What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Which Eagle QB would you rather have as your QB? (1 Viewer)

Links to stats are below, pick a QB.

  • Donovan McNabb

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Randall Cunningham

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Does Randall get the luxury of enjoying McNabb's offensive line and coaching structure? If so, then Randall & it isn't close.

 
I loved Cunningham and he was the reason I starting cheering for the Eagles but when i think about the Eagles McNabb will always be the first guy that comes to mind.

 
McNabb had the best tenure of any Eagles QB ever. (some might argue Van Brocklin, but it's hard since he only had 3 years.)

That's a different question that who would you rather have in a vacuum.

Combine Randall "getting it" toward the end (well, Moss certainly helped a lot) with a more stable offense, maybe you want him as your QB. But based on the way that their careers actually played out, McNabb gets the nod.

 
McNabb had the best tenure of any Eagles QB ever. (some might argue Van Brocklin, but it's hard since he only had 3 years.)

That's a different question that who would you rather have in a vacuum.

Combine Randall "getting it" toward the end (well, Moss certainly helped a lot) with a more stable offense, maybe you want him as your QB. But based on the way that their careers actually played out, McNabb gets the nod.
In 1990 (still well within his Eagles tenure) Cunningham threw for almost 3500 yards, 30 TDs and 13 INTs, while leading the team in rushing with 942 yards (almost 300 more yards than the RB) and 5 TDs. I think he pretty well "had it" then.Not to say that leading the Vikings to a 15-1 mark and the NFC title game 8 years later at the age of 35 and throwing for 3700 yards, 34 TDs and only 10 picks wasn't impressive as well - in fact it's funny, if McNabb can put up similar numbers next season (two years after being traded to a new team, just like Randall did with the Vikes) - then they'll be about even in my book.

 
I don't recall Cunningham throwing passes at WR's legs so I'll go with him. Of course I could be wrong. Then I'll go with Jaworski. :boxing:

 
McNabb had the best tenure of any Eagles QB ever. (some might argue Van Brocklin, but it's hard since he only had 3 years.)

That's a different question that who would you rather have in a vacuum.

Combine Randall "getting it" toward the end (well, Moss certainly helped a lot) with a more stable offense, maybe you want him as your QB. But based on the way that their careers actually played out, McNabb gets the nod.
In 1990 (still well within his Eagles tenure) Cunningham threw for almost 3500 yards, 30 TDs and 13 INTs, while leading the team in rushing with 942 yards (almost 300 more yards than the RB) and 5 TDs. I think he pretty well "had it" then.Not to say that leading the Vikings to a 15-1 mark and the NFC title game 8 years later at the age of 35 and throwing for 3700 yards, 34 TDs and only 10 picks wasn't impressive as well - in fact it's funny, if McNabb can put up similar numbers next season (two years after being traded to a new team, just like Randall did with the Vikes) - then they'll be about even in my book.
Randall was Vick before there was a Mike Vick.

Difference being Randall had some touch and completed more passes than Vick

 
Randall with a competent offensive line and some decent coaching would have been scary good.

But he didn't have those and McNabb did, and so McNabb took the team farther than Randall ever could.

 
In my mind, Randall hurt his legacy in 1995 when he was backing up Peete in the playoff game against the Cowboys and basically did not know the offensive gameplan when Peete got knocked out of the game in the first half. The Eagles would not have won anyway, but that was a painful performance to watch.

I think if Randall had gotten some better coaching he probably would have been better than McNabb. But as it was, I think McNabb had the much better overall career with the Eagles.

Some Randall moments that are etched in my mind:

-The Carl Bank's non-tackle.

-The 90 yard punt that should have been 99 yards if Meggett were smart enough to let go into the end zone.

-The Bruce Smith non-sack, 60 yard throw, and Fred Barnett taking the jump ball all the way to the end zone for a 99 yd TD.

A truly amazing athlete and one of the most exciting players to watch.

 
In my mind, Randall hurt his legacy in 1995 when he was backing up Peete in the playoff game against the Cowboys and basically did not know the offensive gameplan when Peete got knocked out of the game in the first half. The Eagles would not have won anyway, but that was a painful performance to watch.I think if Randall had gotten some better coaching he probably would have been better than McNabb. But as it was, I think McNabb had the much better overall career with the Eagles.Some Randall moments that are etched in my mind:-The Carl Bank's non-tackle.-The 90 yard punt that should have been 99 yards if Meggett were smart enough to let go into the end zone.-The Bruce Smith non-sack, 60 yard throw, and Fred Barnett taking the jump ball all the way to the end zone for a 99 yd TD.A truly amazing athlete and one of the most exciting players to watch.
Cool. I have to leave for work for a meeting tonight - can anyone throw a couple of Youtube video links in this thread to some of the above? Or really anything having to do with the converation? TIA.
 
If the question is, who was the better QB as an Eagle, its a no brainer. Donovan hands down. Cunningham had some fantastic years in Minnesota and looked like he may be a better QB overall than McNabb because of the better longevity of the running skills. But as far as the title of "Best Eagles QB ever" it goes to McNabb.

 
Cunningham. Only because it's super cool to not give McNabb any credit for Philly's team success over the past decade, and I like to fit in.

 
FWIW there was an online vote last year for an "All Eagles Team" here in philly. Donovan won best eagles qb and iirc it wasn't close.

 
FWIW there was an online vote last year for an "All Eagles Team" here in philly. Donovan won best eagles qb and iirc it wasn't close.
I don't doubt it. There were probably alot of people voting in that poll that never saw Cunninham play (this one too). In most "fan polls" more recent players typically do better, as they are simply more recent in memory. The fact that it wasn't close is proof of "newer bias". Any objective way you look at the two, it should be close. In fact this poll proves at least that.

 
I am surprised this is even close ... Donovan was clearly the superior QB and had significantly more playoff experience.

 
McNabb had the best tenure of any Eagles QB ever. (some might argue Van Brocklin, but it's hard since he only had 3 years.)

That's a different question that who would you rather have in a vacuum.

Combine Randall "getting it" toward the end (well, Moss certainly helped a lot) with a more stable offense, maybe you want him as your QB. But based on the way that their careers actually played out, McNabb gets the nod.
In 1990 (still well within his Eagles tenure) Cunningham threw for almost 3500 yards, 30 TDs and 13 INTs, while leading the team in rushing with 942 yards (almost 300 more yards than the RB) and 5 TDs. I think he pretty well "had it" then.
stats are not the whole story. see dhockster's post. he still didn't have the maturity.

but he was an amazing athlete. the Vick comparison above is a really good one. Cunningham was just an electrifying player, more so than McNabb.

 
I am surprised this is even close ... Donovan was clearly the superior QB and had significantly more playoff experience.
Of course he did. He played on a much more complete team. People always love to point to the wide receivers he had to suffer through but never seem to mention he played behind rock solid offensive line & had one of the best dual threat backs of his era to help shoulder the burden. He also enjoyed the same consistency of scheme & creative gameplanning for a decade. It's the same reason that the offense has enjoyed success with any other competent quarterback (Mike McMahon doesn't count) during his trips to the trainer's table. There is a reason Mike Vick looks the best he has in career running the same offense under the same guidance McNabb enjoyed all those years. Randall combines the best attributes of both Vick and McNabb but basically was trotted out behind abysmal offensive lines with ZERO gameplan. You put him in the same stable environment with Reid's meticulous attention to detail & there would've been a parade down Broad Street. Believe it. How quickly some forget how elite his skill set was.
 
Randall Cunningham gets my vote.

I saw his entire career and he suffered from having no coach at all. Buddy just told him to go get some points so he could focus on his beloved defense - so Cunningham never developed into a pro QB. He was an incredible athlete and could play the position quite well - to a point. He could have definitely benefited from a QB coach and a better OC - but the real issue was no QB coach.

Cunningham could have a game that was a 95 on a scale from 1-100 but he'd also struggle and rely on his athleticism at times. When under duress he would be a 50-60 average QB.

McNabb could put up a 90 or so but he'd also never dip down to the 50-60 range, more like a 70s "bottom" level. He was much more of a pro QB and he never wanted to rely on his athleticism (which while good wasn't on Randall's level - he really was Vick before Vick).

Few will remember that Cunningham was a 3rd down QB with Jaworski, brought in to "make a play" on 3rd and long. He'd even quick punt.

Bottom line - Cunningham had a higher ceiling than McNabb but also a lower floor. Put Cunningham with McNabb's coaching group and I'd take that any day.

 
I voted McNabb because Cunningham is 47 years old. :popcorn:

Seriously, though... everyone's talking about several of Cunningham's great seasons, but McNabb's 2002 season was as amazing as anything Cunningham ever did, imo. Over 16 games, his numbers pro-rate to 3660 yards passing, 27 TDs, 10 INTs, and another 736/10 rushing. With a receiving corps of Todd Pinkston and James Thrash, and with Duce Staley as his RB.

Cunningham was a better QB at his peak, but health is a skill, too, and Cunningham only managed to start 12 games in 7 of his final 14 seasons. He averaged 10 games played a year for his career.

 
I voted McNabb because Cunningham is 47 years old. :thumbup:Seriously, though... everyone's talking about several of Cunningham's great seasons, but McNabb's 2002 season was as amazing as anything Cunningham ever did, imo. Over 16 games, his numbers pro-rate to 3660 yards passing, 27 TDs, 10 INTs, and another 736/10 rushing. With a receiving corps of Todd Pinkston and James Thrash, and with Duce Staley as his RB.Cunningham was a better QB at his peak, but health is a skill, too, and Cunningham only managed to start 12 games in 7 of his final 14 seasons. He averaged 10 games played a year for his career.
Not quite apples to apples. Cunningham was one of the most sacked QBs behind a terrible O-line. He was sacked 422 times in 122 games and McNabb has 65 less in 26 more games. Cunningham suffered five 50+ sack season including the highest sack total on record at the time (72 in 1986). He has been sacked about 3.5 times a game in his career, while McNabb averages just 2.5. All those sacks lend themselves to more injuries.Also we shouldn't just Cunningham based on his back end of his career, since he's older and McNabb hasn't gotten old yet.For their first 9 seasons, Cunningham was in 109 games fro age 23-31. McNabb played 118 games over the same age and period.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not quite apples to apples. Cunningham was one of the most sacked QBs behind a terrible O-line. He was sacked 422 times in 122 games and McNabb has 65 less in 26 more games. Cunningham suffered five 50+ sack season including the highest sack total on record at the time (72 in 1986). He has been sacked about 3.5 times a game in his career, while McNabb averages just 2.5. All those sacks lend themselves to more injuries.Also we shouldn't just Cunningham based on his back end of his career, since he's older and McNabb hasn't gotten old yet.For their first 9 seasons, Cunningham was in 109 games fro age 23-31. McNabb played 118 games over the same age and period.
There's plenty of data demonstrating that QBs are every bit as responsible for their sack totals as the offensive lines are, so you can't say "give Randall Cunningham a pass, he got injured because he got sacked so much" when it's partly Cunningham's fault that he got sacked so much.That 23-31 age range also screams of gerrymandering cutoffs. It includes McNabb's rookie season (when he missed games for reasons entirely unrelated to injury) while excluding Cunningham's. And why did you stop at 31? Did it have anything to do with the fact that age 31 was Cunningham's last healthy season in Philly?Toss out both QBs' rookie seasons (where they both missed time for reasons unrelated to injury), and they each played 10 years in Philly. In McNabb's 10 seasons, he appeared in 136 games, starting every single one. In Cunningham's 10 seasons, he appeared in 116 games, starting 104 of them. That's an extra 2 games a year, on average, that Cunningham missed. I'd rather have 13.6 games of McNabb than 11.6 games of Cunningham. And that's completely ignoring the fact that Cunningham missed double digit games in 4 of his 5 seasons after leaving Philly.
 
Not quite apples to apples. Cunningham was one of the most sacked QBs behind a terrible O-line. He was sacked 422 times in 122 games and McNabb has 65 less in 26 more games. Cunningham suffered five 50+ sack season including the highest sack total on record at the time (72 in 1986). He has been sacked about 3.5 times a game in his career, while McNabb averages just 2.5. All those sacks lend themselves to more injuries.Also we shouldn't just Cunningham based on his back end of his career, since he's older and McNabb hasn't gotten old yet.For their first 9 seasons, Cunningham was in 109 games fro age 23-31. McNabb played 118 games over the same age and period.
There's plenty of data demonstrating that QBs are every bit as responsible for their sack totals as the offensive lines are, so you can't say "give Randall Cunningham a pass, he got injured because he got sacked so much" when it's partly Cunningham's fault that he got sacked so much.That 23-31 age range also screams of gerrymandering cutoffs. It includes McNabb's rookie season (when he missed games for reasons entirely unrelated to injury) while excluding Cunningham's. And why did you stop at 31? Did it have anything to do with the fact that age 31 was Cunningham's last healthy season in Philly?Toss out both QBs' rookie seasons (where they both missed time for reasons unrelated to injury), and they each played 10 years in Philly. In McNabb's 10 seasons, he appeared in 136 games, starting every single one. In Cunningham's 10 seasons, he appeared in 116 games, starting 104 of them. That's an extra 2 games a year, on average, that Cunningham missed. I'd rather have 13.6 games of McNabb than 11.6 games of Cunningham. And that's completely ignoring the fact that Cunningham missed double digit games in 4 of his 5 seasons after leaving Philly.
Slice it up however you like - it is clear both lost time due to injury. Anyone who watched the Eagles over the past 30 years would definitely say that Randall was hung out to dry behind a bad O-line much more often than McNabb. We're comparing players of different eras. The OP asked who you would rather have - and I give the nod to Randall on an even playing field - same coaching, same lines, same receivers.Either way this is an opinion debate. Cunningham was a better talent and had more potential than McNabb. I'd say that McNabb had more pro-style talent when he first came in the league and he matured into a solid QB as an Eagle. Cunningham had more raw talent that was never tapped due to a lack of coaching.
 
Slice it up however you like - it is clear both lost time due to injury. Anyone who watched the Eagles over the past 30 years would definitely say that Randall was hung out to dry behind a bad O-line much more often than McNabb. We're comparing players of different eras. The OP asked who you would rather have - and I give the nod to Randall on an even playing field - same coaching, same lines, same receivers.

Either way this is an opinion debate. Cunningham was a better talent and had more potential than McNabb. I'd say that McNabb had more pro-style talent when he first came in the league and he matured into a solid QB as an Eagle. Cunningham had more raw talent that was never tapped due to a lack of coaching.
I'm old enough, and lucky enough I suppose, to have watched both QB's during their careers here in Philly. I voted Cunningham - given a level playing field with the same coaching, lines and players.I've mentioned it before in a thread somewhere (not sure if it was a McNabb thread or one of the Eagles threads) but I've always felt that the biggest mistake Buddy Ryan ever made as HC of the Eagles was not hiring a new QB coach for Randall after Doug Scovil passed away in 1989. Randall is on record stating that the loss of Scovil was one of the toughest things he had to deal with early in his career. The lack of a replacement most definitely contributed to his lack of continued development as a pro QB.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top