Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Chase Stuart

Who was a better player

Who was the better QB  

181 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I'm not really sure what the consensus is on these two. I think one of them was better, but I feel like most feel the other way better. Thought I'd test the waters...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a tough question because they are 2 very similar QB's. I think McNair had more talent, but went with Cunningham on most of your poll questions. McNair was a better athlete in my opinion, but Cunningham had a bigger impact on the NFL. If you'd ask me who I'd draft at their peak and I was building a team it would be McNair. If I already had a team and just needed a QB it would be Cunningham. He has that intangible that only a few guys like Farve and Flutie have and can exceed his abilities to win a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a tough question because they are 2 very similar QB's. I think McNair had more talent, but went with Cunningham on most of your poll questions. McNair was a better athlete in my opinion, but Cunningham had a bigger impact on the NFL. If you'd ask me who I'd draft at their peak and I was building a team it would be McNair. If I already had a team and just needed a QB it would be Cunningham. He has that intangible that only a few guys like Farve and Flutie have and can exceed his abilities to win a game.

Switch Cunningham and McNair in all instances of your post and I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a tough question because they are 2 very similar QB's. I think McNair had more talent, but went with Cunningham on most of your poll questions. McNair was a better athlete in my opinion, but Cunningham had a bigger impact on the NFL. If you'd ask me who I'd draft at their peak and I was building a team it would be McNair. If I already had a team and just needed a QB it would be Cunningham. He has that intangible that only a few guys like Farve and Flutie have and can exceed his abilities to win a game.

Switch Cunningham and McNair in all instances of your post and I agree.
:goodposting:This actually is the first thought that went through my head, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who do you think is generally regarded as having been better?

McNair [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]

Cunningham [ 8 ] ** [100.00%]

Pretty interesting results here. I was probably in this mindset too, until I noticed something: he led the league in sack yards lost six of the seven years he was starting QB of the Eagles. Of the 61 QBs to enter the league since the merger that accumulated 20,000 career passing yards, Cunningham ranks fifth in sack yards lost/passing yards gained. If you look at just his time with the Eagles, he'd rank first. He lost 13.7 yards due to sacks for every 100 yards he gained as a passer for Philly! That's insane.

When he was on the Vikings, he was fine. But most people think of Randall in his youth with the 'Birds. And his historically bad sack numbers -- especially compared to a guy like McNair who was almost never sacked (59th all time in sack yards lost, but 23rd all time in pass attempts; he ranks 55th on the list of the 61 QBs that lost the most yards/passing yards gained), makes me think McNair was the better QB. It's tough to consistently move the ball when you've got big sacks holding your offense back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When he was on the Vikings, he was fine. But most people think of Randall in his youth with the 'Birds. And his historically bad sack numbers -- especially compared to a guy like McNair who was almost never sacked (59th all time in sack yards lost, but 23rd all time in pass attempts; he ranks 55th on the list of the 61 QBs that lost the most yards/passing yards gained), makes me think McNair was the better QB. It's tough to consistently move the ball when you've got big sacks holding your offense back.

Or, it was incredible that Cunningham succeeded as much as he did given the offensive line he had with the Eagles. He rushed for over 500 yards six times to McNair's twice; they were just different QBs. Four All-Pros is pretty amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When he was on the Vikings, he was fine. But most people think of Randall in his youth with the 'Birds. And his historically bad sack numbers -- especially compared to a guy like McNair who was almost never sacked (59th all time in sack yards lost, but 23rd all time in pass attempts; he ranks 55th on the list of the 61 QBs that lost the most yards/passing yards gained), makes me think McNair was the better QB. It's tough to consistently move the ball when you've got big sacks holding your offense back.

Or, it was incredible that Cunningham succeeded as much as he did given the offensive line he had with the Eagles. He rushed for over 500 yards six times to McNair's twice; they were just different QBs. Four All-Pros is pretty amazing.
I know people put a lot of stock into them, but All-Pros aren't much better than popularity contests, IMO. The people voting on them are no more knowledgeable than you or me. The AP is far from infallible, and I doubt they considered how many yards QBs lose due to sacks.Additionally, in '90 and '92 the Eagles QBs as a group were 2nd in sack yards lost. In '91, the year Cunningham played one game, the Eagles QBs as a group were 11th in sack yards lost. In Cunningham's last year with the team, the 'Birds QBs as a group ranked 2nd in sack yards lost. The next season, they ranked 14th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a really tough one. I've been refreshing myself on their numbers and looking up highlight videos of them for a little bit to try to refresh my memory, but it's not helping, so I figured I'd try a stream-of-consciousness post to try to work my way through it.

Looking at their passing numbers, they initially look VERY comparable. Both had about 30,000 career yards. Both had about a 1.5:1 TD:INT ratio (Randall had about a 1.55:1, McNair had a 1.45:1). Both have nearly identical YPAs (7.0 for Randall, 6.9 for Steve) and AYPAs (6.1 for both). McNair has a higher Comp%, Randall has more yards per completion, so that looks more like a schematic difference than any major talent difference. Cunningham was more consistent from year to year, but he was also absolutely BRUTALIZED by the passrush- and unlike many, I think the QB is as much to blame for sacks as the OLine. Penalize him for the abundance of sacks and I think McNair comes out as the better passer. Marginally. I think.

On the other hand, Cunningham was pretty clearly in my mind the better runner. He was also a DRASTICALLY better athlete than McNair- he once said that if he'd been given the chance, he could have led the league in punting, and I believe him. Thinking about it, over the course of the career, I think I'd take Cunningham over McNair.

As for who was better at the peak? Hmmm.... Cunningham's best season was way better than McNair's, but Cunningham had Moss and Carter while McNair only had Mason and Bennett. Plus, McNair won is co-MVP despite not having any chance to practice, and I remember he was absolutely MONEY on 3rd down (the Titans converted at a higher percentage when passing on 3rd-and-short than they did when running on 3rd-and-short that year). I guess I'll take McNair.

Generally, I think McNair is regarded as the better QB, but I don't think that Cunningham gets a fair shake in the court of public opinion. I think he's viewed more as an oddity when he really was the real deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a tough question because they are 2 very similar QB's. I think McNair had more talent, but went with Cunningham on most of your poll questions. McNair was a better athlete in my opinion, but Cunningham had a bigger impact on the NFL. If you'd ask me who I'd draft at their peak and I was building a team it would be McNair. If I already had a team and just needed a QB it would be Cunningham. He has that intangible that only a few guys like Farve and Flutie have and can exceed his abilities to win a game.

Switch Cunningham and McNair in all instances of your post and I agree.
:lmao:This actually is the first thought that went through my head, too.
:thumbup: Ditto--I think McNair made far fewer mistakes and was a much better passer at his peak than Cunningham. Cunningham was flashier, but McNair was a killer of a QB on 3rd down. I wonder what their playoff records are? I'm willing to guess McNair's was better....Mac9 had 6 years with a 60%+ completion percentage and never more than 15 ints. Cunningham? Maybe you can say 4 years at 60% and similar Int stats....numbers in passing yardage are better for Cunningham, but maybe it's just because McNair is my favorite player in recent times, but he did more with less than a lot of players in the NFL and often did it better than most while hurt. Last Name Year G GS Pct Pass Yds Pass Tds INT Rush Yds Rush Att Rush TdsMcNair 1995 6 2 51.25% 569 3 1 38 11 0McNair 1996 10 4 61.54% 1197 6 4 169 31 2McNair 1997 16 16 52.05% 2665 14 13 674 101 8McNair 1998 16 16 58.74% 3228 15 10 568 76 4McNair 1999 11 11 56.50% 2179 12 8 337 72 8McNair 2000 16 0 62.63% 2847 15 12 404 71 0McNair 2001 15 0 61.25% 3350 21 12 416 75 5McNair 2002 16 0 61.18% 3387 22 15 440 82 3McNair 2003 14 0 62.50% 3215 24 7 138 38 4McNair 2004 8 0 60.00% 1343 8 9 128 23 1McNair 2005 14 0 61.34% 3161 16 11 139 32 1McNair 2006 16 63.03% 3050 16 12 119 45 1Last Name Year G GS Pct Pass Yds Pass Tds INT RYds RAt TdsCunningham 1985 6 4 41.98% 548 1 8 205 29 0Cunningham 1986 15 5 53.11% 1391 8 7 540 66 5Cunningham 1987 12 12 54.93% 2786 23 12 505 76 3Cunningham 1988 16 16 53.75% 3808 24 16 624 93 6Cunningham 1989 16 16 54.51% 3400 21 15 621 104 4Cunningham 1990 16 16 58.28% 3466 30 13 942 118 5Cunningham 1991 1 1 25.00% 19 0 0 0 0 0Cunningham 1992 15 15 60.68% 2775 19 11 549 87 5Cunningham 1993 4 4 69.09% 850 5 5 110 18 1Cunningham 1994 14 14 54.08% 3229 16 13 288 65 3Cunningham 1995 7 4 57.02% 605 3 5 98 21 0Cunningham 1997 6 3 50.00% 501 6 4 127 19 0Cunningham 1998 16 14 60.94% 3704 34 10 132 32 1Cunningham 1999 7 6 62.00% 1475 8 9 58 10 0Cunningham 2000 6 0 59.20% 849 6 4 89 23 1Cunningham 2001 9 0 60.67% 573 3 2 40 14 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's McNair across the board. I would have voted Cunningham at his peak, but his best year in 1998 wasn't his peak.

If you were to ask me which QB I would draft, then it would be Cunningham hands down. I think Cunningham was the most talented QB that I can think of who was mismanaged by his coaches. There have always been rumors that Buddy Ryan didn't teach him anything and just told him to run all the time.

Randall had one of the best long balls ever, he could scramble with the best of them. He won a lot of games w/o any superior talent on the O side of the ball in his years in Philly. We all saw what he could do in 98 if he had talent.

I never thought Randell got a far shake. I am shocked at the results here. McNair led his team to a Super Bowl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who do you think is generally regarded as having been better?

McNair [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]

Cunningham [ 8 ] ** [100.00%]

Pretty interesting results here. I was probably in this mindset too, until I noticed something: he led the league in sack yards lost six of the seven years he was starting QB of the Eagles. Of the 61 QBs to enter the league since the merger that accumulated 20,000 career passing yards, Cunningham ranks fifth in sack yards lost/passing yards gained. If you look at just his time with the Eagles, he'd rank first. He lost 13.7 yards due to sacks for every 100 yards he gained as a passer for Philly! That's insane.

When he was on the Vikings, he was fine. But most people think of Randall in his youth with the 'Birds. And his historically bad sack numbers -- especially compared to a guy like McNair who was almost never sacked (59th all time in sack yards lost, but 23rd all time in pass attempts; he ranks 55th on the list of the 61 QBs that lost the most yards/passing yards gained), makes me think McNair was the better QB. It's tough to consistently move the ball when you've got big sacks holding your offense back.

Just a note about the bolded comment: the Eagles O-line was absolutely putrid back than. They were AWFUL. Couple that with the fact that they had zero running game back than, and compound that with the fact that they had bad WR's and it really opens your eyes as to how good Cunningham actually was. He HAD to make plays and if he didn't, they lost. THAT'S why he took so many sacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are very similar players. As an Eagles fan, I always viewed Cunningham's career as missed potential. He always came up short in the biggest moments; yet anyone (even Cowboys fans!) could see how much athleticism and talent the guy had. Meanwhile I've long fought against the notion that McNair was just above average. I think McNair was a much better (and impactful) QB in his prime than most will remember.

Tough one for me b/c of my bias against what Cunningham DIDN'T accomplish; so I'll give the slight nod to Cunningham in terms of his overall career (which benefits from that MVP year in Minnesota, whereas McNair's twilight years look pretty mediocre) but it's close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a good question also would have been which QB was more consistent. That would go to McNair hands down. While he never really "wowed" me, he never killed opportunities like Cunningham did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who do you think is generally regarded as having been better?

McNair [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]

Cunningham [ 8 ] ** [100.00%]

Pretty interesting results here. I was probably in this mindset too, until I noticed something: he led the league in sack yards lost six of the seven years he was starting QB of the Eagles. Of the 61 QBs to enter the league since the merger that accumulated 20,000 career passing yards, Cunningham ranks fifth in sack yards lost/passing yards gained. If you look at just his time with the Eagles, he'd rank first. He lost 13.7 yards due to sacks for every 100 yards he gained as a passer for Philly! That's insane.

When he was on the Vikings, he was fine. But most people think of Randall in his youth with the 'Birds. And his historically bad sack numbers -- especially compared to a guy like McNair who was almost never sacked (59th all time in sack yards lost, but 23rd all time in pass attempts; he ranks 55th on the list of the 61 QBs that lost the most yards/passing yards gained), makes me think McNair was the better QB. It's tough to consistently move the ball when you've got big sacks holding your offense back.

Just a note about the bolded comment: the Eagles O-line was absolutely putrid back than. They were AWFUL. Couple that with the fact that they had zero running game back than, and compound that with the fact that they had bad WR's and it really opens your eyes as to how good Cunningham actually was. He HAD to make plays and if he didn't, they lost. THAT'S why he took so many sacks.
Hermit has it right. The Eagles under Ryan were all about defense. Cunningham was EXPECTED to be the show on offense, and carry the team. The truth is that he had very little help around him most of the time as the emphasis of the coaching staff was on the defense. Later, when he was in Minnesota, Cunningham took far fewer sacks because he was in a drasticly different system with a much better O-Line.

I have always felt like Randall's career potential was severely limited by the coach and system he played under. Even more sadly, many of the Eagles victories during his tenure were a direct result of his incredible talent....and I WATCHED MOST OF THOSE GAMES, so I know what I'm talking about. The sad truth is that on a different team with a real coach (Ryan was an idiot and a joke as a head coach because he was CLUELESS on the offensive side of the ball.), Randall Cunnngham may very well have become a HOF QB...he was that good.

Sorry for the rant. I honestly believe cunningham to be one of the most misunderstood and least appreciated QB's in modern NFL history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who do you think is generally regarded as having been better?

McNair [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]

Cunningham [ 8 ] ** [100.00%]

Pretty interesting results here. I was probably in this mindset too, until I noticed something: he led the league in sack yards lost six of the seven years he was starting QB of the Eagles. Of the 61 QBs to enter the league since the merger that accumulated 20,000 career passing yards, Cunningham ranks fifth in sack yards lost/passing yards gained. If you look at just his time with the Eagles, he'd rank first. He lost 13.7 yards due to sacks for every 100 yards he gained as a passer for Philly! That's insane.

When he was on the Vikings, he was fine. But most people think of Randall in his youth with the 'Birds. And his historically bad sack numbers -- especially compared to a guy like McNair who was almost never sacked (59th all time in sack yards lost, but 23rd all time in pass attempts; he ranks 55th on the list of the 61 QBs that lost the most yards/passing yards gained), makes me think McNair was the better QB. It's tough to consistently move the ball when you've got big sacks holding your offense back.

Just a note about the bolded comment: the Eagles O-line was absolutely putrid back than. They were AWFUL. Couple that with the fact that they had zero running game back than, and compound that with the fact that they had bad WR's and it really opens your eyes as to how good Cunningham actually was. He HAD to make plays and if he didn't, they lost. THAT'S why he took so many sacks.
Hermit has it right. The Eagles under Ryan were all about defense. Cunningham was EXPECTED to be the show on offense, and carry the team. The truth is that he had very little help around him most of the time as the emphasis of the coaching staff was on the defense. Later, when he was in Minnesota, Cunningham took far fewer sacks because he was in a drasticly different system with a much better O-Line.

I have always felt like Randall's career potential was severely limited by the coach and system he played under. Even more sadly, many of the Eagles victories during his tenure were a direct result of his incredible talent....and I WATCHED MOST OF THOSE GAMES, so I know what I'm talking about. The sad truth is that on a different team with a real coach (Ryan was an idiot and a joke as a head coach because he was CLUELESS on the offensive side of the ball.), Randall Cunnngham may very well have become a HOF QB...he was that good.

Sorry for the rant. I honestly believe cunningham to be one of the most misunderstood and least appreciated QB's in modern NFL history.

That last line may be far, but I don't subscribe to it. I think you pretty much are what you are. Ken O'Brien got a pretty bad shake, too, playing behind some really bad O-lines, and had three years with 50 sacks. Ryan Leaf and Akili Smith had lots potential, and may have been misunderstood. Cunningham was better than all four, but if you don't produce, there's not a lot of value there. Cunningham never took the Eagles into the divisional round of the playoffs. That's obviously not his fault, since he was one of the best players on the team. But he's not very appreciated because his teams never did much, and he never reached his potential -- even if it was through no fault of his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who do you think is generally regarded as having been better?

McNair [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]

Cunningham [ 8 ] ** [100.00%]

Pretty interesting results here. I was probably in this mindset too, until I noticed something: he led the league in sack yards lost six of the seven years he was starting QB of the Eagles. Of the 61 QBs to enter the league since the merger that accumulated 20,000 career passing yards, Cunningham ranks fifth in sack yards lost/passing yards gained. If you look at just his time with the Eagles, he'd rank first. He lost 13.7 yards due to sacks for every 100 yards he gained as a passer for Philly! That's insane.

When he was on the Vikings, he was fine. But most people think of Randall in his youth with the 'Birds. And his historically bad sack numbers -- especially compared to a guy like McNair who was almost never sacked (59th all time in sack yards lost, but 23rd all time in pass attempts; he ranks 55th on the list of the 61 QBs that lost the most yards/passing yards gained), makes me think McNair was the better QB. It's tough to consistently move the ball when you've got big sacks holding your offense back.

Just a note about the bolded comment: the Eagles O-line was absolutely putrid back than. They were AWFUL. Couple that with the fact that they had zero running game back than, and compound that with the fact that they had bad WR's and it really opens your eyes as to how good Cunningham actually was. He HAD to make plays and if he didn't, they lost. THAT'S why he took so many sacks.
Hermit has it right. The Eagles under Ryan were all about defense. Cunningham was EXPECTED to be the show on offense, and carry the team. The truth is that he had very little help around him most of the time as the emphasis of the coaching staff was on the defense. Later, when he was in Minnesota, Cunningham took far fewer sacks because he was in a drasticly different system with a much better O-Line.

I have always felt like Randall's career potential was severely limited by the coach and system he played under. Even more sadly, many of the Eagles victories during his tenure were a direct result of his incredible talent....and I WATCHED MOST OF THOSE GAMES, so I know what I'm talking about. The sad truth is that on a different team with a real coach (Ryan was an idiot and a joke as a head coach because he was CLUELESS on the offensive side of the ball.), Randall Cunnngham may very well have become a HOF QB...he was that good.

Sorry for the rant. I honestly believe cunningham to be one of the most misunderstood and least appreciated QB's in modern NFL history.

That last line may be far, but I don't subscribe to it. I think you pretty much are what you are. Ken O'Brien got a pretty bad shake, too, playing behind some really bad O-lines, and had three years with 50 sacks. Ryan Leaf and Akili Smith had lots potential, and may have been misunderstood. Cunningham was better than all four, but if you don't produce, there's not a lot of value there. Cunningham never took the Eagles into the divisional round of the playoffs. That's obviously not his fault, since he was one of the best players on the team. But he's not very appreciated because his teams never did much, and he never reached his potential -- even if it was through no fault of his own.
EXACTLY :bag:

Coaches and QBs get an unfair amount of the accolades AND the criticism for their team's success. It's always been that way, fair or not. The Eagle's woeful playoff success (or lack thereof) under Buddy is going to impact Cunningham in the same way, for example, Terry Bradshaw is given credit for the Steelers' 4 Super Bowl rings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure what the consensus is on these two. I think one of them was better, but I feel like most feel the other way better. Thought I'd test the waters...

McNair had a couple good years, but IMO he seemed like a "project" that took a long time to develop, and then had an extremely short peak. His peak was nowhere as high as Cunningham's. And honestly, Cunningham was the better QB by far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who do you think is generally regarded as having been better?McNair [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]Cunningham [ 8 ] ** [100.00%]Pretty interesting results here. I was probably in this mindset too, until I noticed something: he led the league in sack yards lost six of the seven years he was starting QB of the Eagles. Of the 61 QBs to enter the league since the merger that accumulated 20,000 career passing yards, Cunningham ranks fifth in sack yards lost/passing yards gained. If you look at just his time with the Eagles, he'd rank first. He lost 13.7 yards due to sacks for every 100 yards he gained as a passer for Philly! That's insane.When he was on the Vikings, he was fine. But most people think of Randall in his youth with the 'Birds. And his historically bad sack numbers -- especially compared to a guy like McNair who was almost never sacked (59th all time in sack yards lost, but 23rd all time in pass attempts; he ranks 55th on the list of the 61 QBs that lost the most yards/passing yards gained), makes me think McNair was the better QB. It's tough to consistently move the ball when you've got big sacks holding your offense back.

Some QBs take sacks because they hold on to the ball too long because they are indecisive. Some QBs take sacks because they have a terrible OL. Some take sacks because they are running a terrible which allows for a high number of coverage sacks. Some take sacks because they are making plays with their legs (and any tackle of a QB behind the line is a sack IIRC)So just because a QB takes sacks doesn't mean he's bad. If you watched those Eagle teams, you would know Cunningham was a far better QB than his stats even indicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One guy was 1 yard from sending the Super Bowl into overtime.

The other guy escaped a Carl Banks tackle at the goal line, but never sniffed the Super Bowl with GREAT teams.

That's as scientific as I think you need to be in this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, Cunningham was pretty clearly in my mind the better runner. He was also a DRASTICALLY better athlete than McNair- he once said that if he'd been given the chance, he could have led the league in punting, and I believe him.

Oddly enough, Cunningham was an all-American PUNTER for UNLV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who do you think is generally regarded as having been better?

McNair [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]

Cunningham [ 8 ] ** [100.00%]

Pretty interesting results here. I was probably in this mindset too, until I noticed something: he led the league in sack yards lost six of the seven years he was starting QB of the Eagles. Of the 61 QBs to enter the league since the merger that accumulated 20,000 career passing yards, Cunningham ranks fifth in sack yards lost/passing yards gained. If you look at just his time with the Eagles, he'd rank first. He lost 13.7 yards due to sacks for every 100 yards he gained as a passer for Philly! That's insane.

When he was on the Vikings, he was fine. But most people think of Randall in his youth with the 'Birds. And his historically bad sack numbers -- especially compared to a guy like McNair who was almost never sacked (59th all time in sack yards lost, but 23rd all time in pass attempts; he ranks 55th on the list of the 61 QBs that lost the most yards/passing yards gained), makes me think McNair was the better QB. It's tough to consistently move the ball when you've got big sacks holding your offense back.

Just a note about the bolded comment: the Eagles O-line was absolutely putrid back than. They were AWFUL. Couple that with the fact that they had zero running game back than, and compound that with the fact that they had bad WR's and it really opens your eyes as to how good Cunningham actually was. He HAD to make plays and if he didn't, they lost. THAT'S why he took so many sacks.
Here's a great story on that "record-setting" Eagles squad.

Some take sacks because they are making plays with their legs (and any tackle of a QB behind the line is a sack IIRC)

Nope, there's a judgement call. If the scorer decides that the QB was trying to run, it's a tackle for a loss. If the scorer thinks he was just trying to escape the pressure, then it's a sack. I always thought it was stupid that all tackles behind the LoS aren't considered the same, anyway. I'd rather have a DE with 50 tackles behind the LoS but only 2 sacks than a DE with 10 tackles behind the LoS, all of which were sacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When he was on the Vikings, he was fine. But most people think of Randall in his youth with the 'Birds. And his historically bad sack numbers -- especially compared to a guy like McNair who was almost never sacked (59th all time in sack yards lost, but 23rd all time in pass attempts; he ranks 55th on the list of the 61 QBs that lost the most yards/passing yards gained), makes me think McNair was the better QB. It's tough to consistently move the ball when you've got big sacks holding your offense back.

Or, it was incredible that Cunningham succeeded as much as he did given the offensive line he had with the Eagles. He rushed for over 500 yards six times to McNair's twice; they were just different QBs. Four All-Pros is pretty amazing.
yeah "no line" and some of the best all time Ds coming at him....amazing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Randall would have had a weapon to throw to if Chris Carter stayed, then again Chris had a 'coke' problem while in philly

He and Cris played very well in Minny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who do you think is generally regarded as having been better?

McNair [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]

Cunningham [ 8 ] ** [100.00%]

Pretty interesting results here. I was probably in this mindset too, until I noticed something: he led the league in sack yards lost six of the seven years he was starting QB of the Eagles. Of the 61 QBs to enter the league since the merger that accumulated 20,000 career passing yards, Cunningham ranks fifth in sack yards lost/passing yards gained. If you look at just his time with the Eagles, he'd rank first. He lost 13.7 yards due to sacks for every 100 yards he gained as a passer for Philly! That's insane.

When he was on the Vikings, he was fine. But most people think of Randall in his youth with the 'Birds. And his historically bad sack numbers -- especially compared to a guy like McNair who was almost never sacked (59th all time in sack yards lost, but 23rd all time in pass attempts; he ranks 55th on the list of the 61 QBs that lost the most yards/passing yards gained), makes me think McNair was the better QB. It's tough to consistently move the ball when you've got big sacks holding your offense back.

Just a note about the bolded comment: the Eagles O-line was absolutely putrid back than. They were AWFUL. Couple that with the fact that they had zero running game back than, and compound that with the fact that they had bad WR's and it really opens your eyes as to how good Cunningham actually was. He HAD to make plays and if he didn't, they lost. THAT'S why he took so many sacks.
Hermit has it right. The Eagles under Ryan were all about defense. Cunningham was EXPECTED to be the show on offense, and carry the team. The truth is that he had very little help around him most of the time as the emphasis of the coaching staff was on the defense. Later, when he was in Minnesota, Cunningham took far fewer sacks because he was in a drasticly different system with a much better O-Line.

I have always felt like Randall's career potential was severely limited by the coach and system he played under. Even more sadly, many of the Eagles victories during his tenure were a direct result of his incredible talent....and I WATCHED MOST OF THOSE GAMES, so I know what I'm talking about. The sad truth is that on a different team with a real coach (Ryan was an idiot and a joke as a head coach because he was CLUELESS on the offensive side of the ball.), Randall Cunnngham may very well have become a HOF QB...he was that good.

Sorry for the rant. I honestly believe cunningham to be one of the most misunderstood and least appreciated QB's in modern NFL history.

That last line may be far, but I don't subscribe to it. I think you pretty much are what you are. Ken O'Brien got a pretty bad shake, too, playing behind some really bad O-lines, and had three years with 50 sacks. Ryan Leaf and Akili Smith had lots potential, and may have been misunderstood. Cunningham was better than all four, but if you don't produce, there's not a lot of value there. Cunningham never took the Eagles into the divisional round of the playoffs. That's obviously not his fault, since he was one of the best players on the team. But he's not very appreciated because his teams never did much, and he never reached his potential -- even if it was through no fault of his own.
EXACTLY :popcorn:

Coaches and QBs get an unfair amount of the accolades AND the criticism for their team's success. It's always been that way, fair or not. The Eagle's woeful playoff success (or lack thereof) under Buddy is going to impact Cunningham in the same way, for example, Terry Bradshaw is given credit for the Steelers' 4 Super Bowl rings.

You guys are right...to a point. The problem is that the limited success the birds DID have (on offense) then was due primarily to Cuningham, not in spite of him. Big differance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Randall would have had a weapon to throw to if Chris Carter stayed, then again Chris had a 'coke' problem while in philly

He and Cris played very well in Minny
yeah just imagine if they stayed together in philly, they definetly had a rappore all those years later in minny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the amount of rushing yards Cunningham gained offset the yards lost due to sacks? And his sack yardage was probably inflated by his escape ability, if he consistently went down on the first contact that number would probably be lower.

Is Barry Sanders not one of the greatest RBs of all time because he was hit behind the line of scrimmage more than any of the other greats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the amount of rushing yards Cunningham gained offset the yards lost due to sacks?

It doesn't work that way. If a QB gets sacked for 10 yards on 1st down, then rushes for 10 yards on 2nd down, those two plays don't cancel each other out, they result in a 3rd-and-10. Sacks are a much more negative play than good runs are a positive play, because sacks don't just result in the loss of yardage, they also result in the loss of down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the amount of rushing yards Cunningham gained offset the yards lost due to sacks?

It doesn't work that way. If a QB gets sacked for 10 yards on 1st down, then rushes for 10 yards on 2nd down, those two plays don't cancel each other out, they result in a 3rd-and-10. Sacks are a much more negative play than good runs are a positive play, because sacks don't just result in the loss of yardage, they also result in the loss of down.
every play that doesn't net a first down is a loss of down.There's no "also" here, that's the gameWhat am I missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Randall would have had a weapon to throw to if Chris Carter stayed, then again Chris had a 'coke' problem while in philly

He and Cris played very well in Minny
yeah just imagine if they stayed together in philly, they definetly had a rappore all those years later in minny.
I'm not so sure. I see your point, obviously but I don't think Randall was the same QB in Minnesota. I would figure being a WR for a pocket passer and for a running/scrambling QB is different. Most of those fun antics of him dodging blitzing defenders, probably had Cris running his routes then coming back to ail him out, then being waved in another direction and.....seems pretty different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who do you think is generally regarded as having been better?McNair [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]Cunningham [ 8 ] ** [100.00%]Pretty interesting results here. I was probably in this mindset too, until I noticed something: he led the league in sack yards lost six of the seven years he was starting QB of the Eagles. Of the 61 QBs to enter the league since the merger that accumulated 20,000 career passing yards, Cunningham ranks fifth in sack yards lost/passing yards gained. If you look at just his time with the Eagles, he'd rank first. He lost 13.7 yards due to sacks for every 100 yards he gained as a passer for Philly! That's insane.When he was on the Vikings, he was fine. But most people think of Randall in his youth with the 'Birds. And his historically bad sack numbers -- especially compared to a guy like McNair who was almost never sacked (59th all time in sack yards lost, but 23rd all time in pass attempts; he ranks 55th on the list of the 61 QBs that lost the most yards/passing yards gained), makes me think McNair was the better QB. It's tough to consistently move the ball when you've got big sacks holding your offense back.

Is this a serious comment? The Eagles offensive line was pitiful when Randall was there. As you've said yourself, his sack numbers with the Vikings were not an issue.The sacks with the Eagles had much more to do with the bad OL then Randall's inability to escape them and/or to try to escape them rather than throw the ball away. He certainly became a smarter quarterback over time and in the beginning had very little structure, but I really wouldn't pin those sacks on him. I think most people observing the game at that time would acknowledge that Buddy Ryan gave no thought to the offense and that Randall was just supposed to run around and make something happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Randall would have had a weapon to throw to if Chris Carter stayed, then again Chris had a 'coke' problem while in philly

He and Cris played very well in Minny
yeah just imagine if they stayed together in philly, they definetly had a rappore all those years later in minny.
I'm not so sure. I see your point, obviously but I don't think Randall was the same QB in Minnesota. I would figure being a WR for a pocket passer and for a running/scrambling QB is different. Most of those fun antics of him dodging blitzing defenders, probably had Cris running his routes then coming back to ail him out, then being waved in another direction and.....seems pretty different.
Carter had a serious drug problem and it seems as though getting cut from the Eagles made him realize what he could lose and caused him to get clean. I don't think they would have developed any more in Philadelphia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the amount of rushing yards Cunningham gained offset the yards lost due to sacks?

It doesn't work that way. If a QB gets sacked for 10 yards on 1st down, then rushes for 10 yards on 2nd down, those two plays don't cancel each other out, they result in a 3rd-and-10. Sacks are a much more negative play than good runs are a positive play, because sacks don't just result in the loss of yardage, they also result in the loss of down.
I know how it works SSOG. But Randall scrambled for over 7,000 yards in his career (6.4ypc) including, much like Barry Sanders, many positive plays that would have been blown up had anyone but Cunningham been under center. I am simply saying that those positives that came from his feet have to balance out the negatives to a large degree, if not outweigh them. Again is Barry Sanders not one of the greats because he had more rushes for zero or negative yards than any of the other great RBs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.