Player Spotlight: Donovan McNabb (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

[SIZE=14pt]2006 Player Spotlight Series[/SIZE]

Over the course of the offseason, we will be evaluating a multitude of players at every fantasy position. One such way we go about that is through the Player Spotlight series. Think of the Spotlights as a permanent record on some of the more intriguing players for the upcoming season. Each Spotlight will be featured in an article on the main website.

[SIZE=14pt]Thread Topic: Donovan McNabb, QB, Philadelphia Eagles[/SIZE]

Player Page Link: Donovan McNabb Player Page

Each article will include:

[*]Detailed viewpoint from a Footballguys staff member

[*]Highlighted member commentary from the message board threads

[*]FBG Projections

[*]Consensus Member Projections

[SIZE=14pt]The Rules[/SIZE]

In order for this thread to provide sustainable value, we ask that you follow a few simple guidelines:

[*]Focus commentary on the player in question, and your expectations for said player

[*]Back up your expectations in whatever manner you deem appropriate; avoid posts that simply say "I hate him" or "He's the best"

[*]To be included in the final synopsis and consensus outlook, you MUST provide projections for the player

Projections should include (at a minimum):

[*]For QBs: Passing Yards, Passing TDs, Ints, Rush Yards, Rush TDs

[*]For RBs: Rushes, Rushing Yards, Rush TDs, Receptions, Receiving Yards, Receiving TDs

[*]For WRs & TEs: Receptions, Receiving Yards, Receiving TDs

[SIZE=14pt]Best of Luck and ENJOY![/SIZE]

 

[Borat]

Where is the little spotlight thing next to the thread title?

 

[Keys Myaths]

McNabb hasn't had a good non-TO season since 2001. He's coming off a pretty major, and nagging injury. He still doesn't have the greatest receivers in the world.

I just don't see it. He'll supposedly be healthy, but I think those expected a top 5 QB here are in for a rude awakening.

I see something a little better than 2002-2003, but nothing spectacular.

3100 yards, 21 TD, 11 INT, 350 rushing yards, 4 rushing TD.

 

[SSOG]

McNabb hasn't had a good non-TO season since 2001.  He's coming off a pretty major, and nagging injury.  He still doesn't have the greatest receivers in the world.

I just don't see it.  He'll supposedly be healthy, but I think those expected a top 5 QB here are in for a rude awakening.

I see something a little better than 2002-2003, but nothing spectacular.

3100 yards, 21 TD, 11 INT, 350 rushing yards, 4 rushing TD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

McNabb hasn't had a good non-TO season since 2001? And here I was thinking he absolutely DESTROYED the rest of the league in terms of points-per-game in 2002. So, since he was LIGHTS OUT in 2002 and TO came to town in 2004, when you say "he hasn't had a good non-TO season" what you really mean is he wasn't fantastic in 2003. And even that is arguable- his first 7 games of the season he was pretty brutal as he was dealing with some nagging injuries, and then Limbaugh said he was a media darling because he was black and suddenly he ranked 2nd in the league in points per game for the rest of the season.So in other words, Donovan McNabb "only" ranked 5th in 2000, "only" ranked 8th in 2001, and "only" ranked 1st in PPG in 2002. In fact, the only bad non-TO season McNabb's had this decade was 2003 (where, as I said, he was #2 in ppg over the last half of the season after recovering from earlier injuries and getting pissed off by Limbaugh).

If you want to downgrade him due to the injury risk, then that's one thing... but when McNabb is healthy, he's a stud, regardless of who else is on the field with him. He's the only QB in the entire NFL who can make that claim, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Slider]

Seems teams have learned to throw the book at him and he doesn't have time to find a WR. It just takes him too long and I think this is his last year in green. 2 WR's have publicly called him out and 17 Eagles showed up at TO's party after the mess. Not looking good for Dono.

3300 yards. 20 TD's 13 int's. 300 yards rushing and 5 TD's.

 

[Pat Patriot]

I'm surprised that many think that McNabb is going to run for 4-5 TD's. He has really curtailed his running. They dont have a big back for the goalline but I dont think McNabb will be running for many TD's coming off of last years injuries.

 

[Crazy8s]

Seems teams have learned to throw the book at him and he doesn't have time to find a WR. It just takes him too long and I think this is his last year in green. 2 WR's have publicly called him out and 17 Eagles showed up at TO's party after the mess. Not looking good for Dono.

3300 yards. 20 TD's 13 int's. 300 yards rushing and 5 TD's.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see him getting cut

 

[SSOG]

I'm surprised that many think that McNabb is going to run for 4-5 TD's.  He has really curtailed his running.  They dont have a big back for the goalline but I dont think McNabb will be running for many TD's coming off of last years injuries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that 4-5 TDs is too many, but I don't think he really curtailed his running. I think it just looked that way last year because of the injury. He wasn't just running less last year, he was moving less in general (even inside the pocket). I can only imagine how painful it must have been.If he's really back from the injury, I expect him to resume rushing somewhere between his '03 and '04 numbers, if a fair bit off of his '02 pace (700+ yards and 10 TDs rushing). Say... 300 yards and 3 TDs?

 

[Football Jones Junior]

3250 Yds, 24 TD (total), 12 INT, 375 rushing.

Starts 15 games.

 

[Bri]

Jason, any thoughts here?

 

[Phlash]

3400 yds, 21 pass tds, 16 ints, 400 rushing 6 rush tds

 

[gocats]

Passing:

3200 yds 22 Tds

10 INTs

Rushing:

250 rushing yds 3 Tds

3 fumbles

Thats about what hes good for

 

[gocats]

McNabb hasn't had a good non-TO season since 2001.  He's coming off a pretty major, and nagging injury.  He still doesn't have the greatest receivers in the world.

I just don't see it.  He'll supposedly be healthy, but I think those expected a top 5 QB here are in for a rude awakening.

I see something a little better than 2002-2003, but nothing spectacular.

3100 yards, 21 TD, 11 INT, 350 rushing yards, 4 rushing TD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

little high on the rushing stats

 

[gocats]

I'm surprised that many think that McNabb is going to run for 4-5 TD's.  He has really curtailed his running.  They dont have a big back for the goalline but I dont think McNabb will be running for many TD's coming off of last years injuries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[gang-wars]

McNabb hasn't had a good non-TO season since 2001.  He's coming off a pretty major, and nagging injury.  He still doesn't have the greatest receivers in the world.

I just don't see it.  He'll supposedly be healthy, but I think those expected a top 5 QB here are in for a rude awakening.

I see something a little better than 2002-2003, but nothing spectacular.

3100 yards, 21 TD, 11 INT, 350 rushing yards, 4 rushing TD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

McNabb hasn't had a good non-TO season since 2001? And here I was thinking he absolutely DESTROYED the rest of the league in terms of points-per-game in 2002. So, since he was LIGHTS OUT in 2002 and TO came to town in 2004, when you say "he hasn't had a good non-TO season" what you really mean is he wasn't fantastic in 2003. And even that is arguable- his first 7 games of the season he was pretty brutal as he was dealing with some nagging injuries, and then Limbaugh said he was a media darling because he was black and suddenly he ranked 2nd in the league in points per game for the rest of the season.So in other words, Donovan McNabb "only" ranked 5th in 2000, "only" ranked 8th in 2001, and "only" ranked 1st in PPG in 2002. In fact, the only bad non-TO season McNabb's had this decade was 2003 (where, as I said, he was #2 in ppg over the last half of the season after recovering from earlier injuries and getting pissed off by Limbaugh).

If you want to downgrade him due to the injury risk, then that's one thing... but when McNabb is healthy, he's a stud, regardless of who else is on the field with him. He's the only QB in the entire NFL who can make that claim, as far as I'm concerned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Call me crazy, but if I draft McNabb as my #1 QB and he only plays 10 games, that's hardly a good year. So 2002/2005 were bad years, due to injury. 2003 he finished QB13. 2004 he had career year with TO.

Add in the fact, his rushing attempts have gone drastically down in the last two years. His years of being 5th/8th were propped up with great rushing pts.

So by your own admission, he was hurt, and it effected his production in 2002, 2003, 2005. And you think he has any shot at 70+ rushing attempts? It's not going to happen. You can't deny the effect a stud WR has on QB production. Look at Cpepp without Moss. Look at Mcnabb with TO. It's not random luck Mcnabb has a career year when TO shows up.

When he's healthy, he's the only stud QB in the league? Errr... Are you kidding? Manning has been 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd in the last 6 years. Yeah he can't hold a candle to Mcnabb.

 

[gang-wars]

I'm surprised that many think that McNabb is going to run for 4-5 TD's.  He has really curtailed his running.  They dont have a big back for the goalline but I dont think McNabb will be running for many TD's coming off of last years injuries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that 4-5 TDs is too many, but I don't think he really curtailed his running. I think it just looked that way last year because of the injury. He wasn't just running less last year, he was moving less in general (even inside the pocket). I can only imagine how painful it must have been.If he's really back from the injury, I expect him to resume rushing somewhere between his '03 and '04 numbers, if a fair bit off of his '02 pace (700+ yards and 10 TDs rushing). Say... 300 yards and 3 TDs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He's not running less? Less attempts in 2005, and 2004. If he was hurt in 2005, whats the excuse for 2004? Back to his 04 pace? 41 attempts? Almost 40% less then his career average. You add up his injuries, his age, 35-40 attempts, 200 yards, 1-2 TDs. At best. If Mcnabb is going to stay on the field, he's not going to be running 80+ times.

 

[Tommy Collins]

After looking at what he did without having any great WRs before TO came along, he should put up somewhat similar numbers to then.

Passing: 3100 yards 21 TDs 12 INTs

Rushing: 280 yards, 1 TD

 

[Footballhead]

Bleh...he better learn to throw consistently...fast. Brace yourself, this year its gonna be just as ugly: 2800 yds, 24 TD's, 18 INT.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

His value hinges on his willingness to run the ball. He is capable of running for 400 & 4 I think, but will he? If he only ran for 250 & 2, how surprised would you be?

I have him conservatively ranked QB5/7 with 3500 passing yards, 23 TDs, 10 INTs, 250 rushing yards 1 rushing TD.

 

[Lehigh98]

I'm surprised that many think that McNabb is going to run for 4-5 TD's.  He has really curtailed his running.  They dont have a big back for the goalline but I dont think McNabb will be running for many TD's coming off of last years injuries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

NAME POS YR RSH RSHYD YD/RSH FD RSHTD

Donovan McNabb qb 2002 63 460 7.30 35 6

Donovan McNabb qb 2003 68 365 5.37 26 3

Donovan McNabb qb 2004 41 221 5.39 12 3 

Donovan McNabb qb 2005 24 50 2.08 7 1

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

McNabb is still an elite quarterback, his poor play in games last year was due more to his injury than to not having TO.

I don't expect his numbers to be as high as they were in 2004, but he'll still be a solid QB.

3400 yards passing, 24 td's and 17 int's

200 yards rushing and 2 td's

 

[jurb26]

McNabb is still an elite quarterback, his poor play in games last year was due more to his injury than to not having TO.

I don't expect his numbers to be as high as they were in 2004, but he'll still be a solid QB.

3400 yards passing, 24 td's and 17 int's

200 yards rushing and 2 td's

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed, McNabb was clearly hindered by the injuries he suffered and Philly was wrong to let him keep playing a lot of the time. He just wasn't able to make the throws. This team and McNabb were fine before TO and will be fine w/o him now. Projection

520 atts, 322 comp, 3620 yds, 25 TDs, 13 Ints, 50 carries, 265 yds, 2 TDs

 

[Noahs Troopers]

Passing: 1250 yards, 5 TDS, 3 INTS

Rushing: 75 yards, 1 TD

 

[Tommy Collins]

Passing: 1250 yards, 5 TDS, 3 INTS

Rushing: 75 yards, 1 TD

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We aren't talking about the preseason!

 

[Keys Myaths]

Passing: 1250 yards, 5 TDS, 3 INTS

Rushing: 75 yards, 1 TD

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you really expect him to get injured that fast?

 

[Noahs Troopers]

Passing: 1250 yards, 5 TDS, 3 INTS

Rushing: 75 yards, 1 TD

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you really expect him to get injured that fast?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Passing: 1250 yards, 5 TDS, 3 INTS

Rushing: 75 yards, 1 TD

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you really expect him to get injured that fast?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Underestimating his yards/TD ratio.

 

[Noahs Troopers]

If healthy:

2900 yards, 18 TD, 7 INT

240 rush, 3 TD

 

[SSOG]

I broke up your post for easier response.

Call me crazy, but if I draft McNabb as my #1 QB and he only plays 10 games, that's hardly a good year.

So 2002/2005 were bad years, due to injury. 2003 he finished QB13. 2004 he had career year with TO.

Donovan McNabb scored 258.2 points in 10 games. Let's say you had McNabb that season. After those 10 games, you have to pick up a replacement QB. Let's say your backup was horrible, ranked #24 on the season (and therefore, theoretically, the worst backup-caliber QB in the league). Let's see... #24 that season was David Carr, with 195.9 total points. Let's prorate that total to see what an expected value for a 6-week span from Carr would be. Hmmm... 73.5 points. So you have Donovan McNabb, who scores 258.2 points, and David Carr, who scores you 73.5 points... you totaled 331.7 points that season. 331.7 points would be enough for the #3 QB in all of fantasy football.It's not like you're taking a 0 all of those weeks when McNabb was sitting, were you? It's not like you *ONLY* scored 258.2 points at QB that season, did you? Yes, 258.2 points in 10 games is a FANTASTIC season, injury or no injury, *because unless you're stupid or supremely confident, you carry a backup QB*.

So in other words, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005 were all fantastic seasons (when you assume decent QB20-type numbers for all of the weeks McNabb missed). 2003 was a "bad" season where he "only" finished ranked 13th (although he was 2nd in ppg over the last half of the season).

He's a risk, without question. If you get McNabb, you don't skimp on the backup QB position. With that said, he's a risk with a huge potential payout.

Add in the fact, his rushing attempts have gone drastically down in the last two years. His years of being 5th/8th were propped up with great rushing pts.

So by your own admission, he was hurt, and it effected his production in 2002, 2003, 2005. And you think he has any shot at 70+ rushing attempts? It's not going to happen. You can't deny the effect a stud WR has on QB production. Look at Cpepp without Moss. Look at Mcnabb with TO. It's not random luck Mcnabb has a career year when TO shows up.

When he's healthy, he's the only stud QB in the league? Errr... Are you kidding? Manning has been 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd in the last 6 years. Yeah he can't hold a candle to Mcnabb.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can not deny that a stud WR will boost QB production. I *will* deny that McNabb's production is tied to his WRs (unless you consider Pinkston and Thrash "studs").Also, I would appreciate if you didn't misquote me to try to make me look stupid. I never said that McNabb was the only stud QB in the league. What I said was, and I quote...

but when McNabb is healthy, he's a stud, [SIZE=14pt]regardless of who else is on the field with him[/SIZE]. He's the only QB in the entire NFL who can make that claim, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, Manning is a stud. Take away Harrison, Wayne, James, and his O-line and is he still a stud? Yes, Culpepper was a stud. Take away Moss and was he still a stud? Yes, Trent Green has occasionally been a stud. Take away Gonzo, Holmes, Roaf, Shields, and the rest of his O-line and is he still a stud?Step 1: Read.

Step 2: Comprehend.

Step 3: Post.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

I pretty much see McNabb returning to his pre-TO numbers. His latest crop of wr is no worse than they were before he got TO.

492 attempts 288 completions 3283 yards 24 td 10 ints

49 runs 250 yards 3 touchdowns

 

[mlball77]

McNabb is still an elite quarterback, his poor play in games last year was due more to his injury than to not having TO.

I don't expect his numbers to be as high as they were in 2004, but he'll still be a solid QB.

3400 yards passing, 24 td's and 17 int's

200 yards rushing and 2 td's

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed, McNabb was clearly hindered by the injuries he suffered and Philly was wrong to let him keep playing a lot of the time. He just wasn't able to make the throws. This team and McNabb were fine before TO and will be fine w/o him now. Projection

475 atts, 305 comp, 3500 yds, 25 TDs, 13 Ints, 50 carries, 265 yds, 2 TDs

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I concur...

 

[sacked4loss]

300 comp. 550 att. 2600yards 16tds 14ints.

 

[Jedimaster21]

McNabb will definitely be top 5.

3750 yards

27 TDs

14 Int

350 Rushing

4 TDs

 

[diesel7982]

McNabb is still an elite quarterback, his poor play in games last year was due more to his injury than to not having TO.

I don't expect his numbers to be as high as they were in 2004, but he'll still be a solid QB.

3400 yards passing, 24 td's and 17 int's

200 yards rushing and 2 td's

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed, McNabb was clearly hindered by the injuries he suffered and Philly was wrong to let him keep playing a lot of the time. He just wasn't able to make the throws. This team and McNabb were fine before TO and will be fine w/o him now. Projection

475 atts, 305 comp, 3500 yds, 25 TDs, 13 Ints, 50 carries, 265 yds, 2 TDs

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the average team throws 515-525 attempts/season, are you saying an Andy Reid offense will have less pass attempts than the league average?McNabb had 357 attempts in 9 games last year. Nearly 40 per game. You are projecting McNabb to average more than 10 LESS attempts per game than last year.

Why is this realistic?

 

[gang-wars]

I broke up your post for easier response.

Call me crazy, but if I draft McNabb as my #1 QB and he only plays 10 games, that's hardly a good year. So 2002/2005 were bad years, due to injury. 2003 he finished QB13. 2004 he had career year with TO.

Donovan McNabb scored 258.2 points in 10 games. Let's say you had McNabb that season. After those 10 games, you have to pick up a replacement QB. Let's say your backup was horrible, ranked #24 on the season (and therefore, theoretically, the worst backup-caliber QB in the league). Let's see... #24 that season was David Carr, with 195.9 total points. Let's prorate that total to see what an expected value for a 6-week span from Carr would be. Hmmm... 73.5 points. So you have Donovan McNabb, who scores 258.2 points, and David Carr, who scores you 73.5 points... you totaled 331.7 points that season. 331.7 points would be enough for the #3 QB in all of fantasy football.

It's not like you're taking a 0 all of those weeks when McNabb was sitting, were you? It's not like you *ONLY* scored 258.2 points at QB that season, did you? Yes, 258.2 points in 10 games is a FANTASTIC season, injury or no injury, *because unless you're stupid or supremely confident, you carry a backup QB*.

So in other words, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005 were all fantastic seasons (when you assume decent QB20-type numbers for all of the weeks McNabb missed). 2003 was a "bad" season where he "only" finished ranked 13th (although he was 2nd in ppg over the last half of the season).

He's a risk, without question. If you get McNabb, you don't skimp on the backup QB position. With that said, he's a risk with a huge potential payout.

Add in the fact' date=' his rushing attempts have gone drastically down in the last two years. His years of being 5th/8th were propped up with great rushing pts. So by your own admission, he was hurt, and it effected his production in 2002, 2003, 2005. And you think he has any shot at 70+ rushing attempts? It's not going to happen. You can't deny the effect a stud WR has on QB production. Look at Cpepp without Moss. Look at Mcnabb with TO. It's not random luck Mcnabb has a career year when TO shows up.

When he's healthy, he's the only stud QB in the league? Errr... Are you kidding? Manning has been 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd in the last 6 years. Yeah he can't hold a candle to Mcnabb.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can not deny that a stud WR will boost QB production. I *will* deny that McNabb's production is tied to his WRs (unless you consider Pinkston and Thrash "studs").

Also, I would appreciate if you didn't misquote me to try to make me look stupid. I never said that McNabb was the only stud QB in the league. What I said was, and I quote...

but when McNabb is healthy' date=' he's a stud, [SIZE=14pt]regardless of who else is on the field with him[/SIZE]. He's the only QB in the entire NFL who can make that claim, as far as I'm concerned.[/quote']Yes, Manning is a stud. Take away Harrison, Wayne, James, and his O-line and is he still a stud? Yes, Culpepper was a stud. Take away Moss and was he still a stud? Yes, Trent Green has occasionally been a stud. Take away Gonzo, Holmes, Roaf, Shields, and the rest of his O-line and is he still a stud?

Step 1: Read.

Step 2: Comprehend.

Step 3: Post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Having McNabb for 10 games, then switching to Carr is hardly a good situation. When McNabb goes down, spouting his PPG totals is not much of a comfort. By that logic injuries don't matter, you just grab a guy off your bench. Great.

Fantastic seasons? Seriously?

So Bulger and McNabb had great 2005s. Forget fantasy playoffs. Just give me 8 great games, and you can take the rest of the season off. What if your backup was Warner/Leftwich/Brooks. That worked out well. PPG stats don't help you much when you're out the 1st round of the playoffs. So wait, if you draft McNabb, you better also grab another top 12QB, because you're going to need him. Comforting.

2005 - Finished QB20

2004 - Finished QB3 - With TO

2003 - Finished QB13

2002 - Finished QB13

2001 - Finished QB8

2000 - Finished QB5

Now you seem to ignore the fact he's run far less the last two years. And his rushing TDs have dropped since 2002. He's 30. He's not going to be running like he did when he was 25/26. He's been unable to stay healthy the last 3 of 4 years (you excuse for 2003 was due to injury).

For where McNabb has been drafted, he has one good year in the last 4.

With that said, he's a risk with a huge potential payout.

Yes the pre 2004 McNabb. He does not run as much. He's been unable to stay healthy. He now scrambles so he can buy more time for his WRs. Watch him play, look at the stats. Not sure how you can gloss that over.

Also, I would appreciate if you didn't misquote me

Err, I didn't misquote you. I understood your claim. And it's wrong. Put McNabb and Manning on SF in 2006, I'll take Manning thanks. And it's not even close.

Step 1: Don't assume.

Step 2: McNabb Kool-Aid is good for you.

Step 3: Don't get defensive.

 

[dotman]

McNabb hasn't had a good non-TO season since 2001.  He's coming off a pretty major, and nagging injury.  He still doesn't have the greatest receivers in the world.

I just don't see it.  He'll supposedly be healthy, but I think those expected a top 5 QB here are in for a rude awakening.

I see something a little better than 2002-2003, but nothing spectacular.

3100 yards, 21 TD, 11 INT, 350 rushing yards, 4 rushing TD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

FYI, these numbers would have made him the #6QB in my league last year.

 

[SSOG]

Having McNabb for 10 games, then switching to Carr is hardly a good situation. When McNabb goes down, spouting his PPG totals is not much of a comfort. By that logic injuries don't matter, you just grab a guy off your bench. Great.

Fantastic seasons? Seriously?

So Bulger and McNabb had great 2005s. Forget fantasy playoffs. Just give me 8 great games, and you can take the rest of the season off. What if your backup was Warner/Leftwich/Brooks. That worked out well. PPG stats don't help you much when you're out the 1st round of the playoffs. So wait, if you draft McNabb, you better also grab another top 12QB, because you're going to need him. Comforting.

On the other hand, fantastic scoring in the fantasy playoffs doesn't do you any good if you don't get there in the first place. Having McNabb in 2002 pretty much punched your ticket for the fantasy playoffs. And again, since QB scoring tends to happen in such a tight range, there's not a huge difference between QB12 and QB20, so even if you only had a "bad" fantasy backup, it's not like you're giving a whole lot compared to someone with an average fantasy starter.When a player misses time due to injury, my standard practice is to take his totals, and add to it the totals of the "worst backup" at that position, pro-rated over the number of injury weeks, to come up with a reasonable "season total" that you could expect to score at this position. With a better than abysmal backup, your positional score only goes up.

Worst backup = QB24, RB36, WR48, TE24, PK24, Def24.

Argue with the method all you want, but it's a long-accepted method of evaluating a position. I'm sure you could find lots of discussions around these parts about the whole theory behind it. You can disagree with it all you want, but I subscribe to the theory, and it's a valid theory, so it's not like I'm just pulling numbers from left field here.

2005 - Finished QB20

2004 - Finished QB3 - With TO

2003 - Finished QB13

2002 - Finished QB13

2001 - Finished QB8

2000 - Finished QB5

Now you seem to ignore the fact he's run far less the last two years. And his rushing TDs have dropped since 2002. He's 30. He's not going to be running like he did when he was 25/26. He's been unable to stay healthy the last 3 of 4 years (you excuse for 2003 was due to injury).

So let me get this straight... the fact that McNabb's passing numbers were up is 100% attributable to the fact that he had TO. The fact that McNabb's rushing numbers were down is 0% attributable to TO. You go off on what a big impact TO had on his passing numbers and refuse to believe that TO might have had an impact on his rushing numbers? If nothing else, such a big red-zone target means fewer goal line scrambles, which means fewer rushing TDs.It's possible that McNabb's passing and rushing numbers are entirely because of TO, and now that TO's gone he will revert completely to the 2002 McNabb. It's possible that 50% of his passing and rushing trends were the result of TO and 50% were the result of aging and maturation, and that now that TO's gone he'll revert to a mix between the 2002 and 2003 versions. My point is that it doesn't matter- both versions were pretty good. I'd be happy to have either one, as long as he's healthy.

Yes, he's an injury risk. He's no more of a risk than Marc Bulger, imo. If you take McNabb, just be aware of his situation and grab a decent backup.

Err, I didn't misquote you. I understood your claim. And it's wrong. Put McNabb and Manning on SF in 2006, I'll take Manning thanks. And it's not even close.

Step 1: Don't assume.

Step 2: McNabb Kool-Aid is good for you.

Step 3: Don't get defensive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whatever you say, you did misquote me. You said "When he's healthy, he's the only stud QB in the league? Errr... Are you kidding?", when that *CLEARLY* wasn't what I said at all. That's a misquote. Either that or you were asking hypothetical questions that had nothing to do with my actual post.Whether you understood my point or not, you tried to make it appear as if I were saying McNabb was the only stud QB in the league, which I clearly wasn't.

As for McNabb vs. Manning... I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. I'd *love* to see just how "acclaimed" Manning would be outside of that cushy little pocket throwing to Brandon Lloyd and Arnaz Battle instead of Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, and with Kevan Barlow keeping defenses honest. I *know* how McNabb would perform there, because... well, because as bad as Lloyd and Battle are, they might just be an upgrade over Thrash and Pinkston.

 

[jurb26]

McNabb is still an elite quarterback, his poor play in games last year was due more to his injury than to not having TO.

I don't expect his numbers to be as high as they were in 2004, but he'll still be a solid QB.

3400 yards passing, 24 td's and 17 int's

200 yards rushing and 2 td's

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed, McNabb was clearly hindered by the injuries he suffered and Philly was wrong to let him keep playing a lot of the time. He just wasn't able to make the throws. This team and McNabb were fine before TO and will be fine w/o him now. Projection

475 atts, 305 comp, 3500 yds, 25 TDs, 13 Ints, 50 carries, 265 yds, 2 TDs

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the average team throws 515-525 attempts/season, are you saying an Andy Reid offense will have less pass attempts than the league average?McNabb had 357 attempts in 9 games last year. Nearly 40 per game. You are projecting McNabb to average more than 10 LESS attempts per game than last year.

Why is this realistic?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm actually taking Reid's word in that they are going to try for a more balanced attack. I just don't think he can keep making McNabb throw so many times and keep him healthy any more. I hadn't realized that teams avg that many passes though. I"ll have to adjust.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

McNabb hasn't had a good non-TO season since 2001.  He's coming off a pretty major, and nagging injury.  He still doesn't have the greatest receivers in the world.

I just don't see it.  He'll supposedly be healthy, but I think those expected a top 5 QB here are in for a rude awakening.

I see something a little better than 2002-2003, but nothing spectacular.

3100 yards, 21 TD, 11 INT, 350 rushing yards, 4 rushing TD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

FYI, these numbers would have made him the #6QB in my league last year.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[mbuehner]

Having McNabb for 10 games, then switching to Carr is hardly a good situation. When McNabb goes down, spouting his PPG totals is not much of a comfort. By that logic injuries don't matter, you just grab a guy off your bench. Great.

First off, this predicting injury stuff is nonsense. McNabb has been a reasonably durable QB, he's had 2 major injuries in his career neither one of which should be chronic (broken ankle and sports hernia), and btw both of them occurred while he was dropped back in the pocket for a pass play. Look at Brees, Bulger, or Palmer, anyone can get injured.So you'd prefer the mediocre QB giving you consistantly mediocre points over risking a great QB and then using his backup? The term 'good enough to lose with' comes to mind. And what if your middle of the road QB gets injured? You have to spend 2 midround draft picks on just ok QBs or risk being in the same pickle but never beneffiting from the elite numbers a McNabb will give you. There is a reason Manning goes a round and a half before any other QB, reliable and stud are a rare combination.

 

[mbuehner]

All that being said, i see a change in McNabbs performance this year, and not for the better. I have a sense he is frustrated that his receiving corp hasnt been upgraded- the TO experminent is one thing but why cant they get the guy a WR that would start on any other team in the league? The Eagles offense hasnt improved and generally in the NFL if you arent getting better, you're getting worse (note to Andy Reid). The divisional competition has certainly improved.

485 att

276 cmp

3255 yards

18 tds

12 ints

35 rushes

181 yards

1 td

No injuries, but i see a real let down in Eagles offense this season. I know McNabb has put up much better numbers before with this crew, but until proven different there is a cloud over this organization in my mind. I think TDs are going to be a major problem.

 

[Borat]

Where is the little spotlight thing next to the thread title?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[Death and Taxes]

I am more concerned with McNabb's supporting cast than DM himself. According to what is being posted here it looks like he may be a value pick for the upcoming year.

Westbrook is the only solid aspect of the Eagles offense coming into 2006 IMO barring injury which seems to happens alot especially at the end of the season.

There are alot of question marks for the other offensive positions including LJ Smith and the Eagles OL. Yes the Eagles addressed the OL in the draft but that does not mean success for the upcoming year. They have two tackles, one is 33 and the other is 31 and often injured. They appear to be extremely weak at the Center position. The guard position will have 2 second year players (Herremans, and Andrews hurt his first year) or a rookie.

The WR position on paper appears weak with question marks. R.Brown, J.Gaffney, Pinkston, Lewis are not players you want to hang your hat on for major production.

The FB position is at best average.

Some of the interception totals I have seen posted appear high if you look at past history.

3,350 passing yards 22 TDS, 11 ints, 375 rushing yards 3 TDs

 

[Footballhead]

I broke up your post for easier response.

Call me crazy, but if I draft McNabb as my #1 QB and he only plays 10 games, that's hardly a good year.

So 2002/2005 were bad years, due to injury. 2003 he finished QB13. 2004 he had career year with TO.

Donovan McNabb scored 258.2 points in 10 games. Let's say you had McNabb that season. After those 10 games, you have to pick up a replacement QB. Let's say your backup was horrible, ranked #24 on the season (and therefore, theoretically, the worst backup-caliber QB in the league). Let's see... #24 that season was David Carr, with 195.9 total points. Let's prorate that total to see what an expected value for a 6-week span from Carr would be. Hmmm... 73.5 points. So you have Donovan McNabb, who scores 258.2 points, and David Carr, who scores you 73.5 points... you totaled 331.7 points that season. 331.7 points would be enough for the #3 QB in all of fantasy football.It's not like you're taking a 0 all of those weeks when McNabb was sitting, were you? It's not like you *ONLY* scored 258.2 points at QB that season, did you? Yes, 258.2 points in 10 games is a FANTASTIC season, injury or no injury, *because unless you're stupid or supremely confident, you carry a backup QB*.

So in other words, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005 were all fantastic seasons (when you assume decent QB20-type numbers for all of the weeks McNabb missed). 2003 was a "bad" season where he "only" finished ranked 13th (although he was 2nd in ppg over the last half of the season).

He's a risk, without question. If you get McNabb, you don't skimp on the backup QB position. With that said, he's a risk with a huge potential payout.

Add in the fact, his rushing attempts have gone drastically down in the last two years. His years of being 5th/8th were propped up with great rushing pts.

So by your own admission, he was hurt, and it effected his production in 2002, 2003, 2005. And you think he has any shot at 70+ rushing attempts? It's not going to happen. You can't deny the effect a stud WR has on QB production. Look at Cpepp without Moss. Look at Mcnabb with TO. It's not random luck Mcnabb has a career year when TO shows up.

When he's healthy, he's the only stud QB in the league? Errr... Are you kidding? Manning has been 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd in the last 6 years. Yeah he can't hold a candle to Mcnabb.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can not deny that a stud WR will boost QB production. I *will* deny that McNabb's production is tied to his WRs (unless you consider Pinkston and Thrash "studs").Also, I would appreciate if you didn't misquote me to try to make me look stupid. I never said that McNabb was the only stud QB in the league. What I said was, and I quote...

but when McNabb is healthy, he's a stud, [SIZE=14pt]regardless of who else is on the field with him[/SIZE]. He's the only QB in the entire NFL who can make that claim, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, Manning is a stud. Take away Harrison, Wayne, James, and his O-line and is he still a stud? Yes, Culpepper was a stud. Take away Moss and was he still a stud? Yes, Trent Green has occasionally been a stud. Take away Gonzo, Holmes, Roaf, Shields, and the rest of his O-line and is he still a stud?Step 1: Read.

Step 2: Comprehend.

Step 3: Post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most of us don't play in rotessiere (sp?) leagues. If I'm told that I'll have bank on David Carr from week 11-14 and playoffs, I'd make sure I got it right from week 1.

 

[SSOG]

Most of us don't play in rotessiere (sp?) leagues.  If I'm told that I'll have bank on David Carr from week 11-14 and playoffs, I'd make sure I got it right from week 1.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It beats banking on Mark Brunell from weeks 1-10 and missing the playoffs entirely.

 

[Bri]

I broke up your post for easier response.

Step 1: Read.

Step 2: Comprehend.

Step 3: Post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[H.K.]

Guys, I think a historical baseline needs to be considered when looking at McNabb for this coming year. Here are the Eagles' passing stats for the past five seasons:

2001 522 Att for 3427 yards

2002 548 Att for 3606 yards

2003 485 Att for 3273 yards

2004 547 Att for 4208 yards

2005 621 Att for 3903 yards

Average: 545 Att for 3683 yards passing as a team

2003 and 2005 were the statistical outliers in numbers of attempts, but given Reid's history, I think is is safe to estimate that the team will continue to throw quite a bit. Also, while losing TO hurts, the Eagles did not add anything to their RB corps, so passing will still be their staple on offense.

McNabb is the focal point of their offense, and he'll have the benefit of playing against a pretty light weight schedule. Lots of nice looking match-ups below:

PHILDELPHIA 2006 OPPONENTS

Sun., Sept. 10 @ Houston 1 p.m. FOX

Sun., Sept. 17 Giants 1 p.m. FOX

Sun., Sept. 24 @ 49ers 4:15 p.m. FOX*

Mon., Oct. 2 Green Bay 8:30 p.m. ESPN*

Sun., Oct. 8 Dallas 4:15 p.m. FOX*

Sun., Oct. 15 @ New Orleans 1 p.m. FOX

Sun., Oct. 22 @ Tampa Bay 1 p.m. FOX

Sun., Oct. 29 Jacksonville 1 p.m. CBS

Sun., Nov. 12 Washington 1 p.m. FOX

Sun., Nov. 19 Tennessee 1 p.m. CBS

Sun., Nov. 26 @ Indy 1 p.m. FOX

Mon., Dec. 4 Carolina 8:30 p.m.

Sun., Dec. 10 @ Washington 1 p.m.

Sun., Dec. 17 @ Giants 1 p.m.

Mon., Dec. 25 @ Dallas 5 p.m.

Sun., Dec. 31 Atlanta 1 p.m.

He'll be healthy, the Eagles have a weak schedule, the team will throw a lot and I expect him to perform well based on his career numbers.

Projection:

540 Attempts (see averages for Eagles passing numbers over past five seasons)

313 Completions (assumes 58% completion avg in his career)

3,564 yards (assumes career avg of 6.6 YPA)

24 TD's (assumes career TD/Attempt ratio of .045)

12 Ints (assumes career INT/Attempt ratio of .0224)

44 Rushes

264 yards

3 TDs

 

[rzrback77]

Andy Reid and the Eagless will remain with focus on passing to set up the run. McNabb stays on the field all year and finishes in the top three. Westbrook and LJ Smith flourish and the WRs alternate as the helpers.

337 completions in 577 attempts for 3,877 yards 27 TDs 17 Ints

47 rushes for 277 yards and four TDs.

 

[aposulli]

Good news is that there is a new technoolgy that can get rid of sports hernias quick and painlessly. No joke, it's recently been done on soccer players and they recover to 100% in less than 4 weeks. McNabb should stay relatively healthy in 2006 is my guess, so he should have no problem regaining his top 5 form. Not saying he'll be McNabb circa 2004 (with Owens), but in 2000, 2001, and 2003 he had top 5 numbers.

15 GP: 3,300 pass yds, 23 TD, 14 INT, 4 Fumbles lost, 200 rush yds, 3 TDs

 

[David Yudkin]

I started a 4-page thread on McNabb HERE with a ton of comments from the peanut gallery in there.

After various requests for stats and corresponding analysis and number crunching, here's what I came up with per game:

Passing stats for 64 games:

216.5 passing yards, 1.44 passing TD, 0.72 INT

15.87 ppg passing

Rushing stats for 40 games:

15.8 rushing yards, 0.18 rushing TD

2.63 ppg rushing

I say he plays in 14 games so . . .

3,031 passing yards, 20 passing TD, 10 INT

221 rushing yards, 2 rushing TD

If my math is right, that should total 256 or so fantasy points.