Impact of T.O. leaving the Eagles (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

There was a blurb in The Sporting News on the prodcution for McNabb and Westbrook with and without Owens in the lineup across the 2003-05 timeframe. Here were the numbers:

McNabb with T.O.:

5,873 passing yards, 48 TD, 24.9 fantasy ppg in 21 games

McNabb without T.O.:

3,725 passing yards, 22 TD, 15.2 fantasy ppg in 19 games

Westbrook with T.O.:

2,242 total yards, 14 TD, 15.4 fantasy ppg in 20 games

Westbrook without T.O.:

1,451 total yards, 13 TD, 11.2 fantasy ppg in 20 games

(I posted similar numbers for McNabb in a lengthy thread earlier this offseason.)

There are other external factors that may have impacted these numbers (mostly injuries to McNabb and Westbrook), but are these numbers something to be concerned about or are people willing to overlook them and still predict great numbers from there two?

(I've already voiced my concerns about McNabb and never really looked into the impact on Westbrook.)

 

[Darth Cheney]

McNabb was a Pro-Bowler and MVP candidate before Owens. He will be after Owens.

 

[David Yudkin]

McNabb was a Pro-Bowler and MVP candidate before Owens. He will be after Owens.

We care not of Pro Bowls and MVP candidacies. We care about fantasy numbers.

 

[nygiants56]

Westbrook's #'s won't add up to much if he doesn't stop getting hurt ALL the time...

WITH or WITHOUT T.O.

 

[sib]

Me personally, I look at the impact of TO leaving more negatively on Mcnabb than Westbrook. I pretty much play in PPR leagues and I think Westbrook is money (as long as he stays healthy)

Without TO, I definitely expect a decline in his fantasy numbers, but I would still take him as a top 10 fantasy QB. I think Mcnabb's current supporting cast is better than what he's had in some past yrs (James Thrash, Pinkston, Freddie Mitchell, Buckhalter). LJ Smith, Westbrook, Reggie Brown should still allow Mcnabb to be among the top 5-10 fantasy QBs; he just won't be a top 3 guy like he was with Owens.

 

[Darth Cheney]

McNabb was a Pro-Bowler and MVP candidate before Owens. He will be after Owens.

We care not of Pro Bowls and MVP candidacies. We care about fantasy numbers.

I'm willing to predict a return to similar numbers for McNabb pre-Owens era when he was a Pro-Bowler and a MVP candidate. I think that the Owens era ( much like the quest for 50 that Peyton Manning went on a couple of years ago) puts into peoples minds, unrealistic expectations for McNabb. Will he be bee-bopping and scatting at will on defenses like he did with Owens? No. A player of Owens talent only comes along every so many years. But if I could get him at 5.12 ( which his where averaged at another website) I would be pretty happy.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Losing a WR threat like Owens will have an impact on both of them, and it won't be a positive one.

But I'm just as interested in what happens to the number of targets LJ Smith sees. Reid had plays specifically designed for all three of them - Owens, Westbrook, and Smith. With Owens gone, I wonder where those designed plays will go to. I'm sure Reggie Brown will get some of them, but Smith might see more opportunities too.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

If the Eagles cannot effectively put respectable (and respectED) WRs on the field, the D will key on Westy.

LJ Smith, Reggie Brown must step up. Otherwise the whole offense will be worsened.

Also of note - this isn't a vacuum. The Philly D was dominant during their playoff runs, setting up short fields. I'd be curious to compare these numbers vs. games where the D played well (generating 2+ turnovers).

 

[joffer]

McNabb without T.O.:3,725 passing yards, 22 TD, 15.2 fantasy ppg in 19 games

what games/years are they using here?

 

[wannabee]

If the Eagles cannot effectively put respectable (and respectED) WRs on the field, the D will key on Westy.

LJ Smith, Reggie Brown must step up. Otherwise the whole offense will be worsened.

Also of note - this isn't a vacuum. The Philly D was dominant during their playoff runs, setting up short fields. I'd be curious to compare these numbers vs. games where the D played well (generating 2+ turnovers).

when do you think you might have that completed? I would be interested to see the results.

 

[Darth Cheney]

If the Eagles cannot effectively put respectable (and respectED) WRs on the field, the D will key on Westy.LJ Smith, Reggie Brown must step up. Otherwise the whole offense will be worsened.Also of note - this isn't a vacuum. The Philly D was dominant during their playoff runs, setting up short fields. I'd be curious to compare these numbers vs. games where the D played well (generating 2+ turnovers).

Before Owens they didn't have respectable WR's and McNabb did just fine.

 

[zadok]

There was a blurb in The Sporting News on the prodcution for McNabb and Westbrook with and without Owens in the lineup across the 2003-05 timeframe. Here were the numbers:McNabb with T.O.:5,873 passing yards, 48 TD, 24.9 fantasy ppg in 21 gamesMcNabb without T.O.:3,725 passing yards, 22 TD, 15.2 fantasy ppg in 19 gamesWestbrook with T.O.:2,242 total yards, 14 TD, 15.4 fantasy ppg in 20 gamesWestbrook without T.O.:1,451 total yards, 13 TD, 11.2 fantasy ppg in 20 games(I posted similar numbers for McNabb in a lengthy thread earlier this offseason.)There are other external factors that may have impacted these numbers (mostly injuries to McNabb and Westbrook), but are these numbers something to be concerned about or are people willing to overlook them and still predict great numbers from there two?(I've already voiced my concerns about McNabb and never really looked into the impact on Westbrook.)

A healthy McNabb = fantasy stud. There is no evidence to the contrary. Westbrook @ 20 touches per game = pretty darn studly too. His health is the crucial factor as well.

 

[Darth Cheney]

I'm looking for a return to these years:

2000 PHI 16 330 569 3365 5.9 21 13 86 629 7.3 6 338 5 89

2001 PHI 16 285 493 3233 6.6 25 12 82 482 5.9 2 310 8 53

Hell even in 02 when he played in 10 games and in 03 when he stunk for the first quarter of the season he still eneded up being the 13 ranked QB.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

In my QB thread I have McNabb graded out behind about 15-17 other QBs...I really think the lack of weapons will hurt Philly and they will struggle to win 6 games this season. They are in a very tough division.

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO, the numbers don't lie. McNabb has not fared as well in the selected timeframe (2003-05) when Owens was not in the lineup. He also has not had nearly the rushing totals he once did since breaking his leg/ankle. He also has been banged up quite a bit, and I'm not sure that he gets a get out of jail free card for his health. Add it all up and I'm down on McNabb (compared to the masses).

 

[joffer]

IMO, the numbers don't lie. McNabb has not fared as well in the selected timeframe (2003-05) when Owens was not in the lineup. He also has not had nearly the rushing totals he once did since breaking his leg/ankle. He also has been banged up quite a bit, and I'm not sure that he gets a get out of jail free card for his health. Add it all up and I'm down on McNabb (compared to the masses).

why not use 2002?

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO, the numbers don't lie. McNabb has not fared as well in the selected timeframe (2003-05) when Owens was not in the lineup. He also has not had nearly the rushing totals he once did since breaking his leg/ankle. He also has been banged up quite a bit, and I'm not sure that he gets a get out of jail free card for his health. Add it all up and I'm down on McNabb (compared to the masses).

why not use 2002?

Let's try this again . . . I'm not personally using anything. THE SPORTING NEWS is the one that picked the years. But since you asked, McNabb averaged 228 passing yards and 1.7 TD per game that season. (He hasn't even sniffed anything close to his running stats since getting hurt, so I am inclined to not even look at those).Over a full 16-game season, that's 3650/27 which is solid (but McNabb in has only played in every games once in four years). But I see no reason to count just those 10 games and ignoring any in the three years after that.

 

[joffer]

IMO, the numbers don't lie. McNabb has not fared as well in the selected timeframe (2003-05) when Owens was not in the lineup. He also has not had nearly the rushing totals he once did since breaking his leg/ankle. He also has been banged up quite a bit, and I'm not sure that he gets a get out of jail free card for his health. Add it all up and I'm down on McNabb (compared to the masses).

why not use 2002?

Let's try this again . . . I'm not personally using anything.

 

[joffer]

Over a full 16-game season, that's 3650/27 which is solid (but McNabb in has only played in every games once in four years). But I see no reason to count just those 10 games and ignoring any in the three years after that.

i'm not saying use only those 10 games, but if the argument is with or without T.O., i don't understand why you (meaning anyone that would make this argument) wouldn't include 2002 (at least his passing numbers), in the without T.O. part.

 

[Acme CEO]

I get the sense that McNabb will keep improving his passing skills as his running skills decline.

R.Brown, H.Baskett, LJ Smith, & Westbrook(exeption) are young, but should be talented enough to put up some decent numbers for McNabb.

 

[JaxBill]

There was a blurb in The Sporting News on the prodcution for McNabb and Westbrook with and without Owens in the lineup across the 2003-05 timeframe. Here were the numbers:Westbrook without T.O.:1,451 total yards, 13 TD, 11.2 fantasy ppg in 20 games(I posted similar numbers for McNabb in a lengthy thread earlier this offseason.)There are other external factors that may have impacted these numbers (mostly injuries to McNabb and Westbrook), but are these numbers something to be concerned about or are people willing to overlook them and still predict great numbers from there two?(I've already voiced my concerns about McNabb and never really looked into the impact on Westbrook.)

Another huge external factor for Westbrook was the three-headed monster of Buckhalter,Westbrook and Staley.Buckhalter is a shell of his former self and Staley is looking like a shell of Andy Reid in Pittsburgh. Moats might steal some touches and Buckhalter might vulture some if he's ever healthy enough, but the difference in playing time for Westbrook before/after TO is huge.

 

[David Yudkin]

Here is the original thread I posted in May that looks at all sorts of years and stats . . .

 

[JaxBill]

In 2003, which accounts for 15 of the 20 non-Owens games for Westbrook, here are the Birds' RB numbers:

+----------------------+----+-----------------------+----------------------+| Name | G | RSH YARD AVG TD | REC YARD AVG TD |+----------------------+----+-----------------------+----------------------+| Correll Buckhalter | 15 | 126 542 4.3 8 | 10 133 13.3 1 || Jon Ritchie | 16 | 1 1 1.0 0 | 17 86 5.1 3 || Duce Staley | 16 | 96 463 4.8 5 | 36 382 10.6 2 || Brian Westbrook | 15 | 117 613 5.2 7 | 37 332 9.0 4 |+----------------------+----+-----------------------+----------------------+

Can you really anticipate Westbrook taking only 34% of the rushing attempts?Or only averaging 2 receptions per game?

 

[David Yudkin]

Another huge external factor for Westbrook was the three-headed monster of Buckhalter,Westbrook and Staley.Buckhalter is a shell of his former self and Staley is looking like a shell of Andy Reid in Pittsburgh. Moats might steal some touches and Buckhalter might vulture some if he's ever healthy enough, but the difference in playing time for Westbrook before/after TO is huge.

Westbrook came in at the tail end of the Staley era and Buckhalter has been a very minimal factor. The Eagles seemed inclined to limit Westbrook to an average of 12-13 carries a game. Not sure that we'll see that change very much this year.

 

[Banger]

IMO, the numbers don't lie. McNabb has not fared as well in the selected timeframe (2003-05) when Owens was not in the lineup. He also has not had nearly the rushing totals he once did since breaking his leg/ankle. He also has been banged up quite a bit, and I'm not sure that he gets a get out of jail free card for his health. Add it all up and I'm down on McNabb (compared to the masses).

This is the critical piece of info that most people are overlooking IMO. What made McNabb a stud were not his passing #'s but his rushing yards/TDs. Over his 1st 4 years he averaged 6-7+ ypc on 5.15 attempts for the last 3 years his ypc has dropped to 5 and attempts have dropped to 3.4/game. His rushing yards have dropped from 35/game to 16/game and td's from 14 over the 1st 4 years to 7 over the last 3. Basically his rushing td's/yards have cut in half over the last 3 years. He's turned into more of a "pocket passer" as opposed to scrambler and I don't see him going back either. He's heavier/older and even if he wants to run (which I don't believe will be the case for numerous reasons) I don't think he'll be as effective as he was. Additionally, his scrambling ability enabled the Eagles to keep drives alive and keep them on the field. Taking away that ability and a stud wr will tough to replace.

 

[JaxBill]

Another huge external factor for Westbrook was the three-headed monster of Buckhalter,Westbrook and Staley.Buckhalter is a shell of his former self and Staley is looking like a shell of Andy Reid in Pittsburgh. Moats might steal some touches and Buckhalter might vulture some if he's ever healthy enough, but the difference in playing time for Westbrook before/after TO is huge.

Westbrook came in at the tail end of the Staley era and Buckhalter has been a very minimal factor. The Eagles seemed inclined to limit Westbrook to an average of 12-13 carries a game. Not sure that we'll see that change very much this year.

See the post above. In 2003, Buckhalter had more carries than Westbrook and Staley had almost 100 carries. Staley also had almost as many receptions as Westbrook.

 

[David Yudkin]

I also focused my interest on the impact on McNabb and not Westbrook, as Westbrook IMO will continue at a pace of 100+ total yards per game and 0.5 TD per game.

 

[zadok]

This is the critical piece of info that most people are overlooking IMO. What made McNabb a stud were not his passing #'s but his rushing yards/TDs.

If McNabb stays healthy and he DOESN'T put up stud FF numbers, it will be the first time in his career. He will do what he has to do.

 

[zadok]

The Eagles seemed inclined to limit Westbrook to an average of 12-13 carries a game. Not sure that we'll see that change very much this year.

I don't know about carries per se, but I can guarantee that total touches per game will be more than 13.

 

[Judge Smails]

I'm very high on McNabb this year. He doesn't have to run to be a stud. He'll rack up plenty of 300 yard, 2 TD games without T.O. They just throw that much..I watched the first unit in their preseason game, and the WCO was clicking. McNabb looks more fit than he has in years...

 

[Keys Myaths]

McNabb was a Pro-Bowler and MVP candidate before Owens. He will be after Owens.

We care not of Pro Bowls and MVP candidacies. We care about fantasy numbers.

mcnabb was a fantasy stud before owens and will be after owens.

Nope.2003: 13th in FP among QBs2002: 13th in FP among QBs.

 

[MLBrandow]

are these numbers something to be concerned about or are people willing to overlook them and still predict great numbers from there two?

IMO, TO made McNabb a better QB. He didn't make McNabb look better, he made McNabb better. With that, I expect the passing game to resemble pretty closely what it did with him in '04. I expect Brown to fill the spot of TO-lite, and Westbrook to play like he has been.Reading during the offseason about how Brown and McNabb worked in ARI together for the better part of a month running routes and plays and working on timing, this all leads me to believe that he will fill that role, and the Eagles will be fine.Sorry that I don't have any stats to bring up beyond personal observation, so we'll just have to see. While it's obvious the impact TO made on that football team (good and bad), I attribute that chasm of disparity to two things: Before TO, McNabb wasn't as good, and after TO, McNabb and Westbrook were hurt.It's perfectly reasonable to expect some degree of drop-off with this offense, but to expect them to regress to their '02-'03 level would be a bit much I think.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Nope.2003: 13th in FP among QBs2002: 13th in FP among QBs.

Yup.2000: 5th2001: 8th2002: 13th (in 10 games)2003: 13thAdmittedly 2003 was a bad year for him, but he was coming back from a broken leg and if you look at the stats, he got better as the year progressed.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Nope.2003: 13th in FP among QBs2002: 13th in FP among QBs.

Yup.2000: 5th2001: 8th2002: 13th (in 10 games)2003: 13thAdmittedly 2003 was a bad year for him, but he was coming back from a broken leg and if you look at the stats, he got better as the year progressed.

5th, 8th, 13th and 13th is NOT a stud QB. Not even close. That's about Aaron Brooks level.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Please list all the QBs from 2000-2003 you would consider a "stud."

Here I'll start the list for you:

1. Culpepper

2. Manning

3. ???

 

[Keys Myaths]

Please list all the QBs from 2000-2003 you would consider a "stud."Here I'll start the list for you:1. Culpepper2. Manning

And you finished the list.Anything but those two, there's a huge group within about 1-2 PPG of each other...so I'd be waiting on a QB.

 

[Snotbubbles]

And you finished the list.Anything but those two, there's a huge group within about 1-2 PPG of each other...so I'd be waiting on a QB.

Lol! I'd like to see your list of "stud" RBs.

 

[Keys Myaths]

And you finished the list.Anything but those two, there's a huge group within about 1-2 PPG of each other...so I'd be waiting on a QB.

Lol! I'd like to see your list of "stud" RBs.

So you're saying you'd use a high draft pick on a QB who finished 5th, 8th, 13th, and 13th?Really?And RBs are a LOT different than QBs because of scarcity. QBs who finish 5th, 8th, 13th and 13th are a dime a dozen. If Donovan's a stud for those stats, so is Aaron Brooks, Michael Vick, Trent Green, and a whole lot more.

 

[zadok]

Nope.2003: 13th in FP among QBs2002: 13th in FP among QBs.

2002: only played 10 games - was either QB1 or QB2 depending on scoring system2003: broken finger on throwing hand for 1st half of season - look the discrepency in stats - was QB2 IIRC during the 2nd half of 03.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Nope.2003: 13th in FP among QBs2002: 13th in FP among QBs.

2002: only played 10 games - was either QB1 or QB2 depending on scoring system2003: broken finger on throwing hand for 1st half of season - look the discrepency in stats - was QB2 IIRC during the 2nd half of 03.

So even though he's been hurt 3 out of the past 4 seasons, I should just ignore that?No thanks.

 

[zadok]

Nope.2003: 13th in FP among QBs2002: 13th in FP among QBs.

2002: only played 10 games - was either QB1 or QB2 depending on scoring system2003: broken finger on throwing hand for 1st half of season - look the discrepency in stats - was QB2 IIRC during the 2nd half of 03.

So even though he's been hurt 3 out of the past 4 seasons, I should just ignore that?No thanks.

That's an entirely different argument than saying he doesn't put up stud numbers when healthy. As I said, a healthy McNabb = fantasy stud.

 

[intrinsic]

If Stinkston is unable to play up to his potential this season downgrade Mcnabb even further. He will have to target more unproven receivers.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Nope.2003: 13th in FP among QBs2002: 13th in FP among QBs.

2002: only played 10 games - was either QB1 or QB2 depending on scoring system2003: broken finger on throwing hand for 1st half of season - look the discrepency in stats - was QB2 IIRC during the 2nd half of 03.

So even though he's been hurt 3 out of the past 4 seasons, I should just ignore that?No thanks.

That's an entirely different argument than saying he doesn't put up stud numbers when healthy. As I said, a healthy McNabb = fantasy stud.

He's been "healthy" for about 20-25 games in the past 4 years.Again, I'm passing and waiting until the middle rounds for value.

 

[Snotbubbles]

So you're saying you'd use a high draft pick on a QB who finished 5th, 8th, 13th, and 13th?Really?And RBs are a LOT different than QBs because of scarcity. QBs who finish 5th, 8th, 13th and 13th are a dime a dozen. If Donovan's a stud for those stats, so is Aaron Brooks, Michael Vick, Trent Green, and a whole lot more.

What does using a high draft pick have to do with anything. If Larry Johnson's ADP was 4.1 would you use a 1st round pick to get him? If you would that's just plain dumb.Newsflash for ya, from 2000-2003 Aaron Brooks was a fantasy stud. Vick No. Trent Green No.I'd probably rank the QBs from 2000-2003 like this:1. Culpepper2. Manning3. Gannon4. Brooks5. McNabb

 

[Keys Myaths]

So you're saying you'd use a high draft pick on a QB who finished 5th, 8th, 13th, and 13th?Really?And RBs are a LOT different than QBs because of scarcity. QBs who finish 5th, 8th, 13th and 13th are a dime a dozen. If Donovan's a stud for those stats, so is Aaron Brooks, Michael Vick, Trent Green, and a whole lot more.

What does using a high draft pick have to do with anything. If Larry Johnson's ADP was 4.1 would you use a 1st round pick to get him? If you would that's just plain dumb.Newsflash for ya, from 2000-2003 Aaron Brooks was a fantasy stud. Vick No. Trent Green No.I'd probably rank the QBs from 2000-2003 like this:1. Culpepper2. Manning3. Gannon4. Brooks5. McNabb

Jeff Garcia should be much higher on that list.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Maybe. But it still proves that McNabb (with easily the worst WR corp of the bunch) is still a stud.

 

[Keys Myaths]

Maybe. But it still proves that McNabb (with easily the worst WR corp of the bunch) is still a stud.

5th or 6th QB is a stud? (even if I accept your rankings are true, which I don't)I don't agree. There's just too much clumping around that spot...studs are players who stand out among the rest by a good margin, IMO.

 

[Snotbubbles]

And being in the top 6 at your position over a 4 year period doesn't do that? Remember there are 32 teams in the league. That means that 26 other teams have a QB who was worse.

Besides your definition is too vague. I would say Edge is a stud, yet he doesn't stand out from the rest of the league by a "wide margin."

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

McNabb:

On a PPG basis, a stud in his younger running days and a stud with TO as a passer. Now he's not as young and without TO. Is he going to run as much as a few years ago? If not, will his passing numbers make up for it to justify his rankings? I've seen people say he's a clear top 5 pick and I can't go along with that. Even before TO showed up, McNabb seemed to display a hesitancy to run the way he did before. He may have run just as much, but not as effectively. He does not want to be remembered as another black running QB.

Westbrook is more interesting to me. We don't really have any significant non TO data to look at. My gut feeling, is that he'll be fine.

 

[Keys Myaths]

And being in the top 6 at your position over a 4 year period doesn't do that? Remember there are 32 teams in the league. That means that 26 other teams have a QB who was worse. Besides your definition is too vague. I would say Edge is a stud, yet he doesn't stand out from the rest of the league by a "wide margin."

Again, running backs are MUCH different than QBs. A "stud" RB is one you can draft in the first round year after year. A "stud" QB is one that you will spend an early draft pick on.In a 12 team league, the 6th QB is the AVERAGE quarterback for your league.Average and stud don't go well together.