Beltway Tribes

Embattled Black QB's cont...

Do you remember how we were talking about the Stages of Black Quarterback Fanhood? 

Well, we’re talking about it again, as some shit’s happened.  Namely the benching of ‘Skins quarterback Donovan McNabb in the final two minutes of a road loss to the Detroit Lions. Classic 'Concerned Dad' behavior-- or is it?

The incident, now more than two weeks removed, speaks to some of the issues I attempted to address in my Embattled Black Quarterback post: the interplay between race, sports and cultural perception, the public's skepticism of black leadership, and, most importantly, our complete inability to predict how these elements will play out, particularly in a city like Washington D.C. where racial sensitivities run deep. 

Rather than re-invent the wheel, I'll link you to some of the better local coverage. 

Here’s Washington Post columnist Michael Wilbon’s response to the benching. A confessed McNabb fan, he sides with the Donovan mostly on account of Shanahan’s decision to openly question the competence and intellect of the six time Pro Bowler. 

And here’s an excellent read by another Post writer, Mike Wise, who puts the McNabb benching in the context of the Redskins' long, turbulent and frankly abusive relationship with black players and D.C.’s  African-American community. 

This quote by a former ‘Skins player stuck out to me: 

"One of the reasons there's so many damn Cowboy fans in Washington is because many black fans in this area refused to support a team that would not employ an African American player for so many years," says Rick "Doc" Walker, the former Redskins tight end and a Washington media personality the past 20 years. "So they became fans of the team's arch rival. They had kids and they became Cowboy fans - and so on and so on. Hell, some of 'em have never even been to Dallas."

***

Fast forward to this past Monday night.  Questions still swirl about Coach Shanahan’s judgment and McNabb’s commitment to the game, but the Redskins have had the benefit of a bye week to pull the themselves together before facing off against their division rivals, the Philadelphia Eagles. 

Finally, there’s football to play, and off-field complications can be set aside (if only temporarily).

Only a new wrinkle emerges in the hours leading up to the game: McNabb is signed to a $78 million-five year extension by the Redskins , the same team that publicly impugned him over the last couple weeks.  It’s a head-scratcher, to say the least. He’s about to turn 34. He’s had a mediocre season. His coaches, by all accounts, don’t like him , or at least have a funny way of showing it. 

And they gave him $78 million. 

If you think the decision to extend McNabb seemed odd before the game, things got muddier after it.  The Redskins went down in a 59-28 blowout loss to the Eagles, led by Michael Vick – McNabb’s good friend, mentee and eventual replacement – who on Monday night put on one of the most dominant displays of football I’ve ever seen in my life (McNabb was once again so-so).

 To sort through the implications of this one, you have to look back a year or two.

Does this mean the Eagles were right to discard McNabb after years of pro-bowl caliber play? Possibly, although they clearly didn’t know what they had in Vick at the time. They traded McNabb, after all, to make room for Kevin Kolb, who they signed to a big contract and named the starter at the beginning of the season.

Maybe McNabb’s performance in 2010 is justification enough for the Eagles moving him. Only, true to form with the Redskins, they have neither the personnel nor the offensive schemes to give McNabb the protection he needs to thrive. Who knows how he’d have looked on the 2010 Eagles, who, with an offense significantly improved over last season, now share a lead for the Division.

Maybe the Redskins offering McNabb a contract extension was an acknowledgement of that fact. Coming off a 4-12 season, the team is a work in progress with several pieces that need time to gel. They desperately need improvements on the offensive line which has allowed McNabb, an expert scrambler, to be sacked more than any QB in the NFL not named Jay Cutler this season.  Paying McNabb what they did may have been the organization’s way of saying we’re willing to be patient with you, if you’re patient with us.

It certainly appeared that way, until you looked at the fine print of the contract.

ESPN reported Tuesday morning that of the $78 million the Redskins inked McNabb for, they'll only be on the hook for $3.75 million if they cut him after this year. So what does the contract mean, really, if it involves virtually no commitment on the part of the organization?

You want the skeptic’s take? The contract was meant to create the illusion of security; not for McNabb’s sake, but ours. The Redskins are tired of controversy. They’re tired of the local and national media tearing them apart for questionable decision after questionable decision, and they certainly didn’t want to raise the specter of racism once again – not everything they’ve been through, recently and long ago. Ignore the fine print of the contract, as most casual fans are wont to do, and it reads like a vote of confidence. A reason for fans, particularly those who took offense to the way McNabb’s benching was handled,  to shift their focus elsewhere.   

It also affords the organization an incredible amount of wriggle room. Now if McNabb’s performance doesn’t improve in the second half of the season, 16 games of sub-par play will be enough to convince Redskins nation that $78 million (a figure agreed upon after the team initiated negotiations, mind you -- the extension was their idea) is about a kajillion dollars too many for this bum.

Am I convinced that it’s all a ruse? Nope. McNabb didn’t have to sign the contract, after all.

As a professional athlete, he could have decided that D.C. isn’t a winning situation and chosen to go elsewhere. As a businessman, he could have held out for a smaller, guaranteed contract instead of signing for prodigious sums he may never see. 

And, as a man, he might have decided that whatever slights were directed his way, racial or otherwise, are too significant to overlook and flown the coop for an organization that respects his talents and his commitment to his craft.  

Look, I don’t know what McNabb should have done.  I don’t know what the Redskins should have done. And frankly, as a recent transplant to DC, I’m still trying to understand the place that McNabb’s benching (and ongoing humiliation) occupies in the city’s racial history. I think it’s all terribly interesting stuff, however, and I hope that this digression from the weekly posting schedule hasn’t been entirely tiresome.

In any case: coming your way in the next couple days will be Cowboys @ Giants - ROAD EDITION. Beltway Tribes travels to Oakland, CA to watch the game with my brother, who, for 3 hours, was the biggest Giants fan on the planet. That's right -- he had money on the game. And now it's gone. Stay tuned for the carnage...