I think McNabb has earned a spot in the Hall of Fame (1 Viewer)

[JuniorNB]

Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly.....these guys didn't win the big one, either. They have busts in Canton.

Right. They have busts in Canton despite not winning the "big one" because of the #'s they put up in their career. McNabb isn't even close in that department. There are essentially 2 types of QBs in the HOF.1. QBs who won the big game, usually more than once, and/or were part of a dynasty.2. QBs who never won the big game but put up ridiculous stats.Some fall in category 1 (Aikman), some fall in category 2 (Marino), and some fall in both (Elway). McNabb falls in neither one right now. He's been close to #1 but never quite got there and he's on his way to #2 but still has a ways to go. Not sure why you're comparing him to guys like Marino and Moon when his #'s pale in comparison to theirs at this point.

Actually, I think Kelly is and Mcnabb have very similar careers. There is a category 3, by the way.QBs who have very, very good stats and have played in and won many big games and have great post-season success without a championship.

 

[Mighty Mice]

Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly.....these guys didn't win the big one, either. They have busts in Canton.

Right. They have busts in Canton despite not winning the "big one" because of the #'s they put up in their career. McNabb isn't even close in that department. There are essentially 2 types of QBs in the HOF.1. QBs who won the big game, usually more than once, and/or were part of a dynasty.2. QBs who never won the big game but put up ridiculous stats.Some fall in category 1 (Aikman), some fall in category 2 (Marino), and some fall in both (Elway). McNabb falls in neither one right now. He's been close to #1 but never quite got there and he's on his way to #2 but still has a ways to go. Not sure why you're comparing him to guys like Marino and Moon when his #'s pale in comparison to theirs at this point.

I agree, Marino and Moon are different situations than McNabb right now. McNabb's best argument is Jim Kelly. Neither won a SB, and McNabb's #'s blow Kelly away. Specifically rushing and TD/INT ratio. Count me a huge McNabb fan, but the man needs to win a ring this year. If he can put on his resume 2 appearences, 1 ring - his #s are good enough with mediocre play for 3 more years.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly.....these guys didn't win the big one, either. They have busts in Canton.

Right. They have busts in Canton despite not winning the "big one" because of the #'s they put up in their career. McNabb isn't even close in that department. There are essentially 2 types of QBs in the HOF.1. QBs who won the big game, usually more than once, and/or were part of a dynasty.2. QBs who never won the big game but put up ridiculous stats.Some fall in category 1 (Aikman), some fall in category 2 (Marino), and some fall in both (Elway). McNabb falls in neither one right now. He's been close to #1 but never quite got there and he's on his way to #2 but still has a ways to go. Not sure why you're comparing him to guys like Marino and Moon when his #'s pale in comparison to theirs at this point.

I think it's just one category of QB -- Quarterbacks who had very good individual statistics, and make sure you keep an eye on post-season stats, too.Aikman had awesome post-season stats. Marino had great regular season stats. So did Elway. Just about every QB had great overall stats, once you combined post-season and regular season numbers. There are a couple of outliers, and none of them are recent.To me, Kelly is the weakest HOF. And he's the biggest outlier. He reminds me of McNabb because of the four straight conference championship games in a time when the entire conference was down. When Kelly played, the NFC was great. When McNabb played, the AFC was great.Kelly's numbers aren't great, and his post-season numbers are downright bad. He had two great years but he didn't even stick around that long. He's a HOF oddity, and I'd attribute it to the uniqueness of four straight SB appearances. And I don't know how you credit Kelly with making that fourth Super Bowl when Frank Reich won them the key playoff game.Considering Kelly is certainly the worst modern HOF QB, I don't think he's the guy you want to set as the benchmark for induction, otherwise you're going to really water down the honor. I think it's just a tip of the cap to the leader of a team who did something no other team had ever done, and voters probably didn't think of it as critically as they could have. He also played in a tough era for QBs, and arguably he deserves a special pass for not standing out among Marino/Montana/Young/Elway/Aikman. That's a tough spot for anyone.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly.....these guys didn't win the big one, either. They have busts in Canton.

Right. They have busts in Canton despite not winning the "big one" because of the #'s they put up in their career. McNabb isn't even close in that department. There are essentially 2 types of QBs in the HOF.1. QBs who won the big game, usually more than once, and/or were part of a dynasty.2. QBs who never won the big game but put up ridiculous stats.Some fall in category 1 (Aikman), some fall in category 2 (Marino), and some fall in both (Elway). McNabb falls in neither one right now. He's been close to #1 but never quite got there and he's on his way to #2 but still has a ways to go. Not sure why you're comparing him to guys like Marino and Moon when his #'s pale in comparison to theirs at this point.

I agree, Marino and Moon are different situations than McNabb right now. McNabb's best argument is Jim Kelly. Neither won a SB, and McNabb's #'s blow Kelly away. Specifically rushing and TD/INT ratio. Count me a huge McNabb fan, but the man needs to win a ring this year. If he can put on his resume 2 appearences, 1 ring - his #s are good enough with mediocre play for 3 more years.

I agree that McNabb's numbers are better than Kelly's, but blowing them away is too strong. You really have to account for era, because TD/INT numbers have changed a bunch in the last decade.

 

[Smeagol]

After the whole phone call incident, I would never vote him in. Stay classy McNabb.

 

[Mighty Mice]

Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly.....these guys didn't win the big one, either. They have busts in Canton.

Right. They have busts in Canton despite not winning the "big one" because of the #'s they put up in their career. McNabb isn't even close in that department. There are essentially 2 types of QBs in the HOF.1. QBs who won the big game, usually more than once, and/or were part of a dynasty.2. QBs who never won the big game but put up ridiculous stats.Some fall in category 1 (Aikman), some fall in category 2 (Marino), and some fall in both (Elway). McNabb falls in neither one right now. He's been close to #1 but never quite got there and he's on his way to #2 but still has a ways to go. Not sure why you're comparing him to guys like Marino and Moon when his #'s pale in comparison to theirs at this point.

I agree, Marino and Moon are different situations than McNabb right now. McNabb's best argument is Jim Kelly. Neither won a SB, and McNabb's #'s blow Kelly away. Specifically rushing and TD/INT ratio. Count me a huge McNabb fan, but the man needs to win a ring this year. If he can put on his resume 2 appearences, 1 ring - his #s are good enough with mediocre play for 3 more years.

I agree that McNabb's numbers are better than Kelly's, but blowing them away is too strong. You really have to account for era, because TD/INT numbers have changed a bunch in the last decade.

True, but Kelly finished playing in 1996, McNabb began in 1999. Are the eras THAT DIFFERENT? Kelly 237 TD, 175 INT, 84.4 rating, 1049 rush yards, 7 rush TDMcNabb 194 TD, 90 INT, 86.0 rating, 3109 rush yards, 26 TDAgreed, kelly is the worst. he should not be the benchmark. That being said, McNabb supporters have their best argument made by using Kelly. No ring, much better stats (in some areas)Also, I know that rushing yards by a QB are not vitally important. Passing strictly, McNabb has better #'s in about everything except completion %.

 

[David Yudkin]

Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly.....these guys didn't win the big one, either. They have busts in Canton.

Right. They have busts in Canton despite not winning the "big one" because of the #'s they put up in their career. McNabb isn't even close in that department. There are essentially 2 types of QBs in the HOF.1. QBs who won the big game, usually more than once, and/or were part of a dynasty.2. QBs who never won the big game but put up ridiculous stats.Some fall in category 1 (Aikman), some fall in category 2 (Marino), and some fall in both (Elway). McNabb falls in neither one right now. He's been close to #1 but never quite got there and he's on his way to #2 but still has a ways to go. Not sure why you're comparing him to guys like Marino and Moon when his #'s pale in comparison to theirs at this point.

I agree, Marino and Moon are different situations than McNabb right now. McNabb's best argument is Jim Kelly. Neither won a SB, and McNabb's #'s blow Kelly away. Specifically rushing and TD/INT ratio. Count me a huge McNabb fan, but the man needs to win a ring this year. If he can put on his resume 2 appearences, 1 ring - his #s are good enough with mediocre play for 3 more years.

I agree that McNabb's numbers are better than Kelly's, but blowing them away is too strong. You really have to account for era, because TD/INT numbers have changed a bunch in the last decade.

True, but Kelly finished playing in 1996, McNabb began in 1999. Are the eras THAT DIFFERENT? Kelly 237 TD, 175 INT, 84.4 rating, 1049 rush yards, 7 rush TDMcNabb 194 TD, 90 INT, 86.0 rating, 3109 rush yards, 26 TDAgreed, kelly is the worst. he should not be the benchmark. That being said, McNabb supporters have their best argument made by using Kelly. No ring, much better stats (in some areas)Also, I know that rushing yards by a QB are not vitally important. Passing strictly, McNabb has better #'s in about everything except completion %.

Of QBs that played from 1986-1996 . . .Marino 40205 passing yards, 271 TD, 165 INTMoon 37740/227/175Elway 36882/204/153Kelly 35467/237/175Kelly posted a 101-59 regular season record as a starter. For players that retired before 2000, he had the 5th highest passer rating of all time.Jumping ahead to QBs active from 1999-2008 . . .Manning 41889/307/137Favre 38326/251/192McNabb 29320/194/90Warner 28543/182/114 (in 25 fewer games than McNabb)By comparison, McNabb has the 14th highest career passer rating of current QBs.

 

[Chase Stuart]

True, but Kelly finished playing in 1996, McNabb began in 1999. Are the eras THAT DIFFERENT?

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=482It's not a huge difference, but it's always worth keeping in mind -- the difference in eras account for about 0.5 INT/100 ATT.

Using those league-wide INT rates for Kelly, and adjusting for his number of attempts in each season, the average QB would have thrown 171 INT and Kelly threw 175 INT. For McNabb (and using 2.8 as the average for this year), the average QB would have thrown 135 INT and McNabb threw 90. So McNabb threw 45 fewer INT than average and Kelly four more INT than average. That's a difference of 49, as opposed to the raw difference of 85 (although part of the reason for that isn't era adjustments but that Kelly has simply more attempts).

McNabb's overall numbers are better, especially once you include. But you need to be careful comparing across eras.

 

[gianmarco]

I completely agree that McNabb most closely compares to Kelly. I also agree that Kelly's inclusion in the HOF is weak, at best, and I was a very big fan of the Bills back then and of Kelly in particular.

And since we are going to compare them, it is my opinion (and I assume others as well) that 4 Super Bowl Appearances is > 5 NFC championship appearances (well, now 6 appearances). It's close, but I give Kelly the nod in that department. So, you compare McNabb's slightly better overall #'s to Kelly's slightly better post-season resume and you got yourself a pretty good comparison.

Seeing as I don't think Kelly deserves to be in, I feel the same way about McNabb. At least for now. I'm not saying he should never make it. I think he just needs to do more and definitely is capable of doing it.

 

[David Yudkin]

On quick review, these were the guys that have played in at least 5 conference championships (counting SB era only):

Montana 7

Bradshaw 6

Staubach 6

Elway 6

Young 6

Brady 5

Kelly 5

Stabler 5

(Not saying that there aren't more, but these were the ones I found easily.)

 

[Chase Stuart]

On quick review, these were the guys that have played in at least 5 conference championships (counting SB era only):Montana 7Bradshaw 6Staubach 6Elway 6Young 6Brady 5Kelly 5Stabler 5(Not saying that there aren't more, but these were the ones I found easily.)

Two of Young's were really Montana's.

 

[David Yudkin]

On quick review, these were the guys that have played in at least 5 conference championships (counting SB era only):Montana 7Bradshaw 6Staubach 6Elway 6Young 6Brady 5Kelly 5Stabler 5(Not saying that there aren't more, but these were the ones I found easily.)

Two of Young's were really Montana's.

Gotcha. Thought that looked too high for Young.

 

[JuniorNB]

After the whole phone call incident, I would never vote him in. Stay classy McNabb.

How about Owens and his Dallas Star/Sharpie/Popcorn, etc. Should he get in?

 

[gianmarco]

Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly.....these guys didn't win the big one, either. They have busts in Canton.

Right. They have busts in Canton despite not winning the "big one" because of the #'s they put up in their career. McNabb isn't even close in that department. There are essentially 2 types of QBs in the HOF.1. QBs who won the big game, usually more than once, and/or were part of a dynasty.2. QBs who never won the big game but put up ridiculous stats.Some fall in category 1 (Aikman), some fall in category 2 (Marino), and some fall in both (Elway). McNabb falls in neither one right now. He's been close to #1 but never quite got there and he's on his way to #2 but still has a ways to go. Not sure why you're comparing him to guys like Marino and Moon when his #'s pale in comparison to theirs at this point.

I think it's just one category of QB -- Quarterbacks who had very good individual statistics, and make sure you keep an eye on post-season stats, too.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how do Aikman or Bradshaw (and Kelly for that matter) get in without their post-season success?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly.....these guys didn't win the big one, either. They have busts in Canton.

Right. They have busts in Canton despite not winning the "big one" because of the #'s they put up in their career. McNabb isn't even close in that department. There are essentially 2 types of QBs in the HOF.1. QBs who won the big game, usually more than once, and/or were part of a dynasty.2. QBs who never won the big game but put up ridiculous stats.Some fall in category 1 (Aikman), some fall in category 2 (Marino), and some fall in both (Elway). McNabb falls in neither one right now. He's been close to #1 but never quite got there and he's on his way to #2 but still has a ways to go. Not sure why you're comparing him to guys like Marino and Moon when his #'s pale in comparison to theirs at this point.

I think it's just one category of QB -- Quarterbacks who had very good individual statistics, and make sure you keep an eye on post-season stats, too.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how do Aikman or Bradshaw (and Kelly for that matter) get in without their post-season success?

Aikman and Bradshaw were awesome in the post-season. I'm saying it's their individually great efforts in the post-season, not their team success, that helps their case. They weren't Trent Dilfers, they dominated the playoffs.

 

[CalBear]

Strong from '99-'01? Find me another QB who had as good as three-year stretch as he had, factoring in numbers, wins, MVP awards and Super Bowls.

That's a gimme: Favre 1995-1997. 3 league MVP awards, 2 Super Bowl appearances, 1 Super Bowl win. 11,700 yards, 118 total TD, 42 INT. That compares to 12,500 yards, 99 total TD, 53 INT for Warner.Steve Young 1992-1994, also. 2 NFL MVP awards, 1 Super Bowl win and MVP (6 TDs). 12,700 total yards, 102 total TD, 33 INT.Warner's run was great but it wasn't unprecedented.

 

[David Yudkin]

Strong from '99-'01? Find me another QB who had as good as three-year stretch as he had, factoring in numbers, wins, MVP awards and Super Bowls.

That's a gimme: Favre 1995-1997. 3 league MVP awards, 2 Super Bowl appearances, 1 Super Bowl win. 11,700 yards, 118 total TD, 42 INT. That compares to 12,500 yards, 99 total TD, 53 INT for Warner.Steve Young 1992-1994, also. 2 NFL MVP awards, 1 Super Bowl win and MVP (6 TDs). 12,700 total yards, 102 total TD, 33 INT.Warner's run was great but it wasn't unprecedented.

Warner miss 5 and a half games in 2000 or he could easily have had another 1700 yards and 15 TD. I realize he didn't so you can't factor that in, but his regular season totals were pretty stout. He also had 2200+ passing yards and 15 TD in 7 playoff games in that timeframe, which also is pretty huge.(Don't feel like looking up the other guys numbers, but Warner was en fuego during that time.)

 

[gianmarco]

Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly.....these guys didn't win the big one, either. They have busts in Canton.

Right. They have busts in Canton despite not winning the "big one" because of the #'s they put up in their career. McNabb isn't even close in that department. There are essentially 2 types of QBs in the HOF.1. QBs who won the big game, usually more than once, and/or were part of a dynasty.2. QBs who never won the big game but put up ridiculous stats.Some fall in category 1 (Aikman), some fall in category 2 (Marino), and some fall in both (Elway). McNabb falls in neither one right now. He's been close to #1 but never quite got there and he's on his way to #2 but still has a ways to go. Not sure why you're comparing him to guys like Marino and Moon when his #'s pale in comparison to theirs at this point.

I think it's just one category of QB -- Quarterbacks who had very good individual statistics, and make sure you keep an eye on post-season stats, too.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how do Aikman or Bradshaw (and Kelly for that matter) get in without their post-season success?

Aikman and Bradshaw were awesome in the post-season. I'm saying it's their individually great efforts in the post-season, not their team success, that helps their case. They weren't Trent Dilfers, they dominated the playoffs.

Right, but it was that success in the post-season that got them in. If they had put up those #'s but lost those games, those QBs wouldn't be in the HOF because their in-season #'s, both average and total, aren't anything great. Thus, I stated there are 2 categories. That's not to say those groups are equally represented as there are only a couple QB's that fit in only one or the other (most QBs in the HOF fit in both), but Aikman and Bradshaw are 2 guys specifically that are in group 1 and did NOT get in due to their regular season stats.

 

[dgreen]

On quick review, these were the guys that have played in at least 5 conference championships (counting SB era only):Montana 7Bradshaw 6Staubach 6Elway 6Young 6Brady 5Kelly 5Stabler 5(Not saying that there aren't more, but these were the ones I found easily.)

Only Stabler and Brady aren't in the HOF and Brady will be. Only Brady is a McNabb contemporary.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

After the whole phone call incident, I would never vote him in. Stay classy McNabb.

Man card revoked 1 week!!!Are you serious? That really bothered you that much?

 

[David Yudkin]

On quick review, these were the guys that have played in at least 5 conference championships (counting SB era only):Montana 7Bradshaw 6Staubach 6Elway 6Young 6Brady 5Kelly 5Stabler 5(Not saying that there aren't more, but these were the ones I found easily.)

Only Stabler and Brady aren't in the HOF and Brady will be. Only Brady is a McNabb contemporary.

I'm not sure if it matters or not, but the game has changed with the advent of the salary cap. I think over all it's harder to get to that many, but other candidated may emerge. For example, Big Ben has played in 3 (counting this one) and is only 26. I wouldn't induct McNabb just because of that, but it will certainly help his cause.

 

[dgreen]

On quick review, these were the guys that have played in at least 5 conference championships (counting SB era only):Montana 7Bradshaw 6Staubach 6Elway 6Young 6Brady 5Kelly 5Stabler 5(Not saying that there aren't more, but these were the ones I found easily.)

Only Stabler and Brady aren't in the HOF and Brady will be. Only Brady is a McNabb contemporary.

I'm not sure if it matters or not, but the game has changed with the advent of the salary cap. I think over all it's harder to get to that many, but other candidated may emerge. For example, Big Ben has played in 3 (counting this one) and is only 26.

Maybe. Maybe not.Bradshaw, Staubach, and Stabler are in one era. Montana, Elway, and Kelly are in another era (throwing Young out). And now Brady and McNabb are in the current era with Roth possibly on his way. Favre's been in 4, but is unlikely to get a 5th. It doesn't appear that any one era is leading or lagging in this department.

I wouldn't induct McNabb just because of that, but it will certainly help his cause.

Agreed. It's nothing that stands on it's own, but it's a great piece to the puzzle.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly.....these guys didn't win the big one, either. They have busts in Canton.

Right. They have busts in Canton despite not winning the "big one" because of the #'s they put up in their career. McNabb isn't even close in that department. There are essentially 2 types of QBs in the HOF.1. QBs who won the big game, usually more than once, and/or were part of a dynasty.2. QBs who never won the big game but put up ridiculous stats.Some fall in category 1 (Aikman), some fall in category 2 (Marino), and some fall in both (Elway). McNabb falls in neither one right now. He's been close to #1 but never quite got there and he's on his way to #2 but still has a ways to go. Not sure why you're comparing him to guys like Marino and Moon when his #'s pale in comparison to theirs at this point.

I think it's just one category of QB -- Quarterbacks who had very good individual statistics, and make sure you keep an eye on post-season stats, too.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how do Aikman or Bradshaw (and Kelly for that matter) get in without their post-season success?

Aikman and Bradshaw were awesome in the post-season. I'm saying it's their individually great efforts in the post-season, not their team success, that helps their case. They weren't Trent Dilfers, they dominated the playoffs.

Right, but it was that success in the post-season that got them in. If they had put up those #'s but lost those games, those QBs wouldn't be in the HOF because their in-season #'s, both average and total, aren't anything great. Thus, I stated there are 2 categories. That's not to say those groups are equally represented as there are only a couple QB's that fit in only one or the other (most QBs in the HOF fit in both), but Aikman and Bradshaw are 2 guys specifically that are in group 1 and did NOT get in due to their regular season stats.

Don't you think the reasons they won those games was because of those numbers?

 

[Smeagol]

After the whole phone call incident, I would never vote him in. Stay classy McNabb.

Man card revoked 1 week!!!Are you serious? That really bothered you that much?

Sarcasm brah.

 

[gianmarco]

Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly.....these guys didn't win the big one, either. They have busts in Canton.

Right. They have busts in Canton despite not winning the "big one" because of the #'s they put up in their career. McNabb isn't even close in that department. There are essentially 2 types of QBs in the HOF.1. QBs who won the big game, usually more than once, and/or were part of a dynasty.2. QBs who never won the big game but put up ridiculous stats.Some fall in category 1 (Aikman), some fall in category 2 (Marino), and some fall in both (Elway). McNabb falls in neither one right now. He's been close to #1 but never quite got there and he's on his way to #2 but still has a ways to go. Not sure why you're comparing him to guys like Marino and Moon when his #'s pale in comparison to theirs at this point.

I think it's just one category of QB -- Quarterbacks who had very good individual statistics, and make sure you keep an eye on post-season stats, too.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how do Aikman or Bradshaw (and Kelly for that matter) get in without their post-season success?

Aikman and Bradshaw were awesome in the post-season. I'm saying it's their individually great efforts in the post-season, not their team success, that helps their case. They weren't Trent Dilfers, they dominated the playoffs.

Right, but it was that success in the post-season that got them in. If they had put up those #'s but lost those games, those QBs wouldn't be in the HOF because their in-season #'s, both average and total, aren't anything great. Thus, I stated there are 2 categories. That's not to say those groups are equally represented as there are only a couple QB's that fit in only one or the other (most QBs in the HOF fit in both), but Aikman and Bradshaw are 2 guys specifically that are in group 1 and did NOT get in due to their regular season stats.

Don't you think the reasons they won those games was because of those numbers?

Of course. Not the only reason, but definitely a big reason for all of them. However, hypothetically speaking, if Aikman had put up those post-season #'s but the Bills had won instead and Dallas didn't win any Super Bowls, do you think Aikman would be in the HOF? Same hypothetical for Bradshaw.It's not inconceivable to think of that being possible as we've seen plenty of players put up star #'s in losing efforts.

 

[CalBear]

Strong from '99-'01? Find me another QB who had as good as three-year stretch as he had, factoring in numbers, wins, MVP awards and Super Bowls.

That's a gimme: Favre 1995-1997. 3 league MVP awards, 2 Super Bowl appearances, 1 Super Bowl win. 11,700 yards, 118 total TD, 42 INT. That compares to 12,500 yards, 99 total TD, 53 INT for Warner.Steve Young 1992-1994, also. 2 NFL MVP awards, 1 Super Bowl win and MVP (6 TDs). 12,700 total yards, 102 total TD, 33 INT.Warner's run was great but it wasn't unprecedented.

Warner miss 5 and a half games in 2000 or he could easily have had another 1700 yards and 15 TD. I realize he didn't so you can't factor that in, but his regular season totals were pretty stout. He also had 2200+ passing yards and 15 TD in 7 playoff games in that timeframe, which also is pretty huge.(Don't feel like looking up the other guys numbers, but Warner was en fuego during that time.)

Young had 1950 total yards and 17 TD in 7 playoff games; Favre had 2400 yards and 21 TD in 10 playoff games.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

His career isn't over guys. If he died tonight.........no, he doesn't get in.

If he goes on to win a SB this year and wins another one, I think he gets in. If he wins 1, plays a few more years and is pretty solid, it'll be very close.

He still needs to do a little more IMO.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly.....these guys didn't win the big one, either. They have busts in Canton.

Right. They have busts in Canton despite not winning the "big one" because of the #'s they put up in their career. McNabb isn't even close in that department. There are essentially 2 types of QBs in the HOF.1. QBs who won the big game, usually more than once, and/or were part of a dynasty.2. QBs who never won the big game but put up ridiculous stats.Some fall in category 1 (Aikman), some fall in category 2 (Marino), and some fall in both (Elway). McNabb falls in neither one right now. He's been close to #1 but never quite got there and he's on his way to #2 but still has a ways to go. Not sure why you're comparing him to guys like Marino and Moon when his #'s pale in comparison to theirs at this point.

I think it's just one category of QB -- Quarterbacks who had very good individual statistics, and make sure you keep an eye on post-season stats, too.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how do Aikman or Bradshaw (and Kelly for that matter) get in without their post-season success?

Aikman and Bradshaw were awesome in the post-season. I'm saying it's their individually great efforts in the post-season, not their team success, that helps their case. They weren't Trent Dilfers, they dominated the playoffs.

Right, but it was that success in the post-season that got them in. If they had put up those #'s but lost those games, those QBs wouldn't be in the HOF because their in-season #'s, both average and total, aren't anything great. Thus, I stated there are 2 categories. That's not to say those groups are equally represented as there are only a couple QB's that fit in only one or the other (most QBs in the HOF fit in both), but Aikman and Bradshaw are 2 guys specifically that are in group 1 and did NOT get in due to their regular season stats.

Don't you think the reasons they won those games was because of those numbers?

Of course. Not the only reason, but definitely a big reason for all of them. However, hypothetically speaking, if Aikman had put up those post-season #'s but the Bills had won instead and Dallas didn't win any Super Bowls, do you think Aikman would be in the HOF? Same hypothetical for Bradshaw.It's not inconceivable to think of that being possible as we've seen plenty of players put up star #'s in losing efforts.

I think yes, they'd be deserving HOFers. It's a pretty absurdly hypothetical question, but I think they would be worthy of inclusion if they had that many big performances in that many big games.

 

[trader jake]

I'm not a fan of McNabb but he has earned a HOF spot

-Eagles 5 NFC Championship games and 1 or 2 SB appearances

-Next year he'll pass a few notable QB's in passing yards

-His very, very low career INT rate

 

[Larrywarren]

Not sure yet whether McNabb has earned his HOF place but for much of his career he's achieved a lot with very little in the way of receiving talent - Thrash, Pinkston, Mitchell were handicapping the passing game for a good few years but he was taking Philly to the Conference game with them on board.

He lit up the league with TO in the 2004 regular season and then still got Philly through the play offs without TO. Apart from then he's never had a stud WR in his corps.

 

[David Yudkin]

While I agree in practical reality that the WRs that the Eagles have rostered or drafted haven't turned out to do much, they have still had players that were drafted fairly high.

Donte Stallworth - 1st round

Freddie Mitchell - 1st round

Charles Johnson - 1st round

DeSean Jackson - 2nd round

Reggie Brown - 2nd round

Todd Pinkston - 2nd round

LJ Smith - 2nd round

Brian Westbrook - 3rd round (he serves as WR a lot of the time)

Kevin Curtis - 3rd round

Terrell Owens - 3rd round

Antonio Freeman - 3rd round

Billy McMullen - 3rd round

Clearly not many of these guys panned out in the long run, but at some point they were somewhat highly doubted as they were all picked in the top 3 rounds of the draft. I suspect if you compare this group to what Brady has had to work with and cnacel out Moss and Owens that Brady had a lot less in terms of WR talent (at least based on their draft day status).

It's not like the Eagles did not try to invest in guys that they felt had skills (or other teams felt had skills too). Not sure what to maje of the fact that they didn't amount to much.

 

[Ashy Larry]

While I agree in practical reality that the WRs that the Eagles have rostered or drafted haven't turned out to do much, they have still had players that were drafted fairly high.

Donte Stallworth - 1st round

Freddie Mitchell - 1st round

Charles Johnson - 1st round

DeSean Jackson - 2nd round

Reggie Brown - 2nd round

Todd Pinkston - 2nd round

LJ Smith - 2nd round

Brian Westbrook - 3rd round (he serves as WR a lot of the time)

Kevin Curtis - 3rd round

Terrell Owens - 3rd round

Antonio Freeman - 3rd round

Billy McMullen - 3rd round

Clearly not many of these guys panned out in the long run, but at some point they were somewhat highly doubted as they were all picked in the top 3 rounds of the draft. I suspect if you compare this group to what Brady has had to work with and cnacel out Moss and Owens that Brady had a lot less in terms of WR talent (at least based on their draft day status).

It's not like the Eagles did not try to invest in guys that they felt had skills (or other teams felt had skills too). Not sure what to maje of the fact that they didn't amount to much.

Stallworth also played for the Pats.Ben Watson - 1st round

Daniel Graham - 1st round

Chad Jackson - 1st round

Terry Glenn - 1st round

Jabar Gaffney - 2nd round

Kevin Faulk - 2nd round

Reche Caldwell - 2nd round

Deion Branch - 2nd round

Bethel Johnson - 2nd round

This list excludes Antowain Smith (1st round), Laurence Maroney (1st round), Kyle Brady (1st round), Corey Dillon (2nd round), Andre Davis (2nd round)

 

[Die]

To me, Kelly is the weakest HOF. And he's the biggest outlier. He reminds me of McNabb because of the four straight conference championship games in a time when the entire conference was down. When Kelly played, the NFC was great. When McNabb played, the AFC was great.Kelly's numbers aren't great, and his post-season numbers are downright bad. He had two great years but he didn't even stick around that long. He's a HOF oddity, and I'd attribute it to the uniqueness of four straight SB appearances. And I don't know how you credit Kelly with making that fourth Super Bowl when Frank Reich won them the key playoff game.Considering Kelly is certainly the worst modern HOF QB, I don't think he's the guy you want to set as the benchmark for induction, otherwise you're going to really water down the honor. I think it's just a tip of the cap to the leader of a team who did something no other team had ever done, and voters probably didn't think of it as critically as they could have. He also played in a tough era for QBs, and arguably he deserves a special pass for not standing out among Marino/Montana/Young/Elway/Aikman. That's a tough spot for anyone.

Jim Kelly also was USFL MVP in 1984 - as a rookie!

 

[Larrywarren]

While I agree in practical reality that the WRs that the Eagles have rostered or drafted haven't turned out to do much, they have still had players that were drafted fairly high.Donte Stallworth - 1st roundFreddie Mitchell - 1st roundCharles Johnson - 1st roundDeSean Jackson - 2nd roundReggie Brown - 2nd roundTodd Pinkston - 2nd roundLJ Smith - 2nd roundBrian Westbrook - 3rd round (he serves as WR a lot of the time)Kevin Curtis - 3rd roundTerrell Owens - 3rd roundAntonio Freeman - 3rd roundBilly McMullen - 3rd roundClearly not many of these guys panned out in the long run, but at some point they were somewhat highly doubted as they were all picked in the top 3 rounds of the draft. I suspect if you compare this group to what Brady has had to work with and cnacel out Moss and Owens that Brady had a lot less in terms of WR talent (at least based on their draft day status).It's not like the Eagles did not try to invest in guys that they felt had skills (or other teams felt had skills too). Not sure what to maje of the fact that they didn't amount to much.

Agree Brady's hasnt had much to work with either and I wouldnt even begin to try and compare McNabb to Brady who has without question earned his HOF place already.My point really is that irrespective of where they were drafted, McNabb has at times achieved a lot with a pretty mediocre WR supporting cast, if you take the 2000 - 2004 run of 5 consec play off appearances with elimination at divisional game (once), conference (3) and losing SB (1) it was achieved without the better WRs in the group you've listed above. Also relevant when looking at that list is to consider what any of them achieved after playing with McNabb, only Owens of that group has achieved anything in his post Philly days. Freeman I would argue had seen his best days when he arrived in Philly.

 

[David Yudkin]

While I agree in practical reality that the WRs that the Eagles have rostered or drafted haven't turned out to do much, they have still had players that were drafted fairly high.

Donte Stallworth - 1st round

Freddie Mitchell - 1st round

Charles Johnson - 1st round

DeSean Jackson - 2nd round

Reggie Brown - 2nd round

Todd Pinkston - 2nd round

LJ Smith - 2nd round

Brian Westbrook - 3rd round (he serves as WR a lot of the time)

Kevin Curtis - 3rd round

Terrell Owens - 3rd round

Antonio Freeman - 3rd round

Billy McMullen - 3rd round

Clearly not many of these guys panned out in the long run, but at some point they were somewhat highly doubted as they were all picked in the top 3 rounds of the draft. I suspect if you compare this group to what Brady has had to work with and cnacel out Moss and Owens that Brady had a lot less in terms of WR talent (at least based on their draft day status).

It's not like the Eagles did not try to invest in guys that they felt had skills (or other teams felt had skills too). Not sure what to maje of the fact that they didn't amount to much.

Stallworth also played for the Pats.Ben Watson - 1st round

Daniel Graham - 1st round

Chad Jackson - 1st round

Terry Glenn - 1st round

Jabar Gaffney - 2nd round

Kevin Faulk - 2nd round

Reche Caldwell - 2nd round

Deion Branch - 2nd round

Bethel Johnson - 2nd round

This list excludes Antowain Smith (1st round), Laurence Maroney (1st round), Kyle Brady (1st round), Corey Dillon (2nd round), Andre Davis (2nd round)

Not that it matters but Jackson was a 2nd rounder. As far the RBs, the only one used as a receiver was Faulk. As for the other receivers, Jackson, Glenn, Johnson, and Davis BARELY saw the field (if that much).Some of the guys noted above for the Eagles also fall off the list

In McNabb's case, most of the guys I listed actually played.

Here's the breakdown of the two teams receiving options since they began playing . . .

Eagles 1999-2008 with 50+ receptions (Not all with McNabb):

1 Brian Westbrook 401 receptions (3rd round)

2 L.J. Smith 231 (2nd round)

3 Chad Lewis 216 (undrafted)

3 Duce Staley 216 (3rd round)

5 Todd Pinkston 184 (2nd round)

6 Reggie Brown 168 (2nd round)

7 James Thrash 164 (undrafted)

8 Greg Lewis 127 (undrafted)

9 Terrell Owens 124 (3rd round)

10 Kevin Curtis 110 (3rd round)

11 Charles Johnson 90 (1st round)

11 Freddie Mitchell 90 (1st round)

13 Torrance Small 89 (5th round)

14 Correll Buckhalter 85 (4th round)

15 Cecil Martin 81 (6th round)

16 Hank Baskett 71 (undrafted)

17 Jason Avant 62 (4th round)

18 DeSean Jackson 62 (2nd round)

Patriots 2000-2007 Receptions (Players of 50+):

1 Troy Brown 337 (8th round)

2 Kevin Faulk 260 (2nd round)

3 Deion Branch 213 (2nd round)

4 David Patten 165 (Undrafted)

5 David Givens 158 (7th round)

6 Daniel Graham 120 (1st round)

7 Ben Watson 116 (1st round)

8 Wes Welker 112 (Undrafted)

9 Randy Moss 98 (1st Round)

10 Christian Fauria (2nd round)

11 Antowain Smith (1st round)

12 Patrick Pass 62 (7th round)

13 Reche Caldwell 61 (2nd round)

14 Corey Dillon 52 (2nd round)

Looking at guys with over 100 receptions:

PHI:

0 1st round, 3 2nd round, 4 3rd round, 3 undrafted

NE:

2 1st round, 2 2nd round, 1 7th round, 3 undrafted

(Counted Brown as undrafted since the draft is only 7 rounds now)

Looks pretty close to me.

 

[JuniorNB]

I think that Moss, Welker, Branch, and Troy Brown are better than any receiver McNabb has ever had (D. Jackson could jump ahead of troy Smith and Branch in a few years).

Of course, Mcnabb had Owens for a short time, but I think it's obvious that he did more to hurt the Eagles than help them. It also did more to hurt McNabb, personally.

 

[David Yudkin]

I think that Moss, Welker, Branch, and Troy Brown are better than any receiver McNabb has ever had (D. Jackson could jump ahead of troy Smith and Branch in a few years).Of course, Mcnabb had Owens for a short time, but I think it's obvious that he did more to hurt the Eagles than help them. It also did more to hurt McNabb, personally.

Brady has played 1 year with Moss and Welker or else his numbers would be Manningesque by now. I'll give you Branch being better than any Eagle WR not named Owens. Brown had 2 good years with Brady and then after that fell off a cliff. The remaining body of work for Brady's receivers was very non-descript.

 

[dgreen]

An interesting comparison...

If we remove Brady's year with Moss, McNabb's full year with T.O., and Brady's and McNabb's rookie years, here are their 16-game averages:

Brady - 317-512-3606-25-13

McNabb - 318-541-3663-23-11

 

[Larrywarren]

Worth mentioning as well from the 'supporting cast' point of view that McNabb hasnt had a great running game to help him out - mitigated in recent years in that he has had a great dual purpose back in Westbrook but it's still up to McNabb to get the passes to him.

 

[CalBear]

Worth mentioning as well from the 'supporting cast' point of view that McNabb hasnt had a great running game to help him out - mitigated in recent years in that he has had a great dual purpose back in Westbrook but it's still up to McNabb to get the passes to him.

Philly has been top-10 in rushing yardage three times in McNabb's career, most recently in 2007. They were #11 in 2006.

 

[unckeyherb]

I think that Moss, Welker, Branch, and Troy Brown are better than any receiver McNabb has ever had (D. Jackson could jump ahead of troy Smith and Branch in a few years).Of course, Mcnabb had Owens for a short time, but I think it's obvious that he did more to hurt the Eagles than help them. It also did more to hurt McNabb, personally.

Brady has played 1 year with Moss and Welker or else his numbers would be Manningesque by now. I'll give you Branch being better than any Eagle WR not named Owens. Brown had 2 good years with Brady and then after that fell off a cliff. The remaining body of work for Brady's receivers was very non-descript.

James Trash and my personal favorite: #83 Greg Lewis (who still suits up.)enough said.

 

[Ashy Larry]

Looks pretty close to me.

Agreed. I was just trying to simply point out that both QB's have had similar receiver types, with perhaps a small edge either way. Brady's a great QB, no doubt.

 

[greggorymac]

I think that Moss, Welker, Branch, and Troy Brown are better than any receiver McNabb has ever had (D. Jackson could jump ahead of troy Smith and Branch in a few years).Of course, Mcnabb had Owens for a short time, but I think it's obvious that he did more to hurt the Eagles than help them. It also did more to hurt McNabb, personally.

Brady has played 1 year with Moss and Welker or else his numbers would be Manningesque by now. I'll give you Branch being better than any Eagle WR not named Owens. Brown had 2 good years with Brady and then after that fell off a cliff. The remaining body of work for Brady's receivers was very non-descript.

James Trash and my personal favorite: #83 Greg Lewis (who still suits up.)enough said.

One of my favorite Michael Irvin soundbites was when he called the Philly receivers (at the time) Stinkston and Trash.BTW, McNabb's current body of work is enough to get him into the Hall of Fame. Whether he is a first ballot Hall of Fame inductee depends on if he wins a Super Bowl in his career.

 

[David Yudkin]

Worth mentioning as well from the 'supporting cast' point of view that McNabb hasnt had a great running game to help him out - mitigated in recent years in that he has had a great dual purpose back in Westbrook but it's still up to McNabb to get the passes to him.

Philly has been top-10 in rushing yardage three times in McNabb's career, most recently in 2007. They were #11 in 2006.

Total RUNNING BACK rushing yards from 2001-2007:New England: 11496 yardsPhiladelphia: 10465 yardsBasically a difference of 9.2 yards per game.

 

[Larrywarren]

Worth mentioning as well from the 'supporting cast' point of view that McNabb hasnt had a great running game to help him out - mitigated in recent years in that he has had a great dual purpose back in Westbrook but it's still up to McNabb to get the passes to him.

Philly has been top-10 in rushing yardage three times in McNabb's career, most recently in 2007. They were #11 in 2006.

That's better than I recalled although I wouldnt say Philly have ever had a GREAT running game in the McNabb era. Here's the rank of Philly in rushing in McNabb years (havent included 1999 where he only had 6 starts in his first season playing) and where the team have been eliminated22 in 2008 Conference?8 in 2007 Regular Season11 in 2006 Divisional but McNabb misses end of season + play offs28 in 2005 Regular Season24 in 2004 SB9 in 2003 Conference7 in 2002 Conference14 in 2001 Conference15 in 2000 DivisionalFair to say then that he's had the benefit of a decent running game 2007 (Reg Season elimination), 2003 and 2002 (Conference game), a mid ranking running game in 2000 (Divisional) and 2001 (Conference) and a low ranking running game 2004 and 2008 (Conference and at least Conference Game elimination) and 2005 (Regular Season).

 

[jasvic]

Are these running stats including the yardage McNabb himself gained? Would think that should be excluded for the purpose of this conversation.

 

[Larrywarren]

Worth mentioning as well from the 'supporting cast' point of view that McNabb hasnt had a great running game to help him out - mitigated in recent years in that he has had a great dual purpose back in Westbrook but it's still up to McNabb to get the passes to him.

Philly has been top-10 in rushing yardage three times in McNabb's career, most recently in 2007. They were #11 in 2006.

Total RUNNING BACK rushing yards from 2001-2007:New England: 11496 yardsPhiladelphia: 10465 yardsBasically a difference of 9.2 yards per game.

2020 of those Philly yards come from McNabb though so he's accounting for 20% of the running game.

 

[David Yudkin]

Are these running stats including the yardage McNabb himself gained? Would think that should be excluded for the purpose of this conversation.

I don't know about anyone else's numbers, but in Post 244 above I only used RB numbers.

 

[David Yudkin]

Worth mentioning as well from the 'supporting cast' point of view that McNabb hasnt had a great running game to help him out - mitigated in recent years in that he has had a great dual purpose back in Westbrook but it's still up to McNabb to get the passes to him.

Philly has been top-10 in rushing yardage three times in McNabb's career, most recently in 2007. They were #11 in 2006.

Total RUNNING BACK rushing yards from 2001-2007:New England: 11496 yards

Philadelphia: 10465 yards

Basically a difference of 9.2 yards per game.

2020 of those Philly yards come from McNabb though so he's accounting for 20% of the running game.

I guess the CAPS didn't help any, maybe I need bold and larger type too . . .Total RUNNING BACK rushing yards from 2001-2007:

New England: 11496 yards

Philadelphia: 10465 yards

Basically a difference of 9.2 yards per game.

 

[jasvic]

Worth mentioning as well from the 'supporting cast' point of view that McNabb hasnt had a great running game to help him out - mitigated in recent years in that he has had a great dual purpose back in Westbrook but it's still up to McNabb to get the passes to him.

Philly has been top-10 in rushing yardage three times in McNabb's career, most recently in 2007. They were #11 in 2006.

Total RUNNING BACK rushing yards from 2001-2007:New England: 11496 yards

Philadelphia: 10465 yards

Basically a difference of 9.2 yards per game.

2020 of those Philly yards come from McNabb though so he's accounting for 20% of the running game.

I guess the CAPS didn't help any, maybe I need bold and larger type too . . .Total RUNNING BACK rushing yards from 2001-2007:

New England: 11496 yards

Philadelphia: 10465 yards

Basically a difference of 9.2 yards per game.

So is that including McNabb's rushing yards?Sorry, missed it the first time.