eagles, they'd be undefeated right now." If you don't hear that portion of the interview, none of the rest of it makes sense, because Owens never mentioned Favre by name during the snippet of the interview that was aired on ESPN.
I also agree with Irvin, who questioned two things about McNabb from the interview. First, timing. Why bring it up now if not to get it into the spotlight? Then, Irvin fired back at McNabb's criticism of his teammates (Westbrook, perhaps) for being more concerned with their contracts than trying to put to get back to the Superbowl.
Irvin: Donovan, you have a $100 million contract. These guys have been playing well for quite a while. They are worried about being rewarded. Now, Donovan was playing poorly all season long. Let's be real here. He was playing poorly. I would like to have seen him or heard him say, "that I said, 'Guys, I am playing poorly, and I am going to do something to fix that.'" I know he's been hurt. That's what I would like to have heard him say.
I have to say that I have lost some respect for McNabb as a result of this interview.
