This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Good point. Part of McNabb's problem is that his peak as a passer came in 2004-2006, but he missed nearly a season's worth of games during those 3 years (14 games missed). Per 16 games, during those 3 years he averaged 325 of 537 for 4249 yards, 30.6 TDs, and 10.8 INTs. That would be a great season, and he kept it up for over two seasons worth of games.
In the absence of 3 Super Bowl rings, you better have lights out stats to even be considered.Why are we even having this discussion? Is there one guy here even remotely advocating him for the HOF?ETA: I guess there's one (see above post).
I mean, if we're advocating for a diluted HOF where very unremarkable players sit alongside history's greats, then sure. He's worthy of consideration.Otherwise, no /thread.
As I have said many times, MY hall of fame would have a different collection of players in it than the real HOF. But given that we can only monitor the real HOF (and all the warts and blemishes associated with it), McNabb will garner some consideration. It's not like we can kick out guys with busts in Canton, so there will always be those pointing at that saying that their baseline should be low.
Who was prolific besides McNabb?
You're ignoring the 10,000 yards he compiled in the USFL
Yes, just like the HOF voters ignored them.You're ignoring the 10,000 yards he compiled in the USFL
When was McNabb ever prolific?
Imo for this debate to be anything more than "No. /thread." you need to have people willing to argue for both sides. So far, the only pro-McNabb people are those like you who won't say 'yes' but who think he at least deserves to be considered. How are we supposed to have a debate if everyone agrees???
2004-2010.
At least the debate has shifted. I'm ok with a debat over him being considered. That's fine. His career was above average. So consider him all you all want. But no super bowls, no passing records, no all pros, pouting locker room gas can. Yeah. Stellar credentials. Put him in the hall, and it's a lesser place than what we already got today. I understand the love for guys who are above mediocrity. It's a unique feature of the shark pool that so many of its members can't tell the difference from pretty good and greatness. But, bottom line, I have as good a chance ofq making the HOF as he does. If you have a pulse, raise your hand. Some FBG nerd is ready to put you in too.
So where do we draw the line and who should be considered? You mentioned no All Pros and no passing records. Ben Roethlisberger has played 8 seasons and has had 0 All Pro seasons. He's had one Pro Bowl appearance and hasn't come close to any passing records. He's had 0 seasons in the Top 5 in passing yards and 1 season in the Top 5 in TD passes. Yet there will be plently of people suggesting Roethisberger is a HOFer. I get that he won two titles, but all the other signs of an all time great QB aren't there . . . yet he is a viable HOF candidate?
Dont forget to mention he played like dog#### in the SB's he won for the most part if I remember correctly...
Roethlisberger is definitely not a HOF QB right now.He's clearly behind Manning, Brady, Rodgers (already), Brees and Favre among contemporaries.He's also in an argument with Eli at this point in their careers.There are a lot of other young guys who could clearly pass him in the next 5-10 years (like Rodgers did in the last 2).If he ends up with 3 or 4 Superbowls he'll probably get in, but as a QB he doesn't deserve it unless he gets better. He just has had a million all-pros surrounding him.Then again 5 or 6 years into Brady's career the only thing making him look like a HOF guy were the superbowls too and now he could retire today and be first ballot. So Ben might prove me wrong sooner or later.'David Yudkin said:
You don't and won't see me putting Roethlisberger's name up right now. His body of work is far from over, though, so I'll reserve judgment. I think there are signs of an all-time great QB, but neither confirmed nor rejected at this point, imo. If you want to do the stats game, then why even discuss it? Let's just set up an algorithm, use whatever stats you feel are important, and let the calculator decide. But, the fact that Roethlisberger was the leader--and instrumental--in two SB titles is not something I would dismiss out of hand. It's not like he was Trent Dilfer along for the ride. And, he's put up excellent numbers and by most metrics better than Donovan. I'm not arguing for Roethlisberger in the HOF. Way too early. But, we've all seen Donovan play. He's in the twilight of his career, and his HOF portfolio just doesn't cut it.'David Yudkin said:
Ok, you brought Aikman into this. NO WAY can you compare Mcpuke to Aikman. Aikman was pure clutch. His playoff and SB performances make him an all time great. Ask Aikman himself. He gets asked about the the "stats" thing all the time. His response is something like, "if I played in an offense that asked me to do more, I could have done whatever they asked". I dont doubt that. Pure winner, Mcnabb, not so much.'David Yudkin said:
Sorry don't see it. In 4 of those 7 years he didn't eclipse the 20 TD mark, his passer rating is in the mid to high 80's, and he barely flirted with a 60% completion mark. The yardage numbers are there for the most part, but most decent vet QB's could give you that. He's closer to Steve DeBerg than any Hall of Fame.'Joe Summer said:
Are you implying McNabb is a loser (since he's not a "pure winner")? McNabb's regular season winning percentage (0.612) is better than Aikman's (0.570). I know there's more to the story for each player. When discussing "winners", you have to count the postseason and Aikman has an advantage there. But, McNabb still has a winning record in the post-season (9-7). It's not like he was a total failure in the playoffs. When comparing post-season personal stats, McNabb fares fairly well against Aikman.For the record, I'd take Aikman over McNabb in a heartbeat. I consider Aikman a legit HOFer and McNabb isn't.
And the reason you take Aikman is because reputations are earned in the post season. Its all about when you win, not how often. Sometimes its a lot harder to win when it matters.
Not to mention you have to take into account the system involved. The funny thing is I always remember stats where if McCoy/Westbrook don't have a certain number of carries then the Eagles loose, so it's not like you can say well he's a transcendent talent that can shoulder his team and lead them to a win when even his surrounding cast has a bad game. Just because Reid can't put a hoagie down long enough to call a run play doesn't mean he didn't have very talented backs. Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems like the worst D the Eagles have had in the Reid era. That unit always seemed to be wrecking havoc and turning the ball over.
That's cute of Troy. If only he had played for some non-dominant teams in his career, then we might know the answer.Oh wait: From ages 31 to 34, he played for Cowboys teams that went 24-28 in games he started. That's a little over 3 full seasons worth of games. His per-16 game averages were: 3,141 yards, 17 TDs, 13 INTs, with a 58% completion rate, 4.6% sack rate, 6.6 yards per attempt, 6.0 NY/A and 5.5 ANY/A.
Really?BTW, during the Cowboys run from '91 to '95, Dallas was 0-7 when Emmitt and co had 20 or fewer carries.
Maybe. But he didn't. I agree with those saying that this isn't as simple as, "No. /thread," but I don't think he passes the HOF sniff test. Too many things working against him. The most stunning thing about his lack of top passing numbers over the years is that he was always in a pass happy offense, yet never threw for a lot of yards or touchdowns.
He threw for more yards per game than almost every other QB in the league.
So does that mean Eli will get into the HOF without a question?
He finished in the top 5 in passing yards per game three times, one of those seasons being 2005 when his attempts per game was the 12th highest in NFL history.
Ohhhhhhh, so that's your definition of "never". Good to know."Three times" = "never". Got it.
Pardon me. I should have said "almost never." My apologies.
What do we do with those years? Are you suggesting they should count against a player or just be ignored? Or something else?I have a problem with bashing a player for "compiling" while giving players with similar, or worse, years at the beginning of their career a pass. "Yeah, his first couple years were bad, but he was young" seems to be more acceptable than "Yeah, his last couple years were bad, but he was old".Personally, I think there's something to be said for a player who can produce outside the typical production ages. I think that says something about a player. I don't know what it says nor do I know how much weight to give it, but I do consider it.
Could be an interesting comparison.
Definitely an advantage for McNair. We can clearly point to some evidence that he was considered the best player in the game at some point. But, FWIW, McNabb doubles McNair in PBs.
So did McNabb. No advantage either way there. As for the post-season as a whole, I think McNabb has the advantage with more team success and and better personal numbers.
McNair's advantage in rushing yards is minimal and McNabb has the advantage in yds/rush. Also, I'd say McNabb's passing advantage, more than out-weighs any rushing advantage someone might give McNair.I'm sure a more in-depth comparison could be done, but that's my quick take before I head off to a meeting.
The way I would evaluate players for HOF induction would be slightly different. I am not a huge fan of career totals, as that rewards players that had a long shelf life when in reality they may not have been an elite or dominant player. I care more about a player's peak years (when looking at the stats) then the years he sat on the bench (early on) or the ones when he was playing out the string (and would be considered a below average player).One of McNabb's issues is he is an outlier in terms of the statistical arguments. He has nothing truly outstanding to fall back on stat wise. He was almost always a top third of the league QB. I doubt anyone would say he was a Top 3-5 QB most years (although a coule years whn he got hurt he could have been). He certainly falls well shory on the award and hardware side of things.That leaves the team's success as his best selling points. He had a solid winning percentage, went to 5 conference championships and a SB, and most years led the Eagles to the playoffs. However, many years he did not really have many exceptional skill position players to help him. Other than a brief stint with T.O., did any of his WRs really stand out? Stay and Westbrook were very good backs most of the time, but on a whole I don't think the Eagles offense was stocked with perennial Pro Bowlers like some other QBs had the benefit of.I think that is what will hold McNabb back. There is nothing anyone can really point to that easily answers the question "McNabb is a HOFer because . . ."
I am not sure I agree with any of your three items.1) There will be plenty of players that were never the best at their position that will still make it in. For example, there are WRs that played at the same time as Jerry Rice that likely were nowhere near as good as Rice was . . . but they will still get inducted.2) I think the having a ring thing is way overrated and is not as big a criteria as people here tend to think it is. Football more than any other sport is a team game. There will be a ton of Patriots players that have 3 rings that won't sniff the HOF, so winning mulitple rings won't get people in. Jim Kelley didn't win a ring and he got in. Will Tomlinson be kept out cause he didn't win a title?3) I think stats WILL start playing a huge role (if they don't already). If there were 9 other guys at the same position with better overall numbers, it will be tough to support the #10 guy at a position until the 9 other players ahead of him make it in. I think this will become more apparent when Hines Ward becomes eligible. Will Ward jump to the front of the line over people like Brown, Carter, Harrison, Owens, Moss, Bruce, etc.? I tend to think he wont, but only time will tell.
I assume you care how long their peak was? One year clearly isn't enough (could just be a fluke) and 15 years is clearly more than enough, right? Somewhere in between there's a conclusion reached that "He was elite/dominant for a long enough period of time." Is that all you look at? Is it just asking "Was he elite/dominant enough at his peak and was that peak long enough"? If he fails the elite question (height and length of peak), do you consider the rest of the resume or are you done with your evaluation?
Well, you have to hit some minimum threshold for per game stats to have meaning. Have really good per game stats in one game is pretty meaningless when evaluating that season, but 15 games is plenty, IMO. Passer Rating requires a minimum of attempts to qualify for league rankings. Batting Average requires a minimum number of ABs to qualify for league rankings. There's a line somewhere where per game stats have meaning and it's less than 16 games.
