Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 79,3,8,10
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Pages: 1, 2
nephillymike
What did Phillysportstalk watchers vote for this question as to if Dawkins and DMac would get voted in the HOF:

Dawkins only= 79%
McNabb only = 3%
Both = 8%
Neither = 10%

I say Dawkins only.

What say you?
Joegrane
Dawk is my all-time favorite Eagle and my memories go back to Harold Carmichael and Bill Bergy. Dawk should be a first ballot HoF'er. He also was more than his stats. He was a tremendous leader on the field and great presence in the locker room and in the community. I bet he goes on to have a solid coaching career. Awesome guy.

I liked #5 more than most. I understand that his quirky personality did not make it easy for him to connect with some people. However recall how ugly things were before he came to Philly.

In his early years he carried the offense on his back. I think some people expected too much from him.

He was not a great enough passer to be a HoF'er; although he did some amazing things with his legs and strength.

He seems to be the anti-Wentz in that he kept the ball down and did not take lots of chances in order to avoid INTs. He has a great INT percentage if I recall correctly

I am very grateful for him. He is one of the great Eagles, but don't think he deserves to be a HoF'er.


QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 15 2016, 09:15 PM) *
What did Phillysportstalk watchers vote for this question as to if Dawkins and DMac would get voted in the HOF:

Dawkins only= 79%
McNabb only = 3%
Both = 8%
Neither = 10%

I say Dawkins only.

What say you?

Reality Fan
Just Dawk and Donnie can thank AR for that
Zero
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 15 2016, 11:52 PM) *
Just Dawk and Donnie can thank AR for that

Yep. If Reid had given McNabb just one WR before TOO blew the team up he would have been a shoe-in. The only receiver of substance he ever had was probably BWest.
Eyrie
Dawkins deserves to be a first ballot, but it may take a couple of attempts for him to get in.

I was a fan of McNabb but said at the time that he was a step below HoF material. I stand by that and won't be swayed by him being on an extra long list of 94 players.
mcnabbulous
Through 2004, Donnie was on the HoF track. Injuries, weight gain and a decline in performance during the second half of his career is why he won't make it.

If he had played well for another 3-4 more seasons, he would have had a shot. He has no one to blame but himself.
The Franchise
I feel like we have this discussion once a week.

Dawkins is one of the best safeties ever, and will get in without a doubt.

McNabb has no shot to get in, but if AR had valued the WR position he'd be a shoe-in, as others have noted.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 16 2016, 12:46 PM) *
I feel like we have this discussion once a week.

Dawkins is one of the best safeties ever, and will get in without a doubt.

McNabb has no shot to get in, but if AR had valued the WR position he'd be a shoe-in, as others have noted.


McNabb's career ended far too early to be a realistic candidate. That's on him.

Here is the list of other HoF QBs that were essentially washed up after their age 33 season:


The Franchise
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 16 2016, 12:49 PM) *
McNabb's career ended far too early to be a realistic candidate. That's on him.

Here is the list of other HoF QBs that were essentially washed up after their age 33 season:


McNabb's 2nd best season in his career came when he was 33, in 2009. Guess what he had that year that he didn't have since 2004? A viable WR.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 16 2016, 01:49 PM) *
McNabb's career ended far too early to be a realistic candidate. That's on him.

Here is the list of other HoF QBs that were essentially washed up after their age 33 season:


Shockingly we disagree......not that his career ended early or that he won't get in but rather the reason.

McNabb was a terrific athlete with a great arm and I concede he was not extremely accurate but he was far more accurate than most give him credit for. He was the victim of a coach who held no value for the WR position, put an undue burden on his QB who was able to carry the load for a time but it also exposed him to excessive physical damage. He put on muscle (previously documented with pictures here) to fend off further damage he was being exposed to. That, and the cumulative effects of the beatings Reid exposed him to were the reasons for his early exit. The body can only take so much excessive abuse when it occurs with so much frequency each year.


mcnabbulous
You're into the business of making excuses for QBs. That's not my schtick.
The Franchise
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 16 2016, 03:01 PM) *
You're into the business of making excuses for QBs. That's not my schtick.


laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 16 2016, 03:07 PM) *
laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif


I literally just posted about how, due to having played in an air raid attack, he likely may never learn the post snap stuff.

I give NFL players at any position 3 years. If they haven't figured it out by then, it's probably not gonna happen.

Dreagon
Dawkins should be first ballot.

I think McNabb may eventually get in as well, but it will be some years.
Phits
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 16 2016, 02:22 PM) *
McNabb's 2nd best season in his career came when he was 33, in 2009. Guess what he had that year that he didn't have since 2004? A viable WR.

The fact that he had the level of success he did with the sh*t AR had him playing with should earn him first ballot HoF. It won't. because all that matters in the end is that he doesn't have the numbers to justify it. Years down the road when the story is re-written, those that will look at his legacy will not appreciate the 'Supa 5' efforts he had to put forth. Hell, there's a large percentage of Eagles fans that fault #5 for the empty spot in the Eagles trophy case.

He definitely will not make it this season. Perhaps down the road, but it isn't likely. Such is life.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Phits @ Sep 16 2016, 11:05 PM) *
The fact that he had the level of success he did with the sh*t AR had him playing with should earn him first ballot HoF. It won't. because all that matters in the end is that he doesn't have the numbers to justify it. Years down the road when the story is re-written, those that will look at his legacy will not appreciate the 'Supa 5' efforts he had to put forth. Hell, there's a large percentage of Eagles fans that fault #5 for the empty spot in the Eagles trophy case.

He definitely will not make it this season. Perhaps down the road, but it isn't likely. Such is life.


Amen
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 16 2016, 04:01 PM) *
You're into the business of making excuses for QBs. That's not my schtick.


I don't make excuses for anyone, I make realistic observations based on facts. I also do not rewrite history to preserve a notion. It was well documented when McNabb bulked up his muscle like here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qy_K1HBqb0
He looks real "fat" there in 2007.

or here in 2011
http://6abc.com/archive/8205773/

He did it to avoid further injury and ironically it hurt his performance.

Now if you want to debate whether his lack of WRs affected his performance I think you are barking up the wrong tree but that is your prerogative but there is plenty of coverage regarding it...and that is WR, not McNabb unless you want to posit that McNabb directed the draft. AR is the one who is at fault, he put the onus on McNabb not unlike what Ryan did to Cunningham.
mcnabbulous
Assuming you believe that statistics are what is holding Donovan back from getting into the HoF (I don't - this isn't baseball), that means he didn't achieve some statistical milestone that you believe he otherwise would of had Andy not been such an awful coach.

So I'm curious what that milestone is?
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2016, 07:28 AM) *
Assuming you believe that statistics are what is holding Donovan back from getting into the HoF (I don't - this isn't baseball), that means he didn't achieve some statistical milestone that you believe he otherwise would of had Andy not been such an awful coach.

So I'm curious what that milestone is?


Fair point. And if you look at what he did with an actual WR, one that both Favre,Manning et al had throughout their career, he would have had better numbers in yards, TDs, completion % and likely wins. He ranks well in all of these but all would have been better. He also likely would have taken less of a beating because he would not have had to keep plays alive with his legs as often as he did which exposed him to more catastrophic hits which would have extended his career. I also have not said AR was an awful coach, just one who was very shortsighted about the WR position for the first 5 years of the McNabb era. That changed when he finally got TO and McNabb's performance reflected the importance of the need for one.

fun fact...McNabb, for all his inaccuracies, held the record for most consecutive completions until last year.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2016, 07:28 AM) *
Assuming you believe that statistics are what is holding Donovan back from getting into the HoF (I don't - this isn't baseball), that means he didn't achieve some statistical milestone that you believe he otherwise would of had Andy not been such an awful coach.

So I'm curious what that milestone is?

I never said that Andy was an awful coach. AR was a very good coach. In retrospect, despite their 'successful' run, the pairing of Reid/McNabb was ill fated. The system failed the QB or the QB failed the system. Either way, there was a dearth of talent at WR. Ultimately, the failure to fill that void (seemingly) caused us a Lombardi.

McNabb is the best QB in Eagles history, however, in comparison to the other QB's in his era he statistically falls short. His numbers, or lack thereof, are the only thing (IMO) keeping him out of the elite category. Outside of the '04 season he didn't crack the top 5 for any notable statistics for a QB. Not surprisingly, '04 was the first time he had a legitimate threat at WR. had he had that for his entire career his numbers would have certainly been inflated. He would have likely been statistically in the top 5 for QB's year in year out. In other words, outside of win totals, there are no noticeable statistics to separate him from the pack. The intangibles that he had, aren't measurable and that puts him at a disadvantage, because those are the things that made him great. If he were able to lead any major QB statistical category he would get in, which he doesn't. That being the case, it will be a while before he gets in.

Statistics may not be the best measure for HoF eligibility for other positions, but it is hard to argue against in relation to QB. For example, Warren Moon is in the HoF mainly because of his stats. The same can be said for Fran Tarkenton and Dan Fouts.
mcnabbulous
TO wasn't a "legitimate threat" at WR. He was a top-3 WR of all time. Andy didn't neglect acquiring WRs. Getting a top guy at that position isn't easy. He spent several high picks throughout Donnie's tenure.

As previously requested, what is the statistic you think Andy held him back from achieving that he would have achieved otherwise?

Considering everyone bitches that he threw too much, I find it hilarious that I'm now being told Andy held him back statistically. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
Phits
You're being obtuse. It's only logical to conclude that every notable QB stat would have been amplified had the Eagles acquired a reasonably serviceable WR. That is unless you feel that the receivers were more than adequate?

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2016, 10:56 AM) *
TO wasn't a "legitimate threat" at WR. He was a top-3 WR of all time. Andy didn't neglect acquiring WRs. Getting a top guy at that position isn't easy. He spent several high picks throughout Donnie's tenure.

As previously requested, what is the statistic you think Andy held him back from achieving that he would have achieved otherwise?

Considering everyone bitches that he threw too much, I find it hilarious that I'm now being told Andy held him back statistically. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Sep 17 2016, 10:36 AM) *
You're being obtuse. It's only logical to conclude that every notable QB stat would have been amplified had the Eagles acquired a reasonably serviceable WR. That is unless you feel that the receivers were more than adequate?

Okay, but which stat would have justified a HoF nomination? Just saying "his stats would have been better" without pointing to specifics that would boost his argument is empty. What is the TD # he could have achieved to better his case?

Additionally, isn't it talking out of both sides of your mouth if you're going to complain that Andy put undue pressure and responsibility on #5 by passing so much (which assuredly boosted his numbers) and then saying Reid also contributed to his numbers not being HoF caliber?

Frankly, getting TO certainly improved Donnie'a numbers, but IMO, it was the changes to the defensive contact rules in 2004 that really contributed to his improved stats. It was the first year they were in place and DCs didn't have the ability to adjust.

If Donnie and TO had played together longer, it would have helped McNabb, but I think '04 still would have been a statistical anomaly regardless.
Reality Fan

QUOTE
Okay, but which stat would have justified a HoF nomination? Just saying "his stats would have been better" without pointing to specifics that would boost his argument is empty. What is the TD # he could have achieved to better his case?

I have mentioned several stats that would have improved.
QUOTE
Additionally, isn't it talking out of both sides of your mouth if you're going to complain that Andy put undue pressure and responsibility on #5 by passing so much (which assuredly boosted his numbers) and then saying Reid also contributed to his numbers not being HoF caliber?

I think you misunderstand the the idea that AR put undue pressure on McNabb...it has nothing to do with passing too much and everything to do with having to make so many plays out of nothing, having to hold the ball until a WR could break coverage and having to compensate with his legs.
QUOTE
Frankly, getting TO certainly improved Donnie'a numbers, but IMO, it was the changes to the defensive contact rules in 2004 that really contributed to his improved stats. It was the first year they were in place and DCs didn't have the ability to adjust.

So every other QB did not get your perceived benefit? He also had good years with Curtis and Jackson who were not in TO's class.

As far as the WRs AR drafted to "help McNabb lets look at who he drafted pre Desean...:
2006 4 109 Jason Avant WR
2005 2 35 Reggie Brown WR
2003 2 61 L.J. Smith TE
2003 3 95 Billy McMullen WR
2002 5 162 Freddie Milons WR
2001 1 25 Freddie Mitchell WR
2001 5 147 Tony Stewart TE
2000 2 36 Todd Pinkston WR
2000 4 99 Gari Scott WR
1999 4 130 Na Brown WR
1999 6 201 Troy Smith WR
1999 7 208 Jed Weaver TE

As you can see, whether it was a terrible choice in Freddie Mitchell or a general blindspot to the WR talent, AR did McNabb no favors.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2016, 12:03 PM) *
Okay, but which stat would have justified a HoF nomination? Just saying "his stats would have been better" without pointing to specifics that would boost his argument is empty. What is the TD # he could have achieved to better his case?

How can one be specific in a hypothetic scenario? Best guess is that having a reliable receiving threat throughout his career could have accounted for an additional 8000-10000 passing yards and 50-70 TD's. Which would put McNabb's stats in the all-time top 10. The increased performance could have also accounted for a better regular season/playoff win total and hopefully a Lombardi. I'm sure you would agree that there little downside to having a very good/great/elite receiver partnering with your QB. Especially a QB as talented as McNabb was.

QUOTE
Additionally, isn't it talking out of both sides of your mouth if you're going to complain that Andy put undue pressure and responsibility on #5 by passing so much (which assuredly boosted his numbers) and then saying Reid also contributed to his numbers not being HoF caliber?

My complaint isn't simply that AR passed too much. His game plan centred around the passing game and the receivers were subpar to help orchestrate this plan. I contend that Reid should have adjusted the game plan to account for the lack of an actual receiving threat. Either that, or trade McNabb for a QB and/or draft picks that would facilitate.

QUOTE
Frankly, getting TO certainly improved Donnie'a numbers, but IMO, it was the changes to the defensive contact rules in 2004 that really contributed to his improved stats. It was the first year they were in place and DCs didn't have the ability to adjust.

If Donnie and TO had played together longer, it would have helped McNabb, but I think '04 still would have been a statistical anomaly regardless.

The counter to that argument is that it was the first year and they would have gone on to develop a better synergy. Owens improved his first year numbers in Dallas in his second season with them. At minimum I would expect similar results.
The Franchise
QUOTE (Phits @ Sep 17 2016, 11:36 AM) *
You're being obtuse.


Just leave it at that when discussing QB's, AR, or football in general with him. Anything else is a waste of time.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Sep 17 2016, 12:01 PM) *
How can one be specific in a hypothetic scenario? Best guess is that having a reliable receiving threat throughout his career could have accounted for an additional 8000-10000 passing yards and 50-70 TD's. Which would put McNabb's stats in the all-time top 10. The increased performance could have also accounted for a better regular season/playoff win total and hopefully a Lombardi. I'm sure you would agree that there little downside to having a very good/great/elite receiver partnering with your QB. Especially a QB as talented as McNabb was.

Yeah those numbers are hilarious. Nearly 1000 extra yards per season? Additionally, you act like elite WRs grow on trees.

If memory serves, McNabb contributed to the departure of the first great WR he was paired with.

QUOTE
My complaint isn't simply that AR passed too much. His game plan centred around the passing game and the receivers were subpar to help orchestrate this plan. I contend that Reid should have adjusted the game plan to account for the lack of an actual receiving threat. Either that, or trade McNabb for a QB and/or draft picks that would facilitate.

Statistically, the Eagles were consistently a top offense. So your opinion that the receivers were not sufficient is not supported by statistical evidence. Additionally, it would have been difficult to achieve significantly superior numbers given our consistently high rank.

I guess Andy could have passed more to achieve that, but I have a feeling that wouldn't have gone over too well.
QUOTE
The counter to that argument is that it was the first year and they would have gone on to develop a better synergy. Owens improved his first year numbers in Dallas in his second season with them. At minimum I would expect similar results.

Sure it's possible. But 2004 was a statistical outlier for a bunch of QBs at the time. I will agree with you that having an all-time great WR would have been good for McNabb. But he statistically benefitted from a number of things that evened it out, IMO.

I think the idea that he was held back statistically by Reid to be pretty comical.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2016, 02:00 PM) *
Yeah those numbers are hilarious. Nearly 1000 extra yards per season? Additionally, you act like elite WRs grow on trees.

A high quality receiver should help generate an additional 800-1000 yards per season. I'm surprised you find that funny.

QUOTE
If memory serves, McNabb contributed to the departure of the first great WR he was paired with.

Point being?

QUOTE
Statistically, the Eagles were consistently a top offense. So your opinion that the receivers were not sufficient is not supported by statistical evidence. Additionally, it would have been difficult to achieve significantly superior numbers given our consistently high rank.

The old eyeball test, that you previously laid claim, tells a different story. You would be hard pressed to find another person who feels that the Eagles receiving corp throughout the McNabb/Reid era were sufficient.

QUOTE
I guess Andy could have passed more to achieve that, but I have a feeling that wouldn't have gone over too well.

Well with high quality fearless receivers we had.....




QUOTE
Sure it's possible. But 2004 was a statistical outlier for a bunch of QBs at the time. I will agree with you that having an all-time great QB would have been good for McNabb. But he statistically benefitted from a number of things that evened it out, IMO.

Passing numbers increased dramatically at that point.

QUOTE
I think the idea that he was held back statistically by Reid to be pretty comical.

Must be an inside joke, because nobody else is laughing.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Sep 17 2016, 01:14 PM) *
A high quality receiver should help generate an additional 800-1000 yards per season. I'm surprised you find that funny.

Not when you've already more or less maxed out the numbers.

You're suggesting that McNabb would have averaged another 56-70 yards per game in his career. Those number are significant and unreasonable.

QUOTE
Point being?

McNabb was just as responsible for his lack of post-2004 WR as anyone.

QUOTE
The old eyeball test, that you previously laid claim, tells a different story. You would be hard pressed to find another person who feels that the Eagles receiving corp throughout the McNabb/Reid era were sufficient.

This conversation isn't about eyeballs. It's very specifically about McNabb's lack of HoF stats. The fact that our offense was consistently highly rated means there simply weren't enough additional stats achievable to support your claim.

QUOTE
Passing numbers increased dramatically at that point.

They did, but 2004 was still a statistical outlier for a few years.

QUOTE
Must be an inside joke, because nobody else is laughing.

I said comical to be nice. But it's really just bullshit.

But I'm sure once he plays for a good coach like Shanahan, he'll show me.
Phits
Just so I am clear; is it your contention that a high quality receiver, throughout McNabb's career, would not have improved the statistical output of the Eagles? or is it that you feel McNabb had reached his ceiling and additional weapons wouldn't help any?

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2016, 02:24 PM) *
Not when you've already more or less maxed out the numbers.

You're suggesting that McNabb would have averaged another 56-70 yards per game in his career. Those number are significant and unreasonable.


McNabb was just as responsible for his lack of post-2004 WR as anyone.


This conversation isn't about eyeballs. It's very specifically about McNabb's lack of HoF stats. The fact that our offense was consistently highly rated means there simply weren't enough additional stats achievable to support your claim.


They did, but 2004 was still a statistical outlier for a few years.


I said comical to be nice. But it's really just bullshit.

But I'm sure once he plays for a good coach like Shanahan, he'll show me.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Sep 17 2016, 01:54 PM) *
Just so I am clear; is it your contention that a high quality receiver, throughout McNabb's career, would not have improved the statistical output of the Eagles?

The stats likely would have been different (e.g. less spread out to his teammates), but not dramatically in McNabb's favor. Certainly not enough to make up for what is missing in his HoF candidacy.

Additionally, the idea of acquiring a "high quality receiver" is easier said than done. He was afforded plenty of talent around him in his career. And put up good numbers as a result. Just not HoF numbers.

The only way he realistically could have achieved those additional stats would have been 3-4 more statistically successful seasons. Something most of the HoF QBs achieved. He didn't do that. I simply don't think his decision to "bulk up" and look nothing like any other QB in NFL history is the fault of his coach.


nephillymike
McNabb's Numbers:

His ranks in passer rating among qualified passers

1999 dnq
2000 18th
2001 7th
2002 8th
2003 16th
2004 4th
2005 16th
2006 4th
2007 9th
2008 14th
2009 12th
2010 24th Washington was 5-8
2011 dnq was 1-5 replaced by Ponder Min

He played in six pro bowls. Was selected to two of them and went as a 1st, 2nd or 3rd alternate in four years after guys backed out.

He had a 9-7 playoff record.
He had a career regular season passer rating of 85.6, 28th all time.
He had a career playoff passer rating of 80.0
His passer ratings in playoffs by year 73.1,86.6,75.4,58.6,94.6,83.1,68.5

Defining peers as anyone who played three of the same seasons as his '99-'11 career, he ranks 20th amongst his peers in passer rating.

He ranks 8th among those peers in career weighted A.V., behind in no order:
Brady
P. Manning
Brees
Rodgers
Roethlisberger
Rivers
Favre

Ahead of Warner, Ryan, Romo by a few.

He is 16th among peers in game winning drives, 17th in 4th quarter Comebacks among the peers.

He was 6-13 after Andy.

IMO, of the 19 peers ahead of him in passer rating, I rate him 10th, behind all except for Romo of the ten I list above.

Of the notables of his peers that he has a better passer rating then, I think he is better than:
Flacco
Smith
Gannon
Brunell
Eli
McNair
Vick

So among his peers, here are the HOF I see:

Brady
P.Manning
Favre
Brees
Warner
Rodgers
Rivers
Ryan probably not, unless he gets somewhere in playoffs and often.
McNabb no.
Romo no.

He falls short IMO.

As far as the argument going on, a few things to add.

The punishment McNabb absorbed was many times due to his inaccuracy as a short passer and his lack of confidence/reluctance to fit the ball in tight spots so he held on to the ball too long. He was a great deep passer, but a sub par short passer.

As far as who did more for who, McNabb was 6-13 with a quick demise after Andy. Andy has fared better than Donovan, post separation.

The Cuz has access to the Eagles to write a book back in the McNabb's heyday. He was saying the other day that McNabb would infuriate the coaches with his inability to change plays. For a guy in the same system for 11 years, he didn't master the playbook. His lack of recall shown brightly in his short stays in WAS and MIN.

When he left here, I thought he needed one legitimate pro bowl season and two average ones to get in the HOF. He fell short and so does his HOF bid IMO.

Best ever Eagle QB, just not a Hall of Famer.











Reality Fan
So Mikey....just so we are clear....

Have you looked at the WRs this list played with?
Brady
P. Manning
Brees
Rodgers
Roethlisberger
Rivers
Favre

Is it your contention that McNabb played with similar talent? Is it your contention that the quality of the WR does not increase the QBs confidence to "fit it into tight spots"?

Funny how so many here whined and moaned when Desean left because of the effect he had on defenses and how that helped other WRs....yet those same folks ignore a lack of it for the first 5 years McNabb was here. I am not even a real big McNabb fan but I can deal with simple history. First, Mcnabb hovered near 60% completion % with no real WRs.....that ballooned to 64% with TO. He threw 469 passes, that is not a statistical anomaly, that is a season finally playing with a talented WR. He was also over 60 with Jackson even though Jackson was a one trick pony.

I don't know if he would be a shoo in but to argue that he would not have significant;y better stats with a Randy Moss (who they could have gotten) or a host of other WRs that the other guys you listed had for all or most of their careers seems like a pretty tough position to defend. Just ask Aaron Rodgers last year....

And Gargano loved McNabb until late in his career when McNabb snubbed him and then suddenly he was the anti christ to Gargano.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 17 2016, 02:52 PM) *
So Mikey....just so we are clear....

Have you looked at the WRs this list played with?
Brady
P. Manning
Brees
Rodgers
Roethlisberger
Rivers
Favre

Is it your contention that McNabb played with similar talent? Is it your contention that the quality of the WR does not increase the QBs confidence to "fit it into tight spots"?

Funny how so many here whined and moaned when Desean left because of the effect he had on defenses and how that helped other WRs....yet those same folks ignore a lack of it for the first 5 years McNabb was here. I am not even a real big McNabb fan but I can deal with simple history. First, Mcnabb hovered near 60% completion % with no real WRs.....that ballooned to 64% with TO. He threw 469 passes, that is not a statistical anomaly, that is a season finally playing with a talented WR. He was also over 60 with Jackson even though Jackson was a one trick pony.

I don't know if he would be a shoo in but to argue that he would not have significant;y better stats with a Randy Moss (who they could have gotten) or a host of other WRs that the other guys you listed had for all or most of their careers seems like a pretty tough position to defend.

And Gargano loved McNabb until late in his career when McNabb snubbed him and then suddenly he was the anti christ to Gargano.


He was 4th, 7th and 8th without T.O.

I think if he was better passing in tight windows, his WR's would have looked better, as would Westbrook and other Rb's out of the backfield.

He had a chance to make the most of his career. His failures after leaving don't look good.

IMO, He was our best and VG, but not a Hall of Famer.

If you looked at his career and saw otherwise, then so be it. In the end, it's in the voters hands.

Btw, Cuz had those criticisms back in the mid 2000s also, FWIW.
mcnabbulous
It works both ways. How many guys had safety nets like Westbrook and Staley throughout their careers. How many guys always had bookend tackles?

Donovan got TO his 5th year as a starter. That is 1/3 of the way into a normal HoF QB's career.

The fucking pity party for a dude that bulked his way out of football 3-4 years too early is something else.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 17 2016, 04:08 PM) *
He was 4th, 7th and 8th without T.O.

I think if he was better passing in tight windows, his WR's would have looked better, as would Westbrook and other Rb's out of the backfield.

He had a chance to make the most of his career. His failures after leaving don't look good.

IMO, He was our best and VG, but not a Hall of Famer.

If you looked at his career and saw otherwise, then so be it. In the end, it's in the voters hands.

Btw, Cuz had those criticisms back in the mid 2000s also, FWIW.


FWIW Cuz idolized McNabb almost until McNabb's 2nd last season.

I am curious that you would breach the "Westbrook would have looked better" because with McNabb the Eagles were considered one of the best screen pass teams in the league....which is where Westbrook thrived, not on running seam routes and looking for the ball in "tight windows"
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2016, 04:22 PM) *
It works both ways. How many guys had safety nets like Westbrook and Staley throughout their careers. How many guys always had bookend tackles?

Donovan got TO his 5th year as a starter. That is 1/3 of the way into a normal HoF QB's career.

The fucking pity party for a dude that bulked his way out of football 3-4 years too early is something else.


Would you like to compare the RBs and O line that Manning had? Seriously? Westbrook asnd Staley were nice palyers with some great highlights but neither was AP. Brees? Ever hear of Ladanian Tomlinson?(and I think Brees is a much better QB for the record) Favre? Ahman Green ring a bell? All the greats have had RBs with good to great years and good O Lines....there are no "great" QBs who played with poor O lines and WRs and RBs......McNabb had a good O line for the most part...just not a good WR. People look at Westbrook and think he was spectacular...he was good, 2 time Pro Bowler, but Green had 4.

It is not a pity party but to say McNabb was inaccurate without acknowledging that his WRs sucked, something many here cried about at the time is revisionist history.
mcnabbulous
Westbrook was the best pass catching RB you listed. That's what I'm referring to.

Manning's OL was habitually overrated due to Manning's excellence.

Also, don't compare McNabb to those guys. He's not in their league. Which is half this conversation. In his era, Donovan wasn't consistently a top-5 QB. Prior to '05, he was top-3, but his prime was far too short.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 17 2016, 03:32 PM) *
FWIW Cuz idolized McNabb almost until McNabb's 2nd last season.

I am curious that you would breach the "Westbrook would have looked better" because with McNabb the Eagles were considered one of the best screen pass teams in the league....which is where Westbrook thrived, not on running seam routes and looking for the ball in "tight windows"


Visions of McNabb's bad pass to WB in the ARI NFCCG was the demon that raised the comment. I guess those demons are coming back.

I'm not buying the Bradfordesque excuses for Donovan.

All in all, he was a VG QB, with a VG coach with the same system for 11 years and a VG OL, with VG RB's and Avg WR's, with VG TE's and a VG defense, with a VG K and in most years played in a below AVG division in the second best conference.

I think most QB's would kill for that supporting cast.

He got a fair shake.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2016, 05:35 PM) *
Westbrook was the best pass catching RB you listed. That's what I'm referring to.

LT

QUOTE
Manning's OL was habitually overrated due to Manning's excellence.

That's just not true.

QUOTE
Also, don't compare McNabb to those guys. He's not in their league. Which is half this conversation. In his era, Donovan wasn't consistently a top-5 QB. Prior to '05, he was top-3, but his prime was far too short.

It's not a comparison between McNabb, Brees, Manning or Brady. There is no comparison, the rest are much better. However, but you can't deny that they had a much better supporting cast, including coaching. Of his contemporaries, McNabb had the worst receivers. It reflects in his stats and performance.
Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 17 2016, 05:45 PM) *
Visions of McNabb's bad pass to WB in the ARI NFCCG was the demon that raised the comment. I guess those demons are coming back.

That's how .I feel about the convenient amnesia for Dawkins in that game.

QUOTE
I'm not buying the Bradfordesque excuses for Donovan.

There's no excuses. McNabb had a borderline HoF career. Had he gotten the WR support that was obviously necessary he would be a shoe in for the HoF (maybe not first ballot) and we would have a lombardi.

QUOTE
All in all, he was a VG QB, with a VG coach with the same system for 11 years and a VG OL, with VG RB's and Avg WR's, with VG TE's and a VG defense, with a VG K and in most years played in a below AVG division in the second best conference.

The Eagles didn't have average WRs. They were below average.

QUOTE
I think most QB's would kill for that supporting cast.

MOst QBs in that situation would have eventually received the support necessary.

QUOTE
He got a fair shake.

For the most part, except for the one key area that would have made all of the difference.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Sep 17 2016, 04:54 PM) *
LT

Westy was statistically a more dynamic receiver. By quite a bit.


QUOTE
It's not a comparison between McNabb, Brees, Manning or Brady. There is no comparison, the rest are much better. However, but you can't deny that they had a much better supporting cast, including coaching. Of his contemporaries, McNabb had the worst receivers. It reflects in his stats and performance.

Andy has a better (slightly) win percentage with Alex Smith than he did with McNabb. The idea that Reid was holding him back has sufficiently been disproven. He was a good QB. Compared to his contemporaries, which is how HoF candidacy is judged, he wasn't good enough to be considered in that elite, HoF group.

I also deny that his supporting cast was much worse. Brady's receivers have never been notable. He's always brought out the best in those guys. As did McNabb.

Donnie consistently benefitted from excellent coaching, a sound defense, and solid OL. Does he deserve no blame for things that went wrong in his career? Not knowing how to properly physically train for his position seems like a pretty major career flaw.
mcnabbulous
Jesus, Phits. That last post is some funny shit. "All the difference."

Good stuff, sir.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2016, 05:35 PM) *
Westbrook was the best pass catching RB you listed. That's what I'm referring to.

Manning's OL was habitually overrated due to Manning's excellence.

Also, don't compare McNabb to those guys. He's not in their league. Which is half this conversation. In his era, Donovan wasn't consistently a top-5 QB. Prior to '05, he was top-3, but his prime was far too short.


Except he wasn't...I suggest you look at LTs stats or Marshall Faulk...all of them put up great rushing stats and very comparable Rec. stats. I think we romanticize where BW stacks up because he was our guy. He was a good multi purpose guy.

I agree that he was not in the Manning/Brady/Brees class but he was not a long way away. I also agree he won't get in the the HOF. We just disagree on the reasons.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 17 2016, 05:45 PM) *
Visions of McNabb's bad pass to WB in the ARI NFCCG was the demon that raised the comment. I guess those demons are coming back.

I'm not buying the Bradfordesque excuses for Donovan.

All in all, he was a VG QB, with a VG coach with the same system for 11 years and a VG OL, with VG RB's and Avg WR's, with VG TE's and a VG defense, with a VG K and in most years played in a below AVG division in the second best conference.

I think most QB's would kill for that supporting cast.

He got a fair shake.


I would disagree on the VG o line. He had very good tackles but I stop there. His RBs were good and his WRs were far from average until he was already going the Lou Ferrigno QB physique route which Nabby is correct about, that is his fault. He got and took bad advice in that department.

This is not something new either, this is something the writers reported on ad nauseum. It is not an excuse when it is verifiable. I am reminded of seeing these guys at Musikfest when they would come down from Lehigh and be in the VIP tent with us. Not only were they mediocre but they looked it as well. Na Brown and the boys looked like cross country guys.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 17 2016, 07:30 PM) *
Except he wasn't...I suggest you look at LTs stats or Marshall Faulk...

Faulk wasn't in the discussion, but he was better than Westy. I have looked at the stats. Westy averaged 1.5 yards more per catch than LT and scored through the air significantly more frequently.

QUOTE
all of them put up great rushing stats and very comparable Rec. stats. I think we romanticize where BW stacks up because he was our guy. He was a good multi purpose guy.

I'm not romanticizing anything. BW was a fantastic pass catching threat out of the backfield. One of the best all time.

Faulk was on another level though.

QUOTE
I agree that he was not in the Manning/Brady/Brees class but he was not a long way away. I also agree he won't get in the the HOF. We just disagree on the reasons.

As a passer he isn't really close to their league. When he had a more diverse skill set, his total package put him in the conversation. Unfortunately, for the issues you outlined, he thought it best to bulk up and take away those variables. It ultimately was the wrong decision.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2016, 06:11 PM) *
Westy was statistically a more dynamic receiver. By quite a bit.

Are you sure about that? Their numbers seems to favor LT in virtually every way.

QUOTE
Andy has a better (slightly) win percentage with Alex Smith than he did with McNabb.

Are you comparing 11 years with McNabb to 4 years with Smith?

QUOTE
The idea that Reid was holding him back has sufficiently been disproven.

When was it disproven, let alone sufficiently?

QUOTE
He was a good QB. Compared to his contemporaries, which is how HoF candidacy is judged, he wasn't good enough to be considered in that elite, HoF group.

Is that your best guess, or do you have insider information on how the selection committee makes their choices?

QUOTE
I also deny that his supporting cast was much worse. Brady's receivers have never been notable. He's always brought out the best in those guys. As did McNabb.

Brown, Branch, Givens, Welker and Moss vs Small, Pinkston, Mitchell, Owens and Lewis
Moss and Owens are a wash. Other than that, which Eagles WR would you take over any of the (listed) Pats receivers?

QUOTE
Donnie consistently benefitted from excellent coaching, a sound defense, and solid OL. Does he deserve no blame for things that went wrong in his career? Not knowing how to properly physically train for his position seems like a pretty major career flaw.

Good coaching, sometimes very good coaching, but excellent is a stretch. Excellent coaching would have devised a plan B for their dynamic QB. McNabb deserves plenty of blame. He and Reid share the responsibility 50/50. The disconnect between us is your refusal to admit that a premier receiver (throughout his career) would have made a significant difference in McNabb's stats. When the league figured out how to contain the screen game, Reid didn't have a solution for the WR problem. There was a half assed effort in acquiring the necessary talent (post T.O.)...Kevin Curtis, Donte Stallworth, Hank Baskett, Reggie Brown, Jason Avant ...none of these were #1 receivers. They finally hit on DJax and Maclin, but that was a case of too little too late. By then the D needed overhauling and McNabb was only good and not great. Even then he managed to have one of his best statistical seasons (2009).
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2016, 08:42 PM) *
Westy averaged 1.5 yards more per catch than LT

They both average just under 4 receptions per game.
QUOTE
and scored through the air significantly more frequently.

Slightly lesser receiving numbers probably has a lot to do with the fact that LT was a (much) better short yardage back. 145 career rushing TD's says that scoring wasn't an issue for him.

Westy v LT
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Sep 17 2016, 10:12 PM) *
Are you sure about that? Their numbers seems to favor LT in virtually every way.

If we are talking about them as receiving options, then I'm very sure about it.

QUOTE
Are you comparing 11 years with McNabb to 4 years with Smith?

His time thus far in KC is a sufficient sample size to prove that he wasn't just a one hit wonder in Philly.

Not too many NFL head coaches have won playoff games with three different starting QBs.

QUOTE
When was it disproven, let alone sufficiently?

Andy's success in KC is the proof.

QUOTE
Is that your best guess, or do you have insider information on how the selection committee makes their choices?

It's not inside information. It's history. Players are always judged against their contemporaries. It's the only way that makes sense.

QUOTE
Brown, Branch, Givens, Welker and Moss vs Small, Pinkston, Mitchell, Owens and Lewis
Moss and Owens are a wash. Other than that, which Eagles WR would you take over any of the (listed) Pats receivers?

I believe they are relatively comparable, with the big difference being the guys throwing them the ball.

The Pats guys may have been slightly better, but it's not significant.

QUOTE
Good coaching sometimes very good coaching but excellent is a stretch. Excellent coaching would have devised a plan B for their dynamic QB.

This conversation is cyclical. We clearly don't agree on the ability to plan for Donnie's inconsistency.

QUOTE
McNabb deserves plenty of blame. He and Reid share the responsibility 50/50. The disconnect between us is your refusal to admit that a premier receiver (throughout his career) would have made a significant difference in McNabb's stats.

Its a bit more nuanced than that.

QUOTE
When the league figured out how to contain the screen game, Reid didn't have a solution for the WR problem.

When did that happen?

QUOTE
There was a half assed effort in acquiring the necessary talent (post T.O.)...Kevin Curtis, Donte Stallworth, Hank Baskett, Reggie Brown, Jason Avant ...none of these were #1 receivers. They finally hit on DJax and Maclin, but that was a case of too little too late. By then the D needed overhauling and McNabb was only good and not great. Even then he managed to have one of his best statistical seasons (2009).

Donovan was 32 when DJax was acquired. It was only too late because Donovan's prime ended far too early. Tom Brady has thrown 231 TDs since his age 32 season. Donovan threw 234 in his career.

That's why he's not making the HoF.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2016, 10:39 PM) *
Donovan was 32 when DJax was acquired. It was only too late because Donovan's prime ended far too early. Tom Brady has thrown 231 TDs since his age 32 season. Donovan threw 234 in his career.

That's why he's not making the HoF.


Really?

Ouch!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.