Chase Stuart
Footballguy
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...
Last edited by a moderator:
Switch Cunningham and McNair in all instances of your post and I agree.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.
This actually is the first thought that went through my head, too.Switch Cunningham and McNair in all instances of your post and I agree.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.
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.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.
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.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.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.
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 1This actually is the first thought that went through my head, too.Switch Cunningham and McNair in all instances of your post and I agree.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.
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.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.
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.Deranged Hermit said: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.Chase Stuart said: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.
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.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.Deranged Hermit said: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.Chase Stuart said: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.
Sorry for the rant. I honestly believe cunningham to be one of the most misunderstood and least appreciated QB's in modern NFL history.
EXACTLY 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.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.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.Deranged Hermit said: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.Chase Stuart said: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.
Sorry for the rant. I honestly believe cunningham to be one of the most misunderstood and least appreciated QB's in modern NFL history.
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.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...
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.Chase Stuart said: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.
Me too.IvanKaramazov said:I think Cunningham was the better player, but I was expecting most to disagree with me so I voted "McNair" on the last one.
Oddly enough, Cunningham was an all-American PUNTER for UNLV.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.
Here's a great story on that "record-setting" Eagles squad.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.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.
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.Some take sacks because they are making plays with their legs (and any tackle of a QB behind the line is a sack IIRC)
yeah "no line" and some of the best all time Ds coming at him....amazingOr, 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.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.
He and Cris played very well in Minnyninerfanatic492000 said:Randall would have had a weapon to throw to if Chris Carter stayed, then again Chris had a 'coke' problem while in philly
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.EXACTLY 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.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.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.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.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.
Sorry for the rant. I honestly believe cunningham to be one of the most misunderstood and least appreciated QB's in modern NFL history.
yeah just imagine if they stayed together in philly, they definetly had a rappore all those years later in minny.He and Cris played very well in Minnyninerfanatic492000 said:Randall would have had a weapon to throw to if Chris Carter stayed, then again Chris had a 'coke' problem while in philly
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.Doesn't the amount of rushing yards Cunningham gained offset the yards lost due to sacks?
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?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.Doesn't the amount of rushing yards Cunningham gained offset the yards lost due to sacks?
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.yeah just imagine if they stayed together in philly, they definetly had a rappore all those years later in minny.He and Cris played very well in Minnyninerfanatic492000 said:Randall would have had a weapon to throw to if Chris Carter stayed, then again Chris had a 'coke' problem while in philly
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.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.
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.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.yeah just imagine if they stayed together in philly, they definetly had a rappore all those years later in minny.He and Cris played very well in Minnyninerfanatic492000 said:Randall would have had a weapon to throw to if Chris Carter stayed, then again Chris had a 'coke' problem while in philly
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?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.Doesn't the amount of rushing yards Cunningham gained offset the yards lost due to sacks?