Which is better: A hurt SM, or a healthy KB?

**skaybaltimore** · 12-08-2006, 08:21 PM

After watching the Cincy game, I concluded that it would have made more sense to bring in KB at some point in the 3rd quarter because SM just was not getting the job done. The line in the sand over at YBR, where this issue was debated to death, seemed to be: whether a hurt SM was better than a healthy KB. As far as I'm concerned, there's no question that a healthy KB would have been better -- after the 1st half in that Cincy game -- than a hurt SM. What say ye?

GO RAVENS!!!

**Mista T** · 12-08-2006, 09:37 PM

No question about it. McNair looked old & beaten up. His arm was obviously not up to the task on just 3 days rest, with multiple wobblers, balls tossed in the dirt, and other uncatchble passes. Even the long TD pass was underthrown, and the Cincy defender couldn't come back in the wet end zone. Those sideline shots of McNair during the game told the whole story - he looked closer to 50 than 33.

Cutting right to the chase: his poor performance cost us the game. It was obvious by halftime. If Billick weren't so stubborn and loyal to old vets, he would have brought in the younger and fresher armed Boller. The result could not have been worse.

Billick, however, is very predictable. He'd rather lose the game than admit an error in retaining a mediocre performing QB. The Cincy game reminded me of Billick's refusal to replace the ineffective Elvis Grbac with the hot Randall Cunningham in the 2001 playoff game vs. the Steelers.

Although Boller has looked sharp in 3 of his last 4 games, I don't know that Boller would have fared much better than McNair did, on the road in the precipitation. I do believe Boller would have dived for the first down that McNair choked on, and Boller had to have been able to manage the clock better.

Regardless, Billick owes it to the fan base to put the best product on the field in order to win, and, by keeping the ineffective McNair in the game, Billick failed.

Hopefuly, the 11 day rest will cure things for McNair, since we will likely be riding his arm into the playoffs.

**skaybaltimore** · 12-08-2006, 09:51 PM

"The Cincy game reminded me of Billick's refusal to replace the ineffective Elvis Grbac with the hot Randall Cunningham in the 2001 playoff game vs. the Steelers."

Wow. I thought I was the only one who thought RC should have been brought in. Thanks for that bittersweet flashback, MistaT.

And yep -- BB can be one stubborn cuss. Nobody knows if KB would have won the game, but one thing was for certain -- SM definitely lost it.

GO RAVENS!!!

**purplepoe** · 12-09-2006, 07:53 AM

Sigh.

First of all, this whole McNair was hurt thing is a bit of a reach.

At least you have to keep your exact same stuff from YBR on this forum and not muddle up the regular forum.

T, Boller didn't look "sharp" in his last performance as you say. Go take a look at all of his snaps and then tell me he was sharp. I swear you see someone different than I do when you talk about how Boller or any average QB could have us at 9-3.

Kyle Boller brought us back vs the Jets in 2004. Please tell me any other time on the road where he played well that would give me ANY reason to think he would've done anything vs Cincy last Thursday. His record and performances on the road are downright horrid. And before you bring up last years' Cincy game, take a look at the 1st half when we were down 34-0 or so.

Kyle Boller has a stronger arm than Steve McNair. That's it.

QBs have bad games and DON'T GET PULLED. It happens to every starting QB every season on every team. We were 9-2 and getting spanked on the road. However, the score wasn't out of reach and that's why Billick kept McNair in. Because he still gave us the best chance to win.

Im off to KC to hopefully see the Ravens beat the Chiefs. I'll have to rejoin this conversation on Monday night.

PP

**skaybaltimore** · 12-09-2006, 08:46 AM

To say it's a "reach" that McNair was hurt is a distortion of the facts, IMO. He clearly got hit by a helmet in the elbow against Pittsburgh, after which you could see him flexing his hand, and Boller was brought in shortly thereafter. Furthermore, there's a nerve in the elbow -- the ulnar nerve -- that, when inflamed, takes a certain period of time to "cool". Apparently, 4 days is not nearly enough time.

GO RAVENS!!!

**Mobtown** · 12-11-2006, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by skaybaltimore

To say it's a "reach" that McNair was hurt is a distortion of the facts, IMO. He clearly got hit by a helmet in the elbow against Pittsburgh, after which you could see him flexing his hand, and Boller was brought in shortly thereafter. Furthermore, there's a nerve in the elbow -- the ulnar nerve -- that, when inflamed, takes a certain period of time to "cool". Apparently, 4 days is not nearly enough time.

You say that facts are being distorted and you use your opinion as evidence? I didn't see Mac listed on any of the injury reports??

I am not saying the guy wasn't or that he didn't have a bad game...'cause he did...

**StingerNLG** · 12-11-2006, 10:44 AM

Oh for the love of God. This again??

QBs have bad games and DON'T GET PULLED. It happens to every starting QB every season on every team.

No, but there seems to be an ugly trend of QB switching at the worst times though. Jay Cutler was not ready to play yet.

**skaybaltimore** · 12-11-2006, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Mobtown

You say that facts are being distorted and you use your opinion as evidence? I didn't see Mac listed on any of the injury reports??

I am not saying the guy wasn't or that he didn't have a bad game...'cause he did...

1. The hit he took against Pittsburgh is not an opinion, it's a fact. 2. The ulnar nerve that runs through the elbow is a fact, not an opinion. 3. An unconfirmed insider report discussed on another board talked about this injury 4. Drawing an inference from 1, 2, & 3 is a form of logic, not opinion. (i.e. it's more logical to infer that McNair WAS possibly injured based upon the observations of how he played, the injury he DID sustain against Pittsburgh/the ulnar nerve that runs through the elbow, and an "insider" report that would not appear in the official injury report) 4. Do the "official injury" reports always reflect all injuries? 5. This isn't a courtroom where "laws of evidence" come into play, it's a fan discussion board.

GO RAVENS!!!

**darb72** · 12-11-2006, 05:22 PM

After yesterday it's pretty obvious that McNair just needed some rest, which is what Skye was saying in essence.

McNairs arm wasn't right against the Bengals. Personally I would have sat him down after noticing that. Steve is to important to "where we want to go" this season to risk an injury on a rainy night when it's already obvious something is wrong.

**skaybaltimore** · 12-11-2006, 09:09 PM

My concern watching the first half was that his arm STILL was not right. His passes seemed off again, the same way they were in Cincy. But then as the second half kicked in, things seemed to right themselves. Hopefully we'll keep up the intensity for the next 3 games, and hit the POs running.

GO RAVENS!!!

**purplepoe** · 12-11-2006, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by skaybaltimore

My concern watching the first half was that his arm STILL was not right. His passes seemed off again, the same way they were in Cincy. But then as the second half kicked in, things seemed to right themselves. Hopefully we'll keep up the intensity for the next 3 games, and hit the POs running.

GO RAVENS!!!

21-27, 283 yds, TD on the road in KC.

He's not hurt. His arm is fine.

PP