Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

McNabb thinks he's a HOF


Recommended Posts

he has a decent argument going to all them NFC Champiomship games (5) a SuperBowl appearance which they almost won, top twenty in passing yards

He doesn't have a snow balls chance. His best season totals he finished 7th in yards once. And he finished 3rd in TDs. Once. He went over 25tds twice in his career. And 3500yds 3 times....He has a career 59% career completion percentage. In a high percentage WCO.....there is one HOF from that team, and his name is Andy Ried....if there is an arguement for anyone, it will be Dawkins. Not McNabb...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before, I thought he was a HOFer. However, I heard Jason Taylor talk about it on NFL Network yesterday and he changed my mind. His numbers are better than some QBs in the HOF, but he lacks championships. Championships aren't the only thing that a player is judged on, but if you want to make the HOF as a QB without winning a championship, your numbers need to be off the charts. That's why Marino is in the HOF despite not winning a championship and why people were saying Peyton would be in the HOF before the 2006 season; their numbers were insane. I wouldn't say McNabb's numbers were ever amazing. He was a good QB and there were times that I would put him in the top 5 in the league, but I wouldn't ever say he was the best in the league at any point in his career. He also hasn't helped his case by talking so much in the last few years about how no one can have any success in Washington and his play in the last few years hasn't helped him either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never! He not only failed to win the big one, after T. Owens surgically removed his self confidence he was a disaster in big games. Good? Yes, but no HOF.

With all due respect, mentioning no Super Bowl rings is not a valid argument since there are currently at least a few QB HOFers that never won a ring and MANY QBs that have but will never be voted in. His numbers (or lack of) will be sufficient enough evidence...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hall Of Fame Test for all past, present, and future NFL players: If YOU feel the need to publicly say that you should be in the HOF, rather than OTHER people pleading your case for you (think Art Monk), then you are NOT A HOFer! :goat:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before, I thought he was a HOFer. However, I heard Jason Taylor talk about it on NFL Network yesterday and he changed my mind. His numbers are better than some QBs in the HOF, but he lacks championships. Championships aren't the only thing that a player is judged on, but if you want to make the HOF as a QB without winning a championship, your numbers need to be off the charts. That's why Marino is in the HOF despite not winning a championship and why people were saying Peyton would be in the HOF before the 2006 season; their numbers were insane. I wouldn't say McNabb's numbers were ever amazing. He was a good QB and there were times that I would put him in the top 5 in the league, but I wouldn't ever say he was the best in the league at any point in his career. He also hasn't helped his case by talking so much in the last few years about how no one can have any success in Washington and his play in the last few years hasn't helped him either.

Even though I do not agree that HOF should be based mainly off of 'Rings', I can agree with your post as it basically expands beyond the Ring factor. That is why Marino and also Warren Moon (who also had staggering NFL passing stats during the later part of the 80's and early 90's and won multiple Championships in the CFL) are in and others who have rings are not. Even though a QB's job is to led his team to Super Bowl rings, the truth of the matter is that TEAMS win Championships, not individual QBs. And simply saying a QB did not win the big one far too simplifies the debate. Nice post!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though I do not agree that HOF should be based mainly off of 'Rings', I can agree with your post as it basically expands beyond the Ring factor. That is why Marino and also Warren Moon (who also had staggering NFL passing stats during the later part of the 80's and early 90's and won multiple Championships in the CFL) are in and others who have rings are not. Even though a QB's job is to led his team to Super Bowl rings, the truth of the matter is that TEAMS win Championships, not individual QBs. And simply saying a QB did not win the big one far too simplifies the debate. Nice post!

I agree. QBs have a big impact on the game and this is no doubt a QB driven league, but teams win championships.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont know if anyone saw this, but Donovan McNabb thinks he had a hall of fame career.

Unless he's talking about the Chunky Soup Hall of Fame, then I dont know what he's thinking.

Humility isn't an attribute of most NFL quarterbacks so I'm glad he thinks that way....but the only way he'll get there is by buying a ticket.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to do a search to see what Donovan actually said. Here is what I found:

"Peyton (Manning) never won the big game until he won the Super Bowl finally. Dan Marino never won the big game. But does that mean his career is a failure? No. Not at all," McNabb told Fox Sports' Mark Kriegel. "When you sit and look at the numbers -- and that's what it is when it comes to the Hall of Fame -- my numbers are better than Jim Kelly, better than Troy Aikman, better than a lot of guys in the Hall of Fame, but the one thing they do have is a Super Bowl."

"What makes a Hall of Fame quarterback is, first of all, his numbers, (then) how many times he's led his team to the big game -- which the big game still is the NFC championship, to lead you there -- and, most importantly of all, did he make the players around him better," he said. "In his time, in his era, was he a top five, top 10 quarterback in the league….

"Even these last two years, when people may look at it and say, 'Oh, he's done, or whatever.' I'm 34, 35 years old, but still, I played at the pinnacle, I played at the highest level of my career. I played there," said McNabb. "And I would vote for myself for the Hall of Fame."

http://www.cbssports...e-hall-of-famer

What stuck out to me the most was that he said Peyton had never won the big game until he finally won the SB. And, that Marino had never won the big game.

But, when he is talking about himself; he defines the big game as the NFC championship. :scratch:

Link to post
Share on other sites

either way he should go, hes got better numbers then some of the best that ever played the game, Dan Marino only ever went to one superbowl and he lost. Jim Kelly went to 4 and lost all of them, Mcnabb is a 6 time pro bowler went to the Superbowl and lost by 3 points, Dan Fouts is in and he never won a superbowl. why didnt them guys when a superbowl? cause one player dont win superbowls its a total team effort

Link to post
Share on other sites

either way he should go, hes got better numbers then some of the best that ever played the game, Dan Marino only ever went to one superbowl and he lost. Jim Kelly went to 4 and lost all of them, Mcnabb is a 6 time pro bowler went to the Superbowl and lost by 3 points, Dan Fouts is in and he never won a superbowl. why didnt them guys when a superbowl? cause one player dont win superbowls its a total team effort

What all time greats is he better than? You can't compare him to players in the distantt past IE Fout etc. because its an entirely different game.

You compare him to his peers. The ones he played with. And he was never a top QB in this generation. Not even close. As I mentioned before, his highest yardage total in his career for a season was best for 7th in the league, and one time he finished 3rd in TDs.....He only threw for 3500yds 3 times in 11 seasons....He has a putrid 59% comp percentage.....He threw over 25TDs ONCE.......

Manning, Brady, Favre, Brees are easily head and shoulders above McNabb....theres 4 QBs from his generation automatically in before he is.....Then, Warner will easily get recognition before he does.....theres 5.......Now, what about a guy like Randall Cunningham? Rich Gannon? Both of whom have All-Pros on there resume, a couple Players of the Year awards, and an MVP.....Theres 7.......Now, what about guys who aren't finished yet? Eli, Rivers, Rodgers, Cutler, Romo. All of them will EASILY surpass McNabb numbers wise, barring injury....

Look at a guy like Romo......77Starts/64.5%/20834Yds/149Tds/96.9QBR

Compared to Mcnabb..........161starts/59%/37276yds/234Tds/85.6QBR....

So McNabb has 84 more starts......a much worse Comp%.....16,442 more yards (or 5 seasons of 3,000yds 4 of 3,500) and 85 more Tds (Or 4 seasons of 21 TDs)..........And thats just Tony Romo........Who avgs 3,400+yds a year (with an injury 1100Yd season)...24+ Tds a season......

Link to post
Share on other sites

McNabb is delusional.

It's a shame, he was a legitimately talented QB who very well could have been a HoF player but I think as time passes it becomes increasingly clear that he was held back tremendously by his own ego.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame, he was a legitimately talented QB who very well could have been a HoF player but I think as time passes it becomes increasingly clear that he was held back tremendously by his own ego.

And a lack of offensive talent around him. He played with some amazing defenses, but he also carried some pitiful offenses over the years. He was on a HOF trajectory earlier in his career, but unless he comes back to the league and puts together an impressive twilight to his career he won't have a chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What all time greats is he better than? You can't compare him to players in the distantt past IE Fout etc. because its an entirely different game.

You compare him to his peers. The ones he played with. And he was never a top QB in this generation. Not even close. As I mentioned before, his highest yardage total in his career for a season was best for 7th in the league, and one time he finished 3rd in TDs.....He only threw for 3500yds 3 times in 11 seasons....He has a putrid 59% comp percentage.....He threw over 25TDs ONCE.......

Manning, Brady, Favre, Brees are easily head and shoulders above McNabb....theres 4 QBs from his generation automatically in before he is.....Then, Warner will easily get recognition before he does.....theres 5.......Now, what about a guy like Randall Cunningham? Rich Gannon? Both of whom have All-Pros on there resume, a couple Players of the Year awards, and an MVP.....Theres 7.......Now, what about guys who aren't finished yet? Eli, Rivers, Rodgers, Cutler, Romo. All of them will EASILY surpass McNabb numbers wise, barring injury....

Look at a guy like Romo......77Starts/64.5%/20834Yds/149Tds/96.9QBR

Compared to Mcnabb..........161starts/59%/37276yds/234Tds/85.6QBR....

So McNabb has 84 more starts......a much worse Comp%.....16,442 more yards (or 5 seasons of 3,000yds 4 of 3,500) and 85 more Tds (Or 4 seasons of 21 TDs)..........And thats just Tony Romo........Who avgs 3,400+yds a year (with an injury 1100Yd season)...24+ Tds a season......

I think Jim Kelly makes the better comparison, if you want to compare to someone in the Hall of Fame. Similar starts, stats and similar success/frustration in the postseason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Jim Kelly makes the better comparison, if you want to compare to someone in the Hall of Fame. Similar starts, stats and similar success/frustration in the postseason.

It's not even close to being a fair comparison. Kelly lead his team to four SBs. McNabb rode Jim Johnson's coattails to 5 NFC Championship and 1 SB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not even close to being a fair comparison. Kelly lead his team to four SBs. McNabb rode Jim Johnson's coattails to 5 NFC Championship and 1 SB.

He still won zero SBs, same as McNabb, with Thurman Thomas and Andre Reed and a pretty loaded offense managed similar numbers in similar starts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He still won zero SBs, same as McNabb, with Thurman Thomas and Andre Reed and a pretty loaded offense managed similar numbers in similar starts.

A) 5 NFC Championships does not equal 4 Superbowls

B) Sanchez went to 2 Afc Championships in three years. Yet he doesn't get any credit for it, because people understand that the defense took the Jets to said Championships. Jim Johnson took the Eagles to the 5 Championships and McNabb was lucky enough to be there for the free ride.

C) McNabb got similar looking numbers in an era of football that is much more preferential to the offensive side of the ball.

The only positive McNabb has going for him is his low amount of interceptions. The only reason the number is so low is because he would throw the ball out of the reach of the CB and his receiver. This is not a HOF caliber qb and comparing him to Kelly is an insult to an actual HOFer

Link to post
Share on other sites

And a lack of offensive talent around him. He played with some amazing defenses, but he also carried some pitiful offenses over the years. He was on a HOF trajectory earlier in his career, but unless he comes back to the league and puts together an impressive twilight to his career he won't have a chance.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. McNabb may only have had a good receiving corps for about half of his career as a starter in Philly but he's still been propped up by some awfully good talent on the offensive line, at tight end, and especially at running back.

Quarterbacks have done more with less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A) 5 NFC Championships does not equal 4 Superbowls

B) Sanchez went to 2 Afc Championships in three years. Yet he doesn't get any credit for it, because people understand that the defense took the Jets to said Championships. Jim Johnson took the Eagles to the 5 Championships and McNabb was lucky enough to be there for the free ride.

C) McNabb got similar looking numbers in an era of football that is much more preferential to the offensive side of the ball.

The only positive McNabb has going for him is his low amount of interceptions. The only reason the number is so low is because he would throw the ball out of the reach of the CB and his receiver. This is not a HOF caliber qb and comparing him to Kelly is an insult to an actual HOFer

McNabb carried a putrid offense throughout the majority of his career and was a consistent winner. That doesn't put him in the hall of fame but it put him close. Much closer then some are willing to give him credit for.

Put another way, the Eagles were at or near the top of the division for a decade, went to 4 conference championships and a Super Bowl. Who else on those rosters is even mentioned as a HOF candidate? Maybe Brian Dawkins?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't necessarily say that. McNabb may only have had a good receiving corps for about half of his career as a starter in Philly but he's still been propped up by some awfully good talent on the offensive line, at tight end, and especially at running back.

Quarterbacks have done more with less.

Brian Westbrook was a good player when he was healthy. I wouldn't go so far to say he propped up anybodys career, he had 2 great years but only gained 1000 yards rushing twice in his entire career. Unless you meant Duce Staley? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Mcnabb didnt win a superbowl is a meaningless argument, if he dont deserve it its because of numbers although he does have some better numbers then some greats who are in the hall of fame guys like Bart Star, Terry Bradshaw, Steve Young, I have said it before teams wiin SuperBowls

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian Westbrook was a good player when he was healthy. I wouldn't go so far to say he propped up anybodys career, he had 2 great years but only gained 1000 yards rushing twice in his entire career. Unless you meant Duce Staley? :lol:

If you only look at the rushing stats then you're going to have a terrible approximation of the dynamic threat that Westbrook actually was. At his peak he put up about 8000 combined yards of offense over a 67 game span. That number is absurd. That's 1600 yards per season per the 5 years those numbers encompass but on a per game basis it projects to closer to 2000 yards per season. That's the same kind of production LaDainian Tomlinson, an all-time great and surefire HoFer, put up in his (admittedly longer) prime.

Staley and Buckhalter certainy weren't in that same league but both were effective when healthy. Especially Buckhalter, the most injury prone man on the planet. Again, though, you have to judge them by their efficacy as receivers in addition to their production as runners. Andy Reid has never been good about balancing his passing attack with the run but, to his credit, he has managed to adequately substitute for the run game in spots with high percentage short passes and screens to his backs. In fact, I'd hazard to guess that those types of easy plays went a long way towards propping McNabb's stats up into the "adequate for his era" range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at it like this, If McNabb doesn't believe he should be put into the HoF then why should anyone else on this planet even have the thought of wondering if McNabb is a HoFer? He's got a fair case to be put into the HoF and if you don't think so take a look back at his career again and the evidence shows he can atleast make an argument? Am I saying he's got 1st ballot evidence or even 3rd/4th ballot evidence, but the man does have evidence. Look who he had to work with at his time in Philadelphia when they went to the NFC championship games earlier on in his career.

A) 5 NFC Championships does not equal 4 Superbowls

B) Sanchez went to 2 Afc Championships in three years. Yet he doesn't get any credit for it, because people understand that the defense took the Jets to said Championships. Jim Johnson took the Eagles to the 5 Championships and McNabb was lucky enough to be there for the free ride. It's a funny when you look at some of the WRs he worked with early on in his career and through the middle part of his career after T.O. and before Jeremy Macklin and Desean Jackson.

C) McNabb got similar looking numbers in an era of football that is much more preferential to the offensive side of the ball.

The only positive McNabb has going for him is his low amount of interceptions. The only reason the number is so low is because he would throw the ball out of the reach of the CB and his receiver. This is not a HOF caliber qb and comparing him to Kelly is an insult to an actual HOFer

Sorry but what I put in bold is the poorest argument ever. If you're going to use that case against McNabb you better use that against Favre, Brady, Manning, Brees and Vick in the early 2000s. Look at who he worked with to go to those NFC championships. Name me WRs on the Eagles that you go "Yea he's someone that stands out to me when I think of the Eagles in the early 2000s." and T.O. don't count.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but what I put in bold is the poorest argument ever. If you're going to use that case against McNabb you better use that against Favre, Brady, Manning, Brees and Vick in the early 2000s. Look at who he worked with to go to those NFC championships. Name me WRs on the Eagles that you go "Yea he's someone that stands out to me when I think of the Eagles in the early 2000s." and T.O. don't count.

It's a very valid criteria. You have to maintain context when evaluating players. Rushing for 2000 yards was unbelievably impressive when the NFL only played a 12 game season, reaching the 10,000 career receiving yard mark was a huge milestone in the 80s, and reaching the 5,000 passing yard mark for a single season was a rare and unusual feat prior to 2011.

Manning, Brady, and Brees are simply miles better than McNabb and they all share roughly the same entry point into the NFL. Brady (Super Bowl winning years) and Brees (Chargers) in particular were more impressive with some equally poor talent at receiver in the first half of the 00's. Vick also came in around the same time but is nowhere near being a HoF caliber player given how poor a passer he was early, his time away from the league, and the fact that to date he still only has one great season under his belt (2010).

Favre predates all of those guys by as much as a decade and, as such, doesn't make for such a clean comparison. He may not be the most statistically impressive guy around due to his gambling ways and high turnover rate but he has a few things in his favor that McNabb does not. He's got a Super Bowl ring, he's got a bit of that Dan Fouts gunslinger factor, and, perhaps most importantly, he's got just about every record known to man for the position where longevity is at all a factor. The body of work is just immense and dwarfs even Manning in many areas.

McNabb's resume just isn't strong enough to compare to any of those guys (besides Vick, who he bests easily).

Link to post
Share on other sites

He has zero evidence to make the HOF. He was never a premier player. He never established himself in the pantheon of the top QBs. In 10years his #s will be garbage, and he'll only be able to rely on his name and people memories. And no one is going to remember McNabb unless it's him puking on the field in the SB. Or his overtime fiasco.

heck be in the hall of very good. Right next to McNair, Priest Holmes, Vick, Trent Green etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you only look at the rushing stats then you're going to have a terrible approximation of the dynamic threat that Westbrook actually was. At his peak he put up about 8000 combined yards of offense over a 67 game span. That number is absurd. That's 1600 yards per season per the 5 years those numbers encompass but on a per game basis it projects to closer to 2000 yards per season. That's the same kind of production LaDainian Tomlinson, an all-time great and surefire HoFer, put up in his (admittedly longer) prime.

Staley and Buckhalter certainy weren't in that same league but both were effective when healthy. Especially Buckhalter, the most injury prone man on the planet. Again, though, you have to judge them by their efficacy as receivers in addition to their production as runners. Andy Reid has never been good about balancing his passing attack with the run but, to his credit, he has managed to adequately substitute for the run game in spots with high percentage short passes and screens to his backs. In fact, I'd hazard to guess that those types of easy plays went a long way towards propping McNabb's stats up into the "adequate for his era" range.

Yeah, I remember the one time he stayed healthy for almost an entire season and he gained 2000 yards of offense. He was an explosive player, but he was virtually the only weapon McNabb had for his entire career. And never in his entire career did Westbrook play 16 games. Only 3 times in his career did he miss less then a quarter of a season.

Those short plays have alot more to do with a skilled coach in Reid adjusting for a general lack of talent at the offensive skill positions. He knew the best way to win was put the ball in the hands of the most skilled playermaker on the team, and that was McNabb. They stretched the field during the handful of years they had T.O. or D.Jax.

Brady did more with less, I agree completely. But he's a lead pipe lock first ballot HOFer.

Brees, no way he had less then McNabb. For one I'd say Eric Parker/McCardell/Boston still beats Pinkston/Thrash/Mitchell/Brown etc if we look at WR alone. For another Brees had LT, a virtual lock hall of famer. He'd be miles better then Westbrook even if he did stay healthy. For another he had one of the best tight ends of the era in Antonio Gates. Brees is also a very likely hall of famer.

One bad year with your team and the Vikings does not wipe out a successful career. Aside from Brady no other QB has done more with less. At this point his career probably won't get him into the HOF, but his body of work means he'll be mentioned and probably voted on occasionally in Canton.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but what I put in bold is the poorest argument ever. If you're going to use that case against McNabb you better use that against Favre, Brady, Manning, Brees and Vick in the early 2000s. Look at who he worked with to go to those NFC championships. Name me WRs on the Eagles that you go "Yea he's someone that stands out to me when I think of the Eagles in the early 2000s." and T.O. don't count.

Brees, Farve, Brady and Manning easily surpass Jim Kelly's numbers. McNabb mirrors Kelly's stats, which is why Gonzo brought it up. Besides even if not for the insane stats: Farve, Brady and Manning would still get into the HOF. They had careers that changed the NFL.

Vick is not a HOFer, and the way Brees plays without Payton can change his current HOF course or solidify it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...