McNabb (1 Viewer)

[PatsWillWin]

Another point- the Denver game pretty much PROVES that Tom Brady is not one of the top-5 QBs of all time.

 

[The Jacket]

Houston

San Francisco (who made Damon Huard look like Dan Marino)

Green Bay

New York Giants

This thread is moronic.

 

[Mr. Pink]

How about McNabb going forward? With his impending schedule and banged up receiver corps, I can see him coming back down to earth in a hurry. From a fantasy perspective, I'm selling high.

 

[Sabertooth]

Worst moonwalker I've ever seen. And I'm a white guy who grew up in the eighties in northern Michigan.

 

[Ilov80s]

How about McNabb going forward? With his impending schedule and banged up receiver corps, I can see him coming back down to earth in a hurry. From a fantasy perspective, I'm selling high.

Any other QB and I sell high. McNabb has proven he can be a top QB without a legit supporting cast. Ofcourse, he has also proven he is an injury risk. Still, I think you have to ride this guy out. It would take a real sweet deal for me to part with him.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Mark Brunell ties the NFL record for most consecutive completions and his name is not even mentioned in the discussion. You guys are out of your mind.

(this year)

Peyton

Brady

Carson

McNabb

Hass

 

[SSOG]

I'd agree that Stallworth and Westy are greater than any New England RB/WR, but there are more than two offensive skill players on the field at any given time. I'd call Branch/Givens/Dillon/Graham/Watson a far sight better than Thrash/Pinkston/Freeman/Staley/Chad Lewis, McNabb's skill-position quintent in 2002 when he was lighting the NFL on fire.

Also, New England's running game is *NOT* the reason why Brady has looked mortal. Yes, it's a large reason why his aggregate numbers are down, but that's why I posted his *PER PLAY* numbers. Brady is posting his career-worst comp%, and his worst ypa since 2002. Historically, having a great running game will hurt your numbers because you have fewer attempts, but it will actually *BOOST* your per-play numbers (comp% and ypa), since defenses are keying against your running game and stacking 8 in the box. I shudder to think what Brady would be doing if he didn't have Maroney and Dillon tearing defenses apart to keep them honest. I watched the Denver game, and the Broncos stacked 8 in the box all day and dared Brady to beat them... and Brady couldn't do it. In fact, he posted a miserable 5.82 yards per attempt and was flat out AFRAID to even challenge Bailey.

Tom Brady is one of the top-5 QBs in the entire NFL, and I wouldn't even THINK of arguing against that... but at the same time, how many teams have ever *DARED* Peyton Manning or Donovan McNabb to beat them? And when teams DO, how many times have Peyton Manning and Donovan McNabb failed so miserably, or played so afraid?

He's still Tom Terrific, but so far this season he can't hold a candle to McNabb. In fact, so far this season he hasn't looked very terrific at all, despite a downright DOMINANT running game opening things up for him. I think it's very clear, to me at least, that Tom Brady is not the same player without his WRs (while Donovan McNabb was still very much the same player with Pinkston/Thrash).

If Brady starts developing a rapport with Gabriel, Chad Jackson, and Reche Caldwell, then things could very much change, but like I said, Tom Brady is very much dependent on his receivers in order to succeed.

Remember though, besides Troy Brown, Brady's WRs this year are all new to the system (Gabriel, Jackson, Caldwell), and one of those is a rookie and missed most of camp, one was traded a few weeks ago, and one was a cast off from another team and isnt much to talk about. Only his TEs and Brown are familiar to him. McNabb has Stallworth (who is new but catches on quickly), Brown, Lewis, LJ, Westy...all superior to what Brady has around him.

I don't get it. Why are Brady's WRs described as "new to the system", while McNabb's WR is described as "a fast learner"? Troy Brown has been with the team for 13 years. Reche Caldwell has been with the team since March 17th. Chad Jackson has been with the team since April 29th. Doug Gabriel has been with the team since September 2nd. Donte' Stallworth has been with the Eagles since August 28th- less time than any Patriots WR except for Gabriel, whom he beat by 4 days.Furthermore, Tom Brady has had Daniel Graham around for 4 years, and Ben Watson around for 2 years. McNabb's only had Reggie Brown for 1 year. And while Westbrook has been around for 4 years, Brady still has Kevin Faulk, who has been around for 7 years. It's not like McNabb's offensive starters are all so much more experienced running the offense here. I think the only WR who has a legitimate claim to being behind the curve right now is Doug Gabriel. Everyone else has had plenty of time to learn the offense and get in synch with Tom Terrific.

Besides, I'd say that even a half-acclimated Gabriel and Reche Caldwell, combined with Maroney/Dillon, are better than Thrash/Pinkston/Staley, who McNabb had to deal with in his career.

One game does not make or break an "All Time Great". Denvers game plan was solid and it worked. That fact doesnt take away from Brady's "greatness". Its one game.

My point is that he can't be one of the top-5 QB threats in league history if teams aren't even treating him as the biggest threat on his own team. I mean, unless you think that Dillon/Maroney will go down as one of the top-5 rushing tandems of all time, I just don't see how that could be. Think about this... the top-5 QBs of all time are your Johnny Unitases, your Brett Favres, your Dan Marinos... do you think a team *EVER* said, when they were in their prime, "alright, we're going to shut down the run because I don't think those guys can beat us through the air"?

I dont know the answer, but Id guess that all of those guys had worse games than 31-55 for 320 and 1TD in a loss before. Yeah Denver stacked the box, but their secondary isnt full of slouches. How many times have any of those guys lost their 3 leading wide receivers from the previous year?? None, so we will never know how they would have fared if they were in Bradys 2006 shoes in their prime. Im a 9er fan and saw Young flustered and have a bad game on more than one occasion in his prime. It doesnt mean he wasnt great.

I dont know if Brady is top 5 all time or not, but even though McNabb has better numbers this year and looks better, Im not sold yet that McNabb is better than Brady as far as NFL history is concerned.

I'm not saying Brady isn't top-5 all time because he had a bad game (actually, he had an alright game- at least he didn't throw any picks). I'm saying he isn't a top-5 all-time QB because a defense honestly looked at him and decided they'd rather leave him free to pass than leave his teammates free to run. If you're one of the five best QBs of all time, you're such an unstoppable offensive weapon that you'll NEVER be considered less scary than your running game, unless your RB happens to be Barry Sanders, Walter Peyton, or Jim Brown.

Another point- the Denver game pretty much PROVES that Tom Brady is not one of the top-5 QBs of all time.

I actually think it's a pretty solid point. If NFL coaches- guys who get paid a lot of money to live and breathe football and who know more about it than we ever will- are reaching the conclusion that he's not even the most dangerous player on his own team, how can you honestly tell me that he's one of the five most dangerous QBs of all time?

 

[jurb26]

McNabb always seemed to have crappy WRs AND crappy RBs.

On what planet has McNabb always had crappy RBs? He has always had very good RBs!

 

[Ghost Rider]

SSOG, you have made some good points about Brady and McNabb, but keep in mind that you are drawing from a very small sample (four games) when talking about Brady's struggles this season. If this were a research experiment, your conclusions would be deemed as having very little validity with the numbers based on too small of a sample to be statistically significant.

As for the Denver game, I think the Broncos loading up against the run and daring them to beat them with the pass said more about how weak the Patriots receiving corps was at the time rather than Brady supposedly not being the most dangerous player on their offense.

And we all need to remember that McNabb's great play this year so far has come against the Packers, 49ers, Texans, and Giants (all of whom are a combined 4-11). He isn't exactly beating high-caliber teams, though the Giants are probably better than their current record indicates. If we go back to last year and focus on what McNabb did the last time he faced an above average team, it was the Monday nighter against the Cowboys, and, well, we all saw how that turned out.

 

[SSOG]

McNabb always seemed to have crappy WRs AND crappy RBs.

On what planet has McNabb always had crappy RBs? He has always had very good RBs!

Let's see here...There's 2000, when his leading rusher was... Donovan McNabb (629 yards). Duce Staley was the #1 RB... with 344 yards (Darnell Autrey was second with 334 yards on 112 carres, a whopping 3 yards per carry). His RBs had 7 TDs that year (compared to 6 rushing scores for McNabb himself). And I swear, I'm not making this up... the best Eagles RB had 344 yards rushing.There's 2001, when his leading rusher was Duce Staley... with 604 yards (on 166 carries, 3.6 yards per carry). The running game accounted for a whopping 4 TDs that year. McNabb ran for 482/2.There's 2002, when Staley FINALLY managed to break 1,000 yards (at a lofty 3.8 ypc!). The running game really stepped it up that year, netting 6 TDs, which equaled the 6 rushing TDs that McNabb posted (to go with his 460 yards). The thing is, McNabb got his 460/6 in 10 games (prorates to 736/10).In 2003, Westbrook arrived and the Eagles started to turn a corner. Westbrook led the team in rushing with 613 yards, but for the first time in McNabb's tenure his #1 RB averaged more than 4 yards per carry (5.2, actually). The running game also notched 20 scores that year, too.In 2004, Westbrook put up 812 rushing yards. In 2005, he led the team in rushing with 617 yards (and had 616 receiving). He's actually put up very good numbers over the last two seasons, but before that, McNabb's RBs were brutally bad. Even still, while Westbrook is a good RB, the Eagles running game is something of a joke. Last year, it ranked 28th in yards, and 17th in ypc (even Westbrook only got 4.0 ypc).

 

[The Jacket]

We can't cry for McNabb due to the lack of running attempts the Eagles have (which was the problem; not the talent of the running back) because his numbers wouldn't be nearly as good if he did have a better and/or more consistent running game to hand off to.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Another point- the Denver game pretty much PROVES that Tom Brady is not one of the top-5 QBs of all time.

I actually think it's a pretty solid point. If NFL coaches- guys who get paid a lot of money to live and breathe football and who know more about it than we ever will- are reaching the conclusion that he's not even the most dangerous player on his own team, how can you honestly tell me that he's one of the five most dangerous QBs of all time?

So the game plan of one game by one team is a testament to Brady's all time status among QB's? How about the guys who get paid to live and breathe football who weren't involved in the Denver game-planning that think Brady is one of the best QB's of all time?

Brady's receiving group has NOT been "underrated". Have you heard David Patten's name called sice winning the SB with Brady? He's completely disappeared, gone from instrumental contributor in New England to completely obscure and useless in Washington.

It's still an early season, but since you're already using it to downgrade Brady's career I guess I can do the same and predict MORE OF THE SAME from David Givens - a good blocking WR with possession receiver type skills that are slightly above average at BEST.

And you know what, even if Brady's receivers were "underrated" you'd still have to be crazy to put them in the top 10 last season, and Brady throws 4,000 yards up.

And if you want to talk about opposing defenses focusing on Brady, why don't you look at the entire 2005 season instead of the first four games of 2006 - the Patriots had NO running game, the defenses DID game plan for Brady and he STILL lit them up with a receiving group that is, again, above average at best.

Forget the time spent on each team, are you going to tell me that Doug Gabriel and Reche Caldwell are anywhere close to the talent level of Reggie Brown and Donte Stallworth?

If the best way for the Patriots to win tihs season is for Brady to throw the ball 24 times, he'll do it and they'll have a pretty damn good chance of winning. If they need him to throw 40 times a game, he can do that to. He does what is required to win - that's why he's better than McNabb. I feel like your argument, SSOG, has strayed too far to being just about numbers - we're not talking about fantasy here, we're talking about real QB. If you want to draw a comparison, I can't think of anything more suitable than the Super Bowl in which these two quarterbacks faced off and, near the end of the game, down by two scores, McNabb doesn't have the poise and presence of mind to even call a hurry up offense - he just mosied to the line of scrimmage as the seconds on their season ticked away.

 

[jurb26]

McNabb always seemed to have crappy WRs AND crappy RBs.

On what planet has McNabb always had crappy RBs? He has always had very good RBs!

Let's see here...There's 2000, when his leading rusher was... Donovan McNabb (629 yards). Duce Staley was the #1 RB... with 344 yards (Darnell Autrey was second with 334 yards on 112 carres, a whopping 3 yards per carry). His RBs had 7 TDs that year (compared to 6 rushing scores for McNabb himself). And I swear, I'm not making this up... the best Eagles RB had 344 yards rushing.There's 2001, when his leading rusher was Duce Staley... with 604 yards (on 166 carries, 3.6 yards per carry). The running game accounted for a whopping 4 TDs that year. McNabb ran for 482/2.There's 2002, when Staley FINALLY managed to break 1,000 yards (at a lofty 3.8 ypc!). The running game really stepped it up that year, netting 6 TDs, which equaled the 6 rushing TDs that McNabb posted (to go with his 460 yards). The thing is, McNabb got his 460/6 in 10 games (prorates to 736/10).In 2003, Westbrook arrived and the Eagles started to turn a corner. Westbrook led the team in rushing with 613 yards, but for the first time in McNabb's tenure his #1 RB averaged more than 4 yards per carry (5.2, actually). The running game also notched 20 scores that year, too.In 2004, Westbrook put up 812 rushing yards. In 2005, he led the team in rushing with 617 yards (and had 616 receiving). He's actually put up very good numbers over the last two seasons, but before that, McNabb's RBs were brutally bad. Even still, while Westbrook is a good RB, the Eagles running game is something of a joke. Last year, it ranked 28th in yards, and 17th in ypc (even Westbrook only got 4.0 ypc).

So rec stats mean nothing to you anymore? In the Eagles WCO, they are VITAL and the RBs have been nothing short of spectacular over the years for McNabb. RB Rec statsRec, yds, TDs, year120, 998, 2, 2000108, 1016, 4, 200194, 877, 4, 2002100, 933, 10, 2003113, 1059, 6, 2004101, 859, 4, 200529, 278, 2, 2006 (Through only 4 games.)Average per year: 106 Rec, 957 Yds, 5 TDsMy how does he do it with such scrubs?Posting only the RB rushing stats make me think you do not understand the Philly O at all. Philly never truely runs the ball. They use high %, short passes that get their RBs the ball in space as an extension of the running game. These passes and this design are a huge advantage for McNabb in comparision to other QBs IMO. What other QB/team has this kind of consistent production out of the RBs in the passing game?

 

[hi1111]

I still want Manning as my QB. Was there any doubt at all that he would march the Colts back down the field yesterday after Justin Miller's kick return? They're both great, but I still take Peyton.

i think peyton's amazing. but give Donovan a guy like Marvin Harrison (to say nothin of him playing with Harrison at Cuse or Reggie Wayne either, for that matter), and i think you'll see that Donovan is even more insane.

He had someone better then Harrison and Wayne, he then went on to be the only QB, EVER, to throw 30 tds and less then 10 ints.

 

[Snotbubbles]

So rec stats mean nothing to you anymore? In the Eagles WCO, they are VITAL and the RBs have been nothing short of spectacular over the years for McNabb. RB Rec stats

Rec, yds, TDs, year

120, 998, 2, 2000

108, 1016, 4, 2001

94, 877, 4, 2002

100, 933, 10, 2003

113, 1059, 6, 2004

101, 859, 4, 2005

29, 278, 2, 2006 (Through only 4 games.)

Average per year: 106 Rec, 957 Yds, 5 TDs

My how does he do it with such scrubs?

Posting only the RB rushing stats make me think you do not understand the Philly O at all. Philly never truely runs the ball. They use high %, short passes that get their RBs the ball in space as an extension of the running game. These passes and this design are a huge advantage for McNabb in comparision to other QBs IMO. What other QB/team has this kind of consistent production out of the RBs in the passing game?

Not really sure how the Eagles have a huge advantage over other teams because the RBs catch alot of passes? Their short passes are really just long hand-offs or screens. Plus, with all those passes to the RBs and you'd think the Eagles would be a pass happy team yet they're not.

Eagles have ranked 7th, 18th, 18th, 25th, 9th, 3rd and 3rd since 2000 in pass attempts.

Again, not really seeing how McNabb has an advantage.

 

[jurb26]

So you really don't see how short, high % passes to RBs who are great in space is an advantage over having to throw down field? You just said:

Their short passes are really just long hand-offs or screens.

How many "long hand-offs" or screens do you think get picked off in comparison to passes down field? How many go incomplete in comparison to ones down field?

 

[Jagerbomber]

So the game plan of one game by one team is a testament to Brady's all time status among QB's? How about the guys who get paid to live and breathe football who weren't involved in the Denver game-planning that think Brady is one of the best QB's of all time?

Brady's receiving group has NOT been "underrated". Have you heard David Patten's name called sice winning the SB with Brady? He's completely disappeared, gone from instrumental contributor in New England to completely obscure and useless in Washington.

It's still an early season, but since you're already using it to downgrade Brady's career I guess I can do the same and predict MORE OF THE SAME from David Givens - a good blocking WR with possession receiver type skills that are slightly above average at BEST.

And you know what, even if Brady's receivers were "underrated" you'd still have to be crazy to put them in the top 10 last season, and Brady throws 4,000 yards up.

And if you want to talk about opposing defenses focusing on Brady, why don't you look at the entire 2005 season instead of the first four games of 2006 - the Patriots had NO running game, the defenses DID game plan for Brady and he STILL lit them up with a receiving group that is, again, above average at best.

Forget the time spent on each team, are you going to tell me that Doug Gabriel and Reche Caldwell are anywhere close to the talent level of Reggie Brown and Donte Stallworth?

If the best way for the Patriots to win tihs season is for Brady to throw the ball 24 times, he'll do it and they'll have a pretty damn good chance of winning. If they need him to throw 40 times a game, he can do that to. He does what is required to win - that's why he's better than McNabb. I feel like your argument, SSOG, has strayed too far to being just about numbers - we're not talking about fantasy here, we're talking about real QB. If you want to draw a comparison, I can't think of anything more suitable than the Super Bowl in which these two quarterbacks faced off and, near the end of the game, down by two scores, McNabb doesn't have the poise and presence of mind to even call a hurry up offense - he just mosied to the line of scrimmage as the seconds on their season ticked away.

 

[Warpig]

I think the best way to say it is:

Manning, Brady, Palmer, and McNabb are arguably the best 4 Qb's in the game (for their time periods).

If you go by this year, then you gotta have Grossman in there.

 

[jurb26]

I think the best way to say it is:Manning, Brady, Palmer, and McNabb are arguably the best 4 Qb's in the game (for their time periods).If you go by this year, then you gotta have Grossman in there.

I don't think Palmer deserves to be in that group as of yet.

 

[Snotbubbles]

How many "long hand-offs" or screens do you think get picked off in comparison to passes down field? How many go incomplete in comparison to ones down field?

Still don't see how McNabb has an advantage over other QBs. Every time he drops back to pass he runs the risk of getting sacked, getting hit but getting the throw off, or throwing an INT. Is a short dump off safer than a pass down the field. Sure if you're talking in terms of interception percentage. But it doesn't give McNabb an advantage over guys that throw down the field, if anything it puts him at MORE RISK of taking unnecessary hits. How many times does Brady or Manning turn around and hand-off and then get tackled in comparison to McNabb throwing a short pass? No advantage to throwing a short pass only risk.

 

[jurb26]

How many "long hand-offs" or screens do you think get picked off in comparison to passes down field? How many go incomplete in comparison to ones down field?

Still don't see how McNabb has an advantage over other QBs. Every time he drops back to pass he runs the risk of getting sacked, getting hit but getting the throw off, or throwing an INT. Is a short dump off safer than a pass down the field. Sure if you're talking in terms of interception percentage. But it doesn't give McNabb an advantage over guys that throw down the field, if anything it puts him at MORE RISK of taking unnecessary hits. How many times does Brady or Manning turn around and hand-off and then get tackled in comparison to McNabb throwing a short pass? No advantage to throwing a short pass only risk.

 

[Sabertooth]

So you really don't see how short, high % passes to RBs who are great in space is an advantage over having to throw down field? You just said:

Their short passes are really just long hand-offs or screens.

How many "long hand-offs" or screens do you think get picked off in comparison to passes down field? How many go incomplete in comparison to ones down field?

Green bay had one picked just last night.

 

[jurb26]

So you really don't see how short, high % passes to RBs who are great in space is an advantage over having to throw down field? You just said:

Their short passes are really just long hand-offs or screens.

How many "long hand-offs" or screens do you think get picked off in comparison to passes down field? How many go incomplete in comparison to ones down field?

Green bay had one picked just last night.

I hope you're not talking about the deflected pass?

 

[SSOG]

So the game plan of one game by one team is a testament to Brady's all time status among QB's? How about the guys who get paid to live and breathe football who weren't involved in the Denver game-planning that think Brady is one of the best QB's of all time?Brady's receiving group has NOT been "underrated". Have you heard David Patten's name called sice winning the SB with Brady? He's completely disappeared, gone from instrumental contributor in New England to completely obscure and useless in Washington. It's still an early season, but since you're already using it to downgrade Brady's career I guess I can do the same and predict MORE OF THE SAME from David Givens - a good blocking WR with possession receiver type skills that are slightly above average at BEST.

I'm not downgrading Brady's career in the slightest. I always had him as one of the top 2 QBs in the league, and I still do. I always had him outside of the top 10 QBs of all time, and I still do. I'm using Denver's game plan to support the believes that I've always held.Also, just because David Patten was junk doesn't mean Brady's WR corps wasn't overrated. As far as I recall, Troy Brown, Deion Branch, and David Givens were part of that "corps" as well, and formed one of the better quartets in the league.

And you know what, even if Brady's receivers were "underrated" you'd still have to be crazy to put them in the top 10 last season, and Brady throws 4,000 yards up.

My point was never that Brady's WRs were elite, my point was always that Brady was never stuck with as little talent around him as McNabb had early in his career... and now that he's finally getting a mere TASTE of what that's like, his production is suffering like McNabb's never did.

Forget the time spent on each team, are you going to tell me that Doug Gabriel and Reche Caldwell are anywhere close to the talent level of Reggie Brown and Donte Stallworth?

Irrelevant. I'm comparing 2006 Brady to 2002 McNabb to asses their ability to really elevate their play when surrounded by castoffs and scrubs.

If the best way for the Patriots to win tihs season is for Brady to throw the ball 24 times, he'll do it and they'll have a pretty damn good chance of winning. If they need him to throw 40 times a game, he can do that to. He does what is required to win - that's why he's better than McNabb. I feel like your argument, SSOG, has strayed too far to being just about numbers - we're not talking about fantasy here, we're talking about real QB. If you want to draw a comparison, I can't think of anything more suitable than the Super Bowl in which these two quarterbacks faced off and, near the end of the game, down by two scores, McNabb doesn't have the poise and presence of mind to even call a hurry up offense - he just mosied to the line of scrimmage as the seconds on their season ticked away.

My arguement was *NEVER* that McNabb was a better QB than Brady. I wouldn't argue that, because I don't believe that.My arguement was that McNabb was the QB most likely to succeed with the least supporting cast around him. Basically, if you took McNabb, Brady, and Palmer, and you put them on the Ohio State Buckeyes, and you had them face off against the Oakland Raiders, McNabb would be the player who would succeed the best. His production has always been more independent from the talent around him. If his offensive line can't protect him, he's better at buying time than Brady or Manning. If his WRs can't get open, he's better at running for the first down than Manning or Brady. Donovan McNabb's skillset is tailor-made to succeeding with a sub-par supporting cast.Again, this isn't to say that McNabb is better than Brady. This is to say that, as far as this ONE ASPECT OF THEIR GAMES IS CONCERNED, McNabb is better than Brady. Just because one QB (Brady) is better than another (McNabb) doesn't mean that that QB is better at every single task a QB is asked to do.

We can't cry for McNabb due to the lack of running attempts the Eagles have (which was the problem; not the talent of the running back) because his numbers wouldn't be nearly as good if he did have a better and/or more consistent running game to hand off to.

First off, the reason I posted the yards per carry numbers was to make it clear that it *WAS* a problem with the RBs and not the number of attempts. Only twice in McNabb's career has his leading rusher averaged more than 4.0 yards per carry. Think about that for a second. Wrap your head around it. He could have handed off more often, and then defenses would have just keyed even more on the running game, and the yards per attempt would have dropped even further!Also, while McNabb's aggregate numbers would have decreased if he had a stronger running game to hand off to, his per-play numbers would see a nice increase, since defenses would be focusing less on him and more on the run.

 

[SSOG]

So rec stats mean nothing to you anymore? In the Eagles WCO, they are VITAL and the RBs have been nothing short of spectacular over the years for McNabb. RB Rec statsRec, yds, TDs, year120, 998, 2, 2000108, 1016, 4, 200194, 877, 4, 2002100, 933, 10, 2003113, 1059, 6, 2004101, 859, 4, 200529, 278, 2, 2006 (Through only 4 games.)Average per year: 106 Rec, 957 Yds, 5 TDsMy how does he do it with such scrubs?Posting only the RB rushing stats make me think you do not understand the Philly O at all. Philly never truely runs the ball. They use high %, short passes that get their RBs the ball in space as an extension of the running game. These passes and this design are a huge advantage for McNabb in comparision to other QBs IMO. What other QB/team has this kind of consistent production out of the RBs in the passing game?

Receiving stats don't mean anything to me when I'm talking about how good a team's rushing game is.A team could line Jerry Rice in his prime up in the backfield, and I'm sure he'd get some phenominal receiving numbers, but that wouldn't force defenses to gear up to stop the run. Only rushing success can force the defense to defend the run, and Philadelphia has had precious little of that. Philly has given its opponents precious little reason to do anything other than play the pass all the way. Imagine how much easier McNabb's life would have been if he'd had even a Corey Dillon or Fred Taylor in the backfield.Teams don't crowd 8 or 9 in the box against Philly. They simply don't- Philly doesn't run well enough to justify it. If teams only have 7 in the box, then logic dictates that they have 4 men out of the box, which means there's nobody out there making McNabb's life easier.

 

[jurb26]

So rec stats mean nothing to you anymore? In the Eagles WCO, they are VITAL and the RBs have been nothing short of spectacular over the years for McNabb. RB Rec statsRec, yds, TDs, year120, 998, 2, 2000108, 1016, 4, 200194, 877, 4, 2002100, 933, 10, 2003113, 1059, 6, 2004101, 859, 4, 200529, 278, 2, 2006 (Through only 4 games.)Average per year: 106 Rec, 957 Yds, 5 TDsMy how does he do it with such scrubs?Posting only the RB rushing stats make me think you do not understand the Philly O at all. Philly never truely runs the ball. They use high %, short passes that get their RBs the ball in space as an extension of the running game. These passes and this design are a huge advantage for McNabb in comparision to other QBs IMO. What other QB/team has this kind of consistent production out of the RBs in the passing game?

Receiving stats don't mean anything to me when I'm talking about how good a team's rushing game is.A team could line Jerry Rice in his prime up in the backfield, and I'm sure he'd get some phenominal receiving numbers, but that wouldn't force defenses to gear up to stop the run. Only rushing success can force the defense to defend the run, and Philadelphia has had precious little of that. Philly has given its opponents precious little reason to do anything other than play the pass all the way. Imagine how much easier McNabb's life would have been if he'd had even a Corey Dillon or Fred Taylor in the backfield.Teams don't crowd 8 or 9 in the box against Philly. They simply don't- Philly doesn't run well enough to justify it. If teams only have 7 in the box, then logic dictates that they have 4 men out of the box, which means there's nobody out there making McNabb's life easier.

Again, Philly uses the RB passes as an EXTENSION of their running game. You are avoiding the point.

 

[SSOG]

Again, Philly uses the RB passes as an EXTENSION of their running game. You are avoiding the point.

I'm not avoiding the point. Count how often you'll see 8 in the box against Philly and then get back to me.

 

[jurb26]

Again, Philly uses the RB passes as an EXTENSION of their running game. You are avoiding the point.

I'm not avoiding the point. Count how often you'll see 8 in the box against Philly and then get back to me.

It's kind of hard to keep 8 in the box when Westy could be placed ANYWHERE on the field, no? Not to mention NFL Ds know and understand as well as anyone that Philly will try to get him in the ball in space via short passes. The reason you do not see the 8 man fronts is Westy, make no mistakes about it.

 

[SSOG]

Again, Philly uses the RB passes as an EXTENSION of their running game. You are avoiding the point.

I'm not avoiding the point. Count how often you'll see 8 in the box against Philly and then get back to me.

It's kind of hard to keep 8 in the box when Westy could be placed ANYWHERE on the field, no? Not to mention NFL Ds know and understand as well as anyone that Philly will try to get him in the ball in space via short passes. The reason you do not see the 8 man fronts is Westy, make no mistakes about it.

I understand that the reason we don't see many 8-man fronts is because of Westy. Regardless of why we don't see any 8-man fronts, the fact remains that teams are always playing pass against Philly. Imagine the sort of damage McNabb could do if teams actually loaded up on the run from time to time.

 

[jurb26]

Again, Philly uses the RB passes as an EXTENSION of their running game. You are avoiding the point.

I'm not avoiding the point. Count how often you'll see 8 in the box against Philly and then get back to me.

It's kind of hard to keep 8 in the box when Westy could be placed ANYWHERE on the field, no? Not to mention NFL Ds know and understand as well as anyone that Philly will try to get him in the ball in space via short passes. The reason you do not see the 8 man fronts is Westy, make no mistakes about it.

I understand that the reason we don't see many 8-man fronts is because of Westy. Regardless of why we don't see any 8-man fronts, the fact remains that teams are always playing pass against Philly. Imagine the sort of damage McNabb could do if teams actually loaded up on the run from time to time.

You are asking to have your cake and eat it too. If Westy was that kind of rushing threat or Philly was, then the RBs would become devalued in terms of rec importance. You can't have it both ways. There are only so many Faulk/Holmes type players/situations and they are very rare.The main problem I'm seeing here is that you seem to think that just because Philly don't see a whole lot of 8 man fronts that means that it should be easier to stop them from passing. The thing is, Westy and the scheme of the Philly O demands that a DB covers him. If they don't he will burn you and BAD. He is an automatic missmatch and that greatly helps both Philly and McNabb.

 

[walkwithme]

You can make a case for the following QB's based off talent level and how they play in their system. These guys are good for a bunch of different reasons. McNabb deserves to be mentioned as the best just as much as they do.

McNabb - Has proven he can win in the regular season and the playoffs with a talented receiver or spread the ball around to average receivers. Still hasn't one the big one in his first opportunity He can scramble and beat you with his running ability or bye extra time to pass. He actually appears to have fun while playing the game

Brady - Great field vison spreads the ball to a bunch of different receivers. Comes up big in the big games and has a few rings. Good lateral footwork to avoid sacks. Team is designed to exploit matchups and he takes advantage of those matchups.

P Manning- Plays the game almost like playing chess with his audibles. Is blessed with having some of the best weapons at the skill position on his team at the peak of their careers and uses them well. Mind boggling stats accumlated throughout the regular season but hasn't taken his team to the Super Bowl yet.

Hasselbeck, Vick, Palmer, and Rothlisberger are good or have shown that they are good in their own system but need to prove it over a longer time period.

 

[SSOG]

Again, Philly uses the RB passes as an EXTENSION of their running game. You are avoiding the point.

I'm not avoiding the point. Count how often you'll see 8 in the box against Philly and then get back to me.

It's kind of hard to keep 8 in the box when Westy could be placed ANYWHERE on the field, no? Not to mention NFL Ds know and understand as well as anyone that Philly will try to get him in the ball in space via short passes. The reason you do not see the 8 man fronts is Westy, make no mistakes about it.

I understand that the reason we don't see many 8-man fronts is because of Westy. Regardless of why we don't see any 8-man fronts, the fact remains that teams are always playing pass against Philly. Imagine the sort of damage McNabb could do if teams actually loaded up on the run from time to time.

You are asking to have your cake and eat it too. If Westy was that kind of rushing threat or Philly was, then the RBs would become devalued in terms of rec importance. You can't have it both ways. There are only so many Faulk/Holmes type players/situations and they are very rare.The main problem I'm seeing here is that you seem to think that just because Philly don't see a whole lot of 8 man fronts that means that it should be easier to stop them from passing. The thing is, Westy and the scheme of the Philly O demands that a DB covers him. If they don't he will burn you and BAD. He is an automatic missmatch and that greatly helps both Philly and McNabb.

The main problem that *I'M* seeing here is that you seem to think that once a defender has been assigned to cover a specific player, he is incapable of leaving his coverage to provide help defense after the ball has been snapped. More defenders in pass coverage = more defenders capable of leaving their man and making a play on the ball. And if defenses really are putting a DB on Westy, then that means defenses are playing more nickle, which means that the extra DB on the field assigned to cover Westy comes at the expense of one of those LBs who would have been in the box anyway, which means that the mismatch is irrelevant, as the rest of the team will face exactly the same coverage.8 men in the box means more players closer to the line of scrimmage, which means more openings way down the field. Westy is a great weapon and McNabb does a lot of damage there, but while his skills are very valuable, he doesn't open the downfield passing game like a Terrell Davis would.Also, you've failed to address all of the seasons before Westbrook. You know, like the year when Philly's leading rusher went for 344 yards. And you can't play the "receiving threat" card on that one, since the team's leading receiver from the backfield posted a whopping 275 yards.

 

[jurb26]

Also, you've failed to address all of the seasons before Westbrook. You know, like the year when Philly's leading rusher went for 344 yards. And you can't play the "receiving threat" card on that one, since the team's leading receiver from the backfield posted a whopping 275 yards.

What exactly was so bad about the 120 rec, 1000 yds and 2 TDs the RBs put up that year?

 

[jurb26]

The main problem that *I'M* seeing here is that you seem to think that once a defender has been assigned to cover a specific player, he is incapable of leaving his coverage to provide help defense after the ball has been snapped. More defenders in pass coverage = more defenders capable of leaving their man and making a play on the ball. And if defenses really are putting a DB on Westy, then that means defenses are playing more nickle, which means that the extra DB on the field assigned to cover Westy comes at the expense of one of those LBs who would have been in the box anyway, which means that the mismatch is irrelevant, as the rest of the team will face exactly the same coverage.

8 men in the box means more players closer to the line of scrimmage, which means more openings way down the field. Westy is a great weapon and McNabb does a lot of damage there, but while his skills are very valuable, he doesn't open the downfield passing game like a Terrell Davis would.

I know full well what Defenders could do. The bottom line is what they do do. When Westy is released as a passing option, he DOES get the attention of the D. This helps open up the passing game. If they do not pay attention to him, he will toast them. Hell, he basically burns them even when the do pay attention to him. No coaching staff I can think of is better at creating ways to get their RBs involved in the passing game. It's been that way for years and long before Westy got there. Westy helps take it to another level due to his skill set. More defenders paying attention to the RB catching passes = less defenders capable of defending the other Rec options. I feel like we are counting 6 and half a dozen here. Philly aquires the same end result only through a different scheme. They have both the coaching staff and players to use it effectivly.