People are jumping down McNabb's throat for his statement, but here's a question to consider: Where's the lie?
McNabb does have better numbers than Aikman. Yes, he never won a championship, but that shouldn't erase the kind of production he had. If that were the case, Dan Marino wouldn't be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Here is Dave Zangaro from NBC Sports with more:
His numbers are strong. He had 37,276 passing yards, 234 touchdowns, 117 interceptions and a passer rating of 85.6. He made sure to make that his main case with TMZ...
Although they really played in different eras, McNabb’s numbers are unquestionably better than those of Aikman, who was inducted into the HOF in 2006. Here are Aikman’s career numbers: 32,942 yards, 165 touchdowns, 141 interceptions, passer rating of 81.6. Believe it or not, McNabb also had a higher career winning percentage.
If you think Donovan McNabb had a big enough impact or enough success to be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, you are crazy. He played at the right time when the league was becoming more pass-friendly and was going to have higher numbers than Aikman just from more opportunities. McNabb's lack of rings and success in the later stages of the playoffs are a huge stain on his career and while he may have been good, he's not great enough to be in Canton. Here is Dave Zangaro again:
Sure, he made it to five NFC Championship games but McNabb was just 1-4 in those games. He made it to one Super Bowl and never won the big game. How do you weigh making it to five championship games vs. a guy like Jim Kelly, who made it to four Super Bowls and never won.
McNabb was never an All-Pro. Right or not, that plays into the thinking of many HOF voters. He was never an MVP; he finished second in MVP voting to Marshall Faulk in 2000. Was he ever the best quarterback in the league?