Donovan McNabb a sure thing HOF? (1 Viewer)

[the chairman]

Tomlinson was the best for a long time in rb years, you're also saying Rice was the best every year that he played. In your post you stated that it is a team game. IMO it does depend on the team you played on what your stats are. Staubach's #'s are not that inspiring, he played in a run first offence but he more than deserves the gold jacket. When football is measured by stats the game will forever change and not for the best. Ward is the same as Driver long time in the league consistant but not HOF worthy.

 

[David Yudkin]

Tomlinson was the best for a long time in rb years, you're also saying Rice was the best every year that he played. In your post you stated that it is a team game. IMO it does depend on the team you played on what your stats are. Staubach's #'s are not that inspiring, he played in a run first offence but he more than deserves the gold jacket. When football is measured by stats the game will forever change and not for the best. Ward is the same as Driver long time in the league consistant but not HOF worthy.

Ward will cause a lot of people agita (and already has). He is a very polarizing candidate. Some folks say he is a mortal lock. Other folks think he will never sniff the Hall.My point with Rice was that someone stated to be a HOFer you had to be considered the best in the game at one time or another. IMO, that threshold is a bit lofty. Does anyone really think that Curtis Martin or Jerome Bettis were the best RB at any point?If a guy stung together 5 or 6 1,000 yard rushing seasons in today's game is that really all that impressive when players are approaching or hitting 2,000 yards? Thomas Jones is the perfect example of a guy that strung together a bunch of decent seasons . . . but would anyone consider him a HOF candidate? I doubt it. Would his status have changed any if he produced the same numbers on the Colts? The Steelers? The Patriots?

 

[Marauder]

The yearly accomplishments are what should be considered when evaluating a player's HOF worthiness. Per game stats are meaningless.

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.

I'm not saying per game stats have no meaning. What I'm saying is that what really matters at the end of the year is how much a player contributed to his team's goal of winning a championship and looking back on a players career you get the best picture of his true value by looking at it year by year rather than game by game. BA and Passer rating stats need to have a minimum threshold because they are by definition averages. Yards and TD's are not.

 

[dgreen]

The yearly accomplishments are what should be considered when evaluating a player's HOF worthiness. Per game stats are meaningless.

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.

I'm not saying per game stats have no meaning. What I'm saying is that what really matters at the end of the year is how much a player contributed to his team's goal of winning a championship and looking back on a players career you get the best picture of his true value by looking at it year by year rather than game by game. BA and Passer rating stats need to have a minimum threshold because they are by definition averages. Yards and TD's are not.

"Per game" stats are averages, too.Anyway, I understand better what you're saying now and I think that might be one way to look at how good an individual player is. I just don't know how to define it.

 

[jim k]

No he will not be in the HOF.

As a qb, you get in the HOF if you have performed at a historical winning level OR your statistics are undeniable. Persona is thrown in there also and is part of the overall recipe. You have to give the hall of fame voters a historically significant reason to vote and finally induct you. That answer has to be something like: This player is top five in the history of the NFL at 'whatever' OR this player dominated his position for x years OR this player changed the history of the game.

Here is the specific reason McNabb will not get in: Even though he performed at a HOF level for a few years, he did not pad his statistics in his waning years. He needed to perform this year and the next two years at a 3000 yd/15 td clip and THEN his lifetime numbers would have looked HOF right. Then he could have been a veteran backup qb collecting a check somewhere. Then the writers could rally around him by saying he was top five lifetime in passing yards and was the only player in the history of the NFL to throw and rush for x yards. He broke that plan because his skills eroded too quickly to get the HOF significant career stat padding years. He went right to backup qb too fast. Take a look at Warren Moon's numbers sometime and you will get the gist.

 

[cobalt_27]

Tomlinson was the best for a long time in rb years, you're also saying Rice was the best every year that he played. In your post you stated that it is a team game. IMO it does depend on the team you played on what your stats are. Staubach's #'s are not that inspiring, he played in a run first offence but he more than deserves the gold jacket. When football is measured by stats the game will forever change and not for the best. Ward is the same as Driver long time in the league consistant but not HOF worthy.

My point with Rice was that someone stated to be a HOFer you had to be considered the best in the game at one time or another. IMO, that threshold is a bit lofty. Does anyone really think that Curtis Martin or Jerome Bettis were the best RB at any point?

OK. Now, I understand where you're coming from. They better move the HOF out of Canton and to a place like Los Angeles to accommodate the real estate demands. There will be a lot of busts to fill in your Hall of Pretty Good.

 

[David Yudkin]

Tomlinson was the best for a long time in rb years, you're also saying Rice was the best every year that he played. In your post you stated that it is a team game. IMO it does depend on the team you played on what your stats are. Staubach's #'s are not that inspiring, he played in a run first offence but he more than deserves the gold jacket. When football is measured by stats the game will forever change and not for the best. Ward is the same as Driver long time in the league consistant but not HOF worthy.

My point with Rice was that someone stated to be a HOFer you had to be considered the best in the game at one time or another. IMO, that threshold is a bit lofty. Does anyone really think that Curtis Martin or Jerome Bettis were the best RB at any point?

OK. Now, I understand where you're coming from. They better move the HOF out of Canton and to a place like Los Angeles to accommodate the real estate demands. There will be a lot of busts to fill in your Hall of Pretty Good.

That's where you are wrong. I would have a lot fewer people in MY hall of fame. All I have been refering to is the current mantra of inducting too many players, basically using the common denomenator of if-PLAYER-X-got-inducted-than-so-should-everyone-else-that-performed-slightly-better-than-he-did.There would be a lot of players that would not get in MY HOF without a ticket. I won't list them all because that will cause an even greater state of agitation amongst certain people.

 

[AngryPatriot]

I think you will see McNabb in an IHOP, but not the HOF> the last few years sealed the deal.

 

[Borat]

Honda <-- Some LOL's in there

 

[cobalt_27]

Tomlinson was the best for a long time in rb years, you're also saying Rice was the best every year that he played. In your post you stated that it is a team game. IMO it does depend on the team you played on what your stats are. Staubach's #'s are not that inspiring, he played in a run first offence but he more than deserves the gold jacket. When football is measured by stats the game will forever change and not for the best. Ward is the same as Driver long time in the league consistant but not HOF worthy.

My point with Rice was that someone stated to be a HOFer you had to be considered the best in the game at one time or another. IMO, that threshold is a bit lofty. Does anyone really think that Curtis Martin or Jerome Bettis were the best RB at any point?

OK. Now, I understand where you're coming from. They better move the HOF out of Canton and to a place like Los Angeles to accommodate the real estate demands. There will be a lot of busts to fill in your Hall of Pretty Good.

That's where you are wrong. I would have a lot fewer people in MY hall of fame. All I have been refering to is the current mantra of inducting too many players, basically using the common denomenator of if-PLAYER-X-got-inducted-than-so-should-everyone-else-that-performed-slightly-better-than-he-did.There would be a lot of players that would not get in MY HOF without a ticket. I won't list them all because that will cause an even greater state of agitation amongst certain people.

Yes, it is well established you hate Troy Aikman. You've mentioned this only 4,938 times over the last few years.Question is would YOU advocate for McNabb in your HOF? I assume by what you just wrote, the answer would be a firm no.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Tomlinson was the best for a long time in rb years, you're also saying Rice was the best every year that he played. In your post you stated that it is a team game. IMO it does depend on the team you played on what your stats are. Staubach's #'s are not that inspiring, he played in a run first offence but he more than deserves the gold jacket. When football is measured by stats the game will forever change and not for the best. Ward is the same as Driver long time in the league consistant but not HOF worthy.

Couldn't disagree more. They're phenomenal, so much so that I sort of doubt he was as good as his numbers. Remember, those Cowboys teams were loaded (and IIRC, went to the NFCCG the 3 years after he retired and went to the SB the year before he started). That said:-- Staubach led the league in Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt four times in his career, including the last four times.

-- He was top-five in ANY/A in two other seasons

He retired as the all-time leader in AY/A: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=combined&year_min=1920&year_max=1979&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&draft_round_min=0&draft_round_max=99&league_id=NFL&team_id=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos_is_qb=Y&pos_is_rb=Y&pos_is_wr=Y&pos_is_te=Y&pos_is_rec=Y&pos_is_t=Y&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_ol=Y&pos_is_dt=Y&pos_is_de=Y&pos_is_dl=Y&pos_is_ilb=Y&pos_is_olb=Y&pos_is_lb=Y&pos_is_cb=Y&pos_is_s=Y&pos_is_db=Y&pos_is_k=Y&pos_is_p=Y&c1stat=pass_att&c1comp=gt&c1val=1500&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=pass_adj_yds_per_att

He was an incredibly efficient passer, finishing above average in Y/A every season and usually by a significant margin. And then he added solid rushing numbers on top of that.

 

[az_prof]

No way is he a sure thing HOF.

 

[Todd Andrews]

McNabb was very very good for a good period of time. And I say that as a Redskins fan. But not quite HOF material.

 

[Sea Duck]

This thread reminds me of the liberal/conservative debates in the Free For All. McNabb wasn't as good as his fans claim, but he wasn't as bad as his haters claim, either.

 

[David Yudkin]

Tomlinson was the best for a long time in rb years, you're also saying Rice was the best every year that he played. In your post you stated that it is a team game. IMO it does depend on the team you played on what your stats are. Staubach's #'s are not that inspiring, he played in a run first offence but he more than deserves the gold jacket. When football is measured by stats the game will forever change and not for the best. Ward is the same as Driver long time in the league consistant but not HOF worthy.

My point with Rice was that someone stated to be a HOFer you had to be considered the best in the game at one time or another. IMO, that threshold is a bit lofty. Does anyone really think that Curtis Martin or Jerome Bettis were the best RB at any point?

OK. Now, I understand where you're coming from. They better move the HOF out of Canton and to a place like Los Angeles to accommodate the real estate demands. There will be a lot of busts to fill in your Hall of Pretty Good.

That's where you are wrong. I would have a lot fewer people in MY hall of fame. All I have been refering to is the current mantra of inducting too many players, basically using the common denomenator of if-PLAYER-X-got-inducted-than-so-should-everyone-else-that-performed-slightly-better-than-he-did.There would be a lot of players that would not get in MY HOF without a ticket. I won't list them all because that will cause an even greater state of agitation amongst certain people.

Yes, it is well established you hate Troy Aikman. You've mentioned this only 4,938 times over the last few years.Question is would YOU advocate for McNabb in your HOF? I assume by what you just wrote, the answer would be a firm no.

Being a Cowboys fan, I far from hate Aikman. And McNabb would not make it in.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Ward will cause a lot of people agita (and already has). He is a very polarizing candidate. Some folks say he is a mortal lock. Other folks think he will never sniff the Hall.

Eh, 99% of the people who think Ward is a mortal lock for Hall are either delusional Steelers fans or media talking heads who like saying that any notable player is a future Hall of Famer.

 

[Tau837]

Ward will cause a lot of people agita (and already has). He is a very polarizing candidate. Some folks say he is a mortal lock. Other folks think he will never sniff the Hall.

Eh, 99% of the people who think Ward is a mortal lock for Hall are either delusional Steelers fans or media talking heads who like saying that any notable player is a future Hall of Famer.

Part of the problem stems from talking heads addressing the question of whether player X is a HOFer without context. If you ask them about players individually, they will tend to say yes to far too many players... they have a natural tendency to talk up too many great players as if they are HOF caliber players. It's much harder to justify when in the context of a player having to be top 5 in his class, competing against all other eligible players at all positions and all non-players/contributors, to make it through the normal process (i.e., without having to make it via senior committee).

 

[whitem0nkey]

joe Namath is in the HOF, so any QB that ever started needs to be in the hall.

 

[Daywalker]

D. McNaab = Andruw Jones.

 

[Short Corner]

I bet you the Bears or the Texans are wishing they had him right about now.

Maybe not.

 

[Manster]

McNabb has never thrown for 4,000 yards in a season and he only threw for over 30 td's in a season once, and had 25 or more TD's in a season twice. Interestingly, there's a HOF qb with very similar numbers -- only had more than 30 td's in a season once, never had 4,000 yards, and had 25 or more td's in a season twice. This QB and McNabb have very similar career numbers -- McNabb has more yards, a couple less TD's and a lot less INT's. McNabb has far more rushing yards and rushing TD's.

Anyone know who this other QB is? He played in the last 25 years.

Aikman doesn't exactly have a great stat argument going for him.

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.

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.

The Mcnabb era Eagles won a lot of games, sure. At times, Mcnabb looked like an elite QB. BUT, when he had his shots at the big ones, he typically came up short. Remember Danny White? You have to be Dan Marino to not win the big ones and still be elite. And, Mcnabb had some great players around him. Westbrook, T.O., good defenses, etc...Stats aside, what sticks out to me about Aikman is his clutch performances on the biggest stages. see '92 NFC conf. championship @ Candlestick.

 

[cvnpoka]

Ward will cause a lot of people agita (and already has). He is a very polarizing candidate. Some folks say he is a mortal lock. Other folks think he will never sniff the Hall.

Eh, 99% of the people who think Ward is a mortal lock for Hall are either delusional Steelers fans or media talking heads who like saying that any notable player is a future Hall of Famer.

ward is indeed a mortal lock. will be the most undeserving addition of the modern era ofc.

 

[cvnpoka]

And, Mcnabb had some great players around him.

his supporting cast was possibly the worst of his era.

 

[cobalt_27]

Stats aside, what sticks out to me about Aikman is his clutch performances on the biggest stages. see '92 NFC conf. championship @ Candlestick.

And, a few weeks later: 22/30/273 and 4 TDs to earn Super Bowl MVP that began the Cowboys' run.

 

[Amused to Death]

Stats aside, what sticks out to me about Aikman is his clutch performances on the biggest stages. see '92 NFC conf. championship @ Candlestick.

And, a few weeks later: 22/30/273 and 4 TDs to earn Super Bowl MVP that began the Cowboys' run.

McNabb had his chance to lead his team to a SB victory, but he was too busy puking in the huddle.

 

[Sea Duck]

Stats aside, what sticks out to me about Aikman is his clutch performances on the biggest stages. see '92 NFC conf. championship @ Candlestick.

And, a few weeks later: 22/30/273 and 4 TDs to earn Super Bowl MVP that began the Cowboys' run.

Did any quarterback have a bigger jump from regular season stats to playoff stats than Aikman? He averaged 40 more yards per game in the playoffs and his passer rating jumped by 8 points.

 

[Csonka4life]

Not even close, Mcnabb is a Philly ring of honour type guy. He is a Black Drew Bledsoe. A guy that was maybe top 5 that fell apart too quickly to be a true hall of fame candidate. If he gets in the football hall of fame becomes the baseball or worse the hockey...

 

[sgtrobo]

wow.

see, I thought this was a joke thread. He was, at best, a borderline top 5-10 guy for one or two seasons. I don't even know if he belongs in the Hall of Very Good. Perhaps the Hall of Pretty Darn Good.

 

[whitem0nkey]

because Namath is a HOFer so should McNabb.

Namath - 173 TDs 220 INTs - 50 CMP% - 27,663 yards

McNabb - 234 TDs 117 INTs - 59 CMP% - 37,276 yards

once you realize how low the bar is just about any QB belongs in the HOF.

 

[Tau837]

Ward will cause a lot of people agita (and already has). He is a very polarizing candidate. Some folks say he is a mortal lock. Other folks think he will never sniff the Hall.

Eh, 99% of the people who think Ward is a mortal lock for Hall are either delusional Steelers fans or media talking heads who like saying that any notable player is a future Hall of Famer.

ward is indeed a mortal lock. will be the most undeserving addition of the modern era ofc.

No he isn't. He is a great example of an individual who people say will make it when asked individually but who won't measure up in the context of competing against all eligible players and non-players.

 

[Csonka4life]

You can't compare eras, Namath had a low completion percentage because he didn't have the West Coast Offense. Also Namath is unique because he was the flagship player for a fledgling league who won a historically important game. I can only compare Namath with his mediocre stats to somebody like Larry Doby who on first glance shouldn't be a hall of fame member (in baseball), but other considerations were used to elect these candidates.

 

[Tau837]

because Namath is a HOFer so should McNabb.Namath - 173 TDs 220 INTs - 50 CMP% - 27,663 yardsMcNabb - 234 TDs 117 INTs - 59 CMP% - 37,276 yardsonce you realize how low the bar is just about any QB belongs in the HOF.

I hope this post is fishing. Comparing numbers across such completely different eras is invalid. Furthermore, each player should be judged on his own merits and in comparison to his peers and his own era. The "player X is in, and player Y has better stats, so player Y should be in" is one of the worst ways to assess candidates; prevalent use of this method is a big reason why the baseball HOF is so diluted.

 

[Csonka4life]

Jim Rice anyone? I don't get how a guy who fell apart at relatively young age(Rice) is a better baseball player than his own teammate who had excellent stats late in his career and was an excellent defensive player in the outfield(Dewey Evans). Jim Rice is the equivalent of Herman Moore...

 

[whitem0nkey]

because Namath is a HOFer so should McNabb.Namath - 173 TDs 220 INTs - 50 CMP% - 27,663 yardsMcNabb - 234 TDs 117 INTs - 59 CMP% - 37,276 yardsonce you realize how low the bar is just about any QB belongs in the HOF.

I hope this post is fishing. Comparing numbers across such completely different eras is invalid. Furthermore, each player should be judged on his own merits and in comparison to his peers and his own era. The "player X is in, and player Y has better stats, so player Y should be in" is one of the worst ways to assess candidates; prevalent use of this method is a big reason why the baseball HOF is so diluted.

Its insulting that Namath is in the HOF. no one with 50 more INTs than TDs should be in the HOF regardless of era.my point is that the NFL HOF is a joke. Joe Namath was a bad QB, so if a bad QB is good enough to be in the hall then any one better then bad belongs. and McNabb is better then bad, so he belongs.im not fishing, the NFL HOF is fishing by making Namath a member. and they are making my point valid.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Stats aside, what sticks out to me about Aikman is his clutch performances on the biggest stages. see '92 NFC conf. championship @ Candlestick.

And, a few weeks later: 22/30/273 and 4 TDs to earn Super Bowl MVP that began the Cowboys' run.

Did any quarterback have a bigger jump from regular season stats to playoff stats than Aikman? He averaged 40 more yards per game in the playoffs and his passer rating jumped by 8 points.

Jim Plunkett? Jeff Hostetler?

 

[Chase Stuart]

because Namath is a HOFer so should McNabb.Namath - 173 TDs 220 INTs - 50 CMP% - 27,663 yardsMcNabb - 234 TDs 117 INTs - 59 CMP% - 37,276 yardsonce you realize how low the bar is just about any QB belongs in the HOF.

I hope this post is fishing. Comparing numbers across such completely different eras is invalid. Furthermore, each player should be judged on his own merits and in comparison to his peers and his own era. The "player X is in, and player Y has better stats, so player Y should be in" is one of the worst ways to assess candidates; prevalent use of this method is a big reason why the baseball HOF is so diluted.

Its insulting that Namath is in the HOF. no one with 50 more INTs than TDs should be in the HOF regardless of era.my point is that the NFL HOF is a joke. Joe Namath was a bad QB, so if a bad QB is good enough to be in the hall then any one better then bad belongs. and McNabb is better then bad, so he belongs.im not fishing, the NFL HOF is fishing by making Namath a member. and they are making my point valid.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=6003HTH.

 

[whitem0nkey]

because Namath is a HOFer so should McNabb.Namath - 173 TDs 220 INTs - 50 CMP% - 27,663 yardsMcNabb - 234 TDs 117 INTs - 59 CMP% - 37,276 yardsonce you realize how low the bar is just about any QB belongs in the HOF.

I hope this post is fishing. Comparing numbers across such completely different eras is invalid. Furthermore, each player should be judged on his own merits and in comparison to his peers and his own era. The "player X is in, and player Y has better stats, so player Y should be in" is one of the worst ways to assess candidates; prevalent use of this method is a big reason why the baseball HOF is so diluted.

Its insulting that Namath is in the HOF. no one with 50 more INTs than TDs should be in the HOF regardless of era.my point is that the NFL HOF is a joke. Joe Namath was a bad QB, so if a bad QB is good enough to be in the hall then any one better then bad belongs. and McNabb is better then bad, so he belongs.im not fishing, the NFL HOF is fishing by making Namath a member. and they are making my point valid.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=6003HTH.

Oh ok then that settles it, LOL.any way 62 wins, 63 losses and 4 ties.A .501 career completion percentage, QB rating 65.46. he averaged 10 games a year throughout a 13-year career. When you look at his career stats and compare them to other Hall of Famers or future Hall of Famers, it becomes apparent that Joe Namath is the worst player in the NFL’s Hall of Fame. Namath rarely, if ever, threw the ball effectively. Jurgensen, Starr, Dawson all threw more TDs than INTs.65.46 career passer rating for Namath that's 24th among Dead Ball Era quarterbacks, well below the efficiency of Dead Ball Era QBs that nobody considers Hall of Fame players, such as Frank Ryan (77.61), Don Meredith (74.84) and Roman Gabriel (74.29), among many others.Namath is bad. I'm a bears fan I know bad QBs.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

I do not think McNabb will get into the HoF...

That said, my favorite part of the thread was the Browns fan that had to take some time out to sling mud @ Hines Ward

 

[Pip's Invitation]

And, Mcnabb had some great players around him.

his supporting cast was possibly the worst of his era.

If by "supporting cast" you mean "wide receivers not named TO," your post makes some sense. But that team was stacked at RB, O-Line, DL, and DB (and had a Pro Bowl kicker FWIW).

 

[Manster]

And, Mcnabb had some great players around him.

his supporting cast was possibly the worst of his era.

If by "supporting cast" you mean "wide receivers not named TO," your post makes some sense. But that team was stacked at RB, O-Line, DL, and DB (and had a Pro Bowl kicker FWIW).

Exactly. Those Eagle teams were pretty darn good. it's not like Mcnabb was carrying them.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

No.

/thread

 

[ZWK]

And, Mcnabb had some great players around him.

his supporting cast was possibly the worst of his era.

If by "supporting cast" you mean "wide receivers not named TO," your post makes some sense. But that team was stacked at RB, O-Line, DL, and DB (and had a Pro Bowl kicker FWIW).

McNabb had about 4 years with Westbrook in his prime, 1.5 years with TO, and 2 years with DeSean Jackson. Other than that, he didn't have any major weapons. 2000 through mid-2003 he didn't have anyone, mid-2003 through 2007 were the Westbrook years (with TO in 2004-05 but not much else at receiver), and 2008-09 his weapon was DeSean Jackson (while Westbrook was in decline). Up until mid-2003 the McNabb-led Eagles offense was only above average, but from mid-2003 on they were good to great.You could count it in favor of McNabb that he had so little help for the first 4 years of his career, or you could count it against him that he wasn't able to make the Philly offense anything better than above average until he got some help.

 

[jon_mx]

Looking at the last ten years at QB's who will make the HOF and you get names like:

Manning

Brady

Brees

Rogers

And others who are highly likely:

Warner

Big Ben

I just don't see McNabb as having the Resume to match the above

 

[The Great Snook]

He will get in as he is the first kinda/sorta successful black quarterback.

 

[David Yudkin]

I compiled a lost of QBs that entered the league in the past 30 years and had a career AV of 50 or more. I should have included most everyone that played in that time, but I may have missed someone if that player was not drafted. I won't disagree with people who say weighted career AV is not a great metric and has flaws.

Peyton Manning 159Brett Favre 155Dan Marino HOF 145John Elway HOF 138Steve Young HOF 135Warren Moon HOF 119Tom Brady 115R. Cunningham 107Donovan McNabb 105Boomer Esiason 105Drew Brees 103Drew Bledsoe 103Jim Kelly HOF 102Steve McNair 100Rich Gannon 99Troy Aikman HOF 97V. Testaverde 97Mark Brunell 96Kurt Warner 95Trent Green 94Jim Everett 87D. Culpepper 86Kerry Collins 85Chris Chandler 79Matt Hasselbeck 78Jim Harbaugh 78Jake Plummer 77Jon Kitna 75Philip Rivers 74Michael Vick 74Brad Johnson 74Roethlisberger 72Ken O'Brien 72Bernie Kosar 71Neil Lomax 70Carson Palmer 69Steve Beuerlein 69Jeff Blake 68Aaron Brooks 65Jeff George 65Eli Manning 64David Garrard 61Jay Schroeder 61Kordell Stewart 59Neil O'Donnell 59Jake Delhomme 58Marc Bulger 57Mark Rypien 57Jim McMahon 57Gus Frerotte 56Jeff Hostetler 56Chad Pennington 55Tony Romo 54Brian Griese 52Trent Dilfer 52Chris Miller 51Doug Flutie 51Wade Wilson 51Matt Schaub 50Scott Mitchell 50Stan Humphries 50
At least on this list McNabb ranked pretty high.

 

[Jobber]

He will get in as he is the first kinda/sorta successful black quarterback.

No way. I'd take McNair any day over this guy. If it was 1960 then I'd say race could legitimately play a part in his induction. But it's the 21st century, there's no way race should be a factor.

 

[Wadsworth]

He will get in as he is the first kinda/sorta successful black quarterback.

 

[spider321]

How did this thread make it past "No. /thread."?

 

[cobalt_27]

How did this thread make it past "No. /thread."?

It's really a stupid discussion. Even people like David who has prolonged this discussion by arguing that, since players X, y, etc. are already in, therefore Donovan should get consideration...but, even David wouldn't put him in, hands down.

 

[Luke Skywalker]

He will get in as he is the first kinda/sorta successful black quarterback.

Because Warren Moon sucked, right?