McBadd
edmundfitzgerald
Posts: 4,306 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
A. A very rich, durable, competent NFL quarterback.
B. An average qb who was just lucky enough to play on some decent teams.
B. An average qb who was just lucky enough to play on some decent teams.
0
Comments
Bosox1976
<< <i>A. A very rich, durable, competent NFL quarterback.
B. An average qb who was just lucky enough to play on some decent teams.
Above average QB who has driven the ENTIRE offense on a dominant NFL team for 10+ years..with little stud WR help (1 year - Owens) and NO traditional running game (any year).
The Eagles had a better defense in the Reggie White years, and R.C. couldn't get them ANYWHERE in the playoffs...
McBarf is a "never was"..............."never will be".....who thinks he is good.
The eaglets have a much better QB in Vick.
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
<< <i>Good post!
McBarf is a "never was"..............."never will be".....who thinks he is good.
The eaglets have a much better QB in Vick. >>
how the heck do you know ANYTHING about him? do you talk to him? do you know anyone whose ever said a word to him? every post of yours re: McNabb has something about his arrogance re: his abilities... you obviously have some sort of psychological hangup and feel somehow threatened by him.. somehow.
I recommend increasing the dosage, you'll be more comfortable in the future
Throughout his career I've heard the claim that he's had no quality receivers. I say that they have all had a mediocre QB. In the entire Andy Reid era, McNabb has been the one on-field constant. His statistics pale in comparison to his top contemporaries in this pass-happy age and his W-L record in big games (NFC Championship & Super Bowl) is simply awful.
McNabb is talented and presents unique challenges to opposing defenses. He can (still) hurt you with his legs, and if he escapes the pocket to his right he can be deadly. However, defending him is simple: keep him in the pocket and force him to throw. If a defense can do this, which Dallas did 3 times this season, McNabb is well below average. He consistently underthrows the short-to-moderate stuff, and overthrows the deep stuff.
For all of his eye-popping statistics and occassional playoff wins, Peyton Manning was roundly criticized and labled a "loser" until he beat the Bears in the Super Bowl. Tony Romo, after 3 seasons (only 2 full) as a starter, was assailed for having an 0-2 playoff record. (For the record, I was also very hard on him, but for his failure to protect the football, not for losing 2 playoff games.) Yet, after 11 seasons, mediocre stats, and still no Super Bowl title, McNabb continues to be hailed as a first-tier franchise QB.
Not bad, just overrated.
Brett, you pretty much sumed it up here on McBarf.
I also was hard on Romo for the same reasons you stated. It seems he has corrected those problems and he reads defences very well and gets the ball out very quick. I heard him compared to Dan Mareno who was very very very good!!!
Tony still will have to win a SB or a least the NFC Champ before he is considered a great QB, which is the way it should be. But he is already better than McBarf.
McNabb has already won an NFC CHampionship game and Romo has one wildcard win. So by your standards of playoff success measuring greatness, how is Romo any better at this point than McNabb??
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Simple....Tony is already better than McBarf.
I said to be considered great Tony had to do those things. McBarf is N O T great and N E V E R will be! Going to a SB does not in its self make you a great QB.
<< <i>While Manning's critics were prone to point out his lack of a Super Bowl ring prior to winning one, he was clearly still lauded as a top flight best-in-league type QB even prior to his ring by the majority of fans and media. Was he "overrated" then? Was he "underrated"? While the monkey is off his back, does that ONE Super Bowl ring really make all the difference in the world as to how we will perceive him. The answer is probably yes. But does that make really much sense in determining whether Manning was/is a great QB or not? I personally don't think so and I'm one of those fans that cherishes championships above anything else. >>
I agree. And as is often mentioned here and elsewhere, if the criterion for being "great" is a Super Bowl ring, then Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly (among others) were merely adequate.
I said to be considered great Tony had to do those things. McBarf is N O T great and N E V E R will be! Going to a SB does not in its self make you a great QB.
If you think Romo at this point in his career is a better QB than McNabb over the course of his entire career, you really don't know anything about football.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Somewhere Trent Dilfer is nodding his head in agreement.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
McBarf's name shouldn't even be used in the same sentence as Manning!
Of course you don't have to win a SB to be a great QB. Like you stated about Mareno and some others.
B U T , (I wish you could read my lips) McBarf is NOT as good as ANY of those!!!!
<< <i>McBarf's name shouldn't even be used in the same sentence as Manning!
Of course you don't have to win a SB to be a great QB. Like you stated about Mareno and some others.
B U T , (I wish you could read my lips) McBarf is NOT as good as ANY of those!!!! >>
Who is this 'Maerno' guy you keep talking about?
McNabb has had a very nice career, and 4 consecutive NFC championship games and a super bowl appearance to boot. His knock has always been that he's never come up in big games, and, except for the T.O. experiment, he's never had anything approaching a good WR corps. You might argue Desean Jackson is on that level, but he's still really young and his supporting cast is sub par. You can't blame yesterday's bloodletting by the defense on McNabb, and, until yesterday, Romo had the tag of the biggest choker in recent history (botched kick hold ring a bell?)
That being said, McNabb has had a target on his back since he's been drafted. The fans in Philly seem to want this guy to fail at every opportunity, and cheer when he does. Kolb did a good job this year in a couple games, but how can anyone realistically think that those few games is going to be his M.O. for his career?
<< <i>...Say what you will about him, but his stats are not "mediocre". Career wise, they're pretty much exactly the same as Favre's on a passer rating basis. I'm not sure why anyone would claim he is "overrated" considering that perhaps even most Eagles' fans are prone to constant criticism of him. No question that he has underperformed in some big games but he's taken that team to many big games as well.... >>
Compare McNabb's lifetime completion percentage, yards-per-attempt average, and passer rating to those of the top QB's of today (P. Manning, Brady, Brees, Rivers, Romo) and you will see that they do not compare favorably. Yes, his numbers are pretty much on par with Favre's, who I also consider to be overrated. (Not trying to spark a debate about Favre. He has been a great QB, just not, in my opinion, as great as Graham, Staubach, Montana, Marino, Starr, Unitas, etc.) Look at the same categories for Favre, plus throw in interception percentage, and you'll see that Favre's stats also lag behind those of the others mentioned. Favre has just played forever and thrown a ton, making his career totals astronomical. As to why I claim McNabb is overrated, I detailed that in my post: Mediocre stats and very poor big-game results. Yes, Eagles fans are prone to criticism of McNabb, just as they criticize the top players on any Philadelphia sports team. I said that McNabb is not nearly as good as the pundits (TV/radio sports analysts) say he is.
I don't dislike McNabb either, but I'm certainly not a fan. This year the Eagles' wide recievers have been widely lauded for their immense talent (I say they are simply very fast), leading many to say that McNabb finally has the necessary weapons to dominate offensively. If that's the case, to what do we attribute their recent offensive failures? Again, McNabb has remained the one on-field constant for the Eagles. When does it finally dawn on his supporters that he is NOT a championship calibre QB?
Edited to eliminate ambiguity.
This is a common statement made by uninformed fans. I am not an Eagles fan, or even a McNabb fan, for that matter, but the truth is that a QB is only as good as the personnel around him when it comes to winning rings, and McNabb has had a fairly mediocre receiving corps and/or team defense around him for most of that time.
Let's use a recent example for comparison. Was Elway not a championship calibre QB till Terrell Davis came along? Many people thought so before 1998. Obviously, he was the same QB, maybe even not as good as the younger version of Elway as he was near the end of his career, but suddely he gets an all-world RB and he's a chamopnship calibre QB?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The difference between Elway and McNabb is that Elway reached 3 Super Bowls before the additon of Davis. True, he lost all 3, but the fact is that Denver kept running into far superior teams. To reach the Super Bowl, Elway had to have won 3 AFC Championship games.
The same refrain about poor recievers keeps cropping up when McNabb is discussed. Yet, this season nearly every analyst claimed that Philly had THE BEST set of offensive weapons in the league. Still, a very poor QB performance and no title. Those are not opinions.
If you are still not convinced, I think this should do it: My assessment of McNabb is not just my own, I have two very close friends who also agree with me.
Elway reached and was blown out (in historic fashion) in three Super Bowls. McNabb reached one Super Bowl they very nearly won and reached 4 straight NFC Championship games.
My point is that the label "championship calibre" QB is almost always misused when it comes to evaluating a QBs ability to win a title game.
The Eagles have the youngest receiving corps in football right now, and have not had an elite receiver outside of TO for a single season. I think this team can contend for a Super Bowl with McNabb if they can fix the running game and make some improvements on defense.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Look at it from this perspective...What great receivers and running backs did Tom Brady have during his Super Bowl runs? Certainly there were no household names. Yet Brady, widely considered a top QB, won the big games consistently. Until this season, McNabb has benefited from one of the most fearsome defenses in the NFL. Some would say that a Dilfer-like QB could have "managed" the offenses of such teams to a Super Bowl win. However, McNabb, a top QB in most analysts eyes, couldn't get it done.
I contend that by the time his young receivers develop into legitimate threats and they acquire a running attack, McNabb will be too old to prove me wrong. Only time will tell.
<< <i>ymarea,
I won't go into all the reasons of why you're comparisons are distorted as I could be typing a Ph.D. thesis right now. I will just say that if your definition of "mediocre" is that he doesn't rank in the Top 5 QBs right now, then your definition of "mediocre" is neither the denotation or connotation of what the word means. >>
Please let me clarify. By "mediocre" I mean of ordinary or moderate quality. It can also mean less than adequate. When compared to the top statistical QB's of today, McNabb's career numbers fit either definition.
Before posting my opinions on McNabb's performance, I realized that it would touch some nerves and spark debate. Instead of belittling my opinions by calling them "distorted," how about countering them with some analysis of your own? I don't believe either of us would be swayed in our opinions, but such an approach could add interest and credibility to your posts.
One can throw out the numbers and the poor post-season records. Just watch McNabb stand in the pocket and attempt to throw the ball and you'll realize that he is not among the elites. The athleticism that he brings to the position, which is not as great as in years past, has never been adequate compenastion for his other deficiencies.
Edited to say...Baseball, I do respect your opinions and my reply was sent without any animosity. I'm sure I would enjoy reading more from you.
I knew I would enjoy your response. Truthfully, I can't very much disagree with anything you have said. I believe we are speaking about degreess of greatness. When I say McNabb is overrated, I am reacting to the many pundits who not only place him among the top 5 of today, but the top 20 or 25 of all-time. In my opinion, McNabb is in no way an all-time great, nor is he a top 5 QB today. McNabb is a good QB, and is most certainly above average.
My last admission does not contradict my "overrated" contention, however. At the risk of another flawed comparison, Sal Bando was an above average third baseman and was certainly in the top 5 among his contemporaries. But I don't recall anyone ever speaking of Bando in such glowing terms that would place him among the best of the best. That is the core of my criticism of McNabb. Actually, my criticism is not really of McNabb but of those who put his perforance in such lofty heights as to over reach, in my opinion. Since I lack the ability to identify each "pundit" and investigate their respecitve penchants for hyperbole, I must approach this in a different way. Namely, to describe McNabb's career as I see it to justify my opinion.
The Eagles have a very young and very talented receiving corps. They will get better next season if they can solidify the running game and improve the defense.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
You are correct. No one here said that McNabb is great. My original post was not in response to board members, but in response to the "talking heads" who, in my opinion, place too much faith in (overrate) McNabb's ability.
Here are a couple of recent examples: On a recent episode of ESPN's "First Take," Derrick Brooks predicted that the Eagles would win their playoff rematch with Dallas because Andy Reid is a better coach than Wade Phillips (I agree) AND Donavan McNabb is better than Romo. On ESPN's "Pardon the Interruption," Kornheiser (sp?) asked Wilbon who is the better QB right now...McNabb or Romo? I don't mean to turn this into a Romo-McNabb debate, it's just that these were the most recent examples that I can recall. Wilbon said that it was McNabb, hands down, because the Eagles record in their last 7 games was 6-1, while the Cowboys' was 5-2. Both analysts failed to acknowledge that, not only is Romo better statistically, but his team had beaten McNabb's head-to-head in 4 or their last 6 meetings. That record is now 5 or the last 7.
Following the Eagles playoff loss yesterday, NFL Network's Rich Eisen posed the question (and I'm paraphrasing), is it going to remain enough for the Eagles to win games and the occassional playoff contest, yet not win an NFL title? He added, is it time to question whether they will ever win with McNabb, and if so, why would anyone ask such a question. Deion Sanders' reply was simply, "Because people are ignorant." It was clear from the context of Sanders' remark, that the implication was that McNabb is definitely good enough to win the big one, and to suggest otherwise is sheer nonsense. My response to that is, look at the results.
I have heard much, far more glowing adulation for McNabb from other personalities over the years. I will admit that I can not recall the specifics such as who, where, when, but they generally state that McNabb is an elite NFL QB whose legacy will be one of unabashed greatness. With such assessments I disagree. I contend that McNabb is an above average QB who will find a place in history alongside the likes of John Hadl, Roman Gabriel, Randall Cunningham, and Brian Sipe. All terrific QB's, but none great.
<< <i>McBarf's name shouldn't even be used in the same sentence as Manning!
Of course you don't have to win a SB to be a great QB. Like you stated about Mareno and some others.
B U T , (I wish you could read my lips) McBarf is NOT as good as ANY of those!!!! >>
dude, it's Dan Marino. Cmon.
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
While, again, I would not say that McNabb is an all-time great QB, he is without question better than any of the QBs on that list. His career TD/INT ratio of 216-100 and 60% completion rate to go along with 32K total passing yards is far better than any of those other players you mentioned.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i> I contend that McNabb is an above average QB who will find a place in history alongside the likes of John Hadl, Roman Gabriel, Randall Cunningham, and Brian Sipe. All terrific QB's, but none great.
While, again, I would not say that McNabb is an all-time great QB, he is without question better than any of the QBs on that list. His career TD/INT ratio of 216-100 and 60% completion rate to go along with 32K total passing yards is far better than any of those other players you mentioned. >>
Granted, McNabb's career Int % is among the all-time greats. That is not debateable. To say he is without question better than those other QB's is. Taken at face value, passing stats of today can not be compared to those of 20 years ago and more. The rules have been modified to make passing MUCH easier than in decades past. DB's were allowed to mug recievers all over the field just as long as the ball wasn't in the air. QB's of the past weren't afforded the same protections (by rules, not by blockers) as today. The present day game is, by design, geared toward wide open offense and more scoring.
This may be splitting hairs, but McNabb's career completion % is .59, not .60. Either number would have been outstanding in the '60's or '70's when anything over .50 was considered top notch. Today's benchmark is closer to .63.
While, again, I would not say that McNabb is an all-time great QB, he is without question better than any of the QBs on that list. His career TD/INT ratio of 216-100 and 60% completion rate to go along with 32K total passing yards is far better than any of those other players you mentioned. >>
Granted, McNabb's career Int % is among the all-time greats. That is not debateable. To say he is without question better than those other QB's is. Taken at face value, passing stats of today can not be compared to those of 20 years ago and more. The rules have been modified to make passing MUCH easier than in decades past. DB's were allowed to mug recievers all over the field just as long as the ball wasn't in the air. QB's of the past weren't afforded the same protections (by rules, not by blockers) as today. The present day game is, by design, geared toward wide open offense and more scoring.
This may be splitting hairs, but McNabb's career completion % is .59, not .60. Either number would have been outstanding in the '60's or '70's when anything over .50 was considered top notch. Today's benchmark is closer to .63.
His TD to INT ratio alone puts him on top of all those other QBs you mentioned. The basis of my argument, however, is that is unfair to say, as you did, that McNabb isa not a "championship calibre" QB, as there are too many factors beyond a QBs control to make that determination. McNabb is good enough to win a championship with the right personnel around him. The guy reached four straight NFC Championship games and a Super Bowl with very mediocre receivers around him (with the one exception of TO for the Super Bowl year, which only further illustrates my point). To say that McNabb in his career as QB is only as good as Brian Sipe or Randall Cunningham is really short-sighted.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
This is a specious argument. One can not accurately make a direct comparison of today's passing statistics with those of past eras. McNabb has slightly better TD-to-INT ratio than Joe Montana, and a significantly better one than Starr, Unitas, Staubach, Bradshaw, Graham, Baugh, Stabler, and Elway. In today's NFL it is far easier to throw TD's and much more difficult to intercept passes than it was during these players' times.
My saying McNabb is synonymous with Sipe, Hadl, et al, was to compare their statistics and post-season performances relative to the top, most successful QB's of their eras.
I can not disagree with you that my saying McNabb or any other QB isn't a championship calibre OB is purely a matter of opinion. I will say that the Eagles have had many outstanding teams during McNabb's tenure (Poster Hyperion said "Above average QB who has driven the ENTIRE offense on a dominant NFL team for 10+ years.") and has yet to win a Super Bowl. I have seen him play many times and am convinced that, for him to win the big one, he will have to have one heckuva supporting cast.
HGenisis,
I have not put Romo above McNabb in my critiques, but I do believe Romo is a FAR better QB. I am a Dallas fan and, by default, a Philly hater. That relationship goes both ways. This does not preclude me from being objective in my assessment of McNabb's talents. I most certainly know how to be objective in a debate. It is a common practice for those who can not effectively articulate their position to attack those with whom they disagree. I say McNabb is overrated and have explained why I think so. I invite you to demonstrate where I am wrong, just as Baseball and Grote15 have done.
<< <i>My mistake, I got you and dieman mixed up...my apologies. I'll edit my post accordingly. >>
Apology accepted! Thanks, I appreciate it.
It's kinda funny. Discussing religion and politics is always a sure-fire way to raise one's blood pressure. I'm now realizing that discussing sports has a similar effect. Not to say that anger is being created, but emotions definitely run high as we all have an affinity for our teams, players, and opinions. Personally, I admire McNabb. He is always a class act, is willing to face the media--win or lose--, and comes across as a very personable man. I simply don't think he is as good a QB as his staunch supporters say.
I think that distinction clouds your opinion to some degree, as it is really rather inaccurate to state that Romo at this point in his career is better than McNabb over the course of his. Can Romo wind up being better than MCNabb? Most certainly, but he has not yet reached that level, not by a long shot.
This debate has spun off into a vague area where we are now comparing other QBs during different eras, but my main point, and the one that I was responding to, was that you cannot fairly say that McNabb is "not a championship calibre" QB, as there are too many factors beyond a QBs control when it comes to winning a title. Just ask John Elway (who manged to shake that stigma) and Dan Marino (who did not). I'm not evcen suggesting that McNabb is even on the same level as those two QBs, but to suggest that he is not able to win a championship, is inaccurate and unfair.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.