Donovan McNabb and the Hall of Fame

[Senser81]

Nice stats. Dink was LJ Smith and Dunk was Brian Westbrook right? You're overlooking the fact that McNabb has one of the best deep balls in the league, but was given no one on the outside. James Thrash was decent I guess. Pinkston was horrible. Ever since he got lit up by Sean Taylor that one time he would drop everything if anyone was within a football field of him. The first good receiver he got was T.O. and we saw what they did in their first game. As someone pointed out on the last page, the Eagles were set up to be more of a dink-and-dunk passing team. They had the defense and they had the running game to win most ball games (not saying that they were a run-first team because obviously they were far from it, but they had the ability to run the ball effectively and they could put the ball in Westbrook's hands out of the backfield and move the chains). They relied on McNabb to make a couple of homerun type plays every game be it with his feet or his arm that would get them the separation they needed to win. The Eagles didn't fully utilize him.

You basically wrote a big excuse. I overlooked that McNabb had one of the best deep balls in the league, he just never completed them. I overlooked that McNabb would make homerun plays, the Eagles just didn't utilize him. So I am overlooking things that never happened in the first place. Got it.

Outside of his rookie season, McNabb had only 1 year which could be considered pedestrian. That was 2003. The Eagles still went to the NFC Championship game. That's with an injury-riddled career. Before you point out 2005 when he had a poor (for McNabb) TD-Int ratio (16 TDs to 9 int), keep in mind he was on pace for 28 touchdowns and 4,500 yards that season.

His single-season numbers are good, not great. His yardage totals were always low. His QB rating was above-average, but never great. His numbers were good, but they were pedestrian compared to other great QBs of his era.

He didn't reach 4,000, but like I said the Eagles weren't really set up for him to do that. Once he got DeSean Jackson on the outside, even in recent years as he's starting to become "washed-up", he got very close (might have made it his last year in Philly had he played those 2 games). It was dink-and-dunk to LJ and Westbrook though because that's how Andy Reid and the Eagles wanted it. You want him to put up gaudy numbers with no one on the outside. Just because Tom Brady can do it and McNabb couldn't (his stats are still very good), doesn't make McNabb a pedestrian QB. Brady's in that running for GOAT. Philly constantly started 3rd and 4th options on the outside during McNabb's tenure.

He didn't reach 4000. He rarely reached 3500. Those are facts.

I don't know why you would throw in that statement that he would rather run than force a pass.

It wasn't a knock on him. It partly explained his low INT totals. Hard to throw an INT on a play when you run.

I responded to this in the last part, but just wanted to quote it. Those guys were short yardage, accurate game managers. As was Jeff Garcia. It worked in Philly because that's how they set it up. Their starting QB was the opposite though. So you can call that great coaching because Reid ran a system that could survive without his injury-plagued QB, but you can also call that bad coaching (and bad personnel movements) in that they didn't fully utilize their franchise QB.

My point had nothing to do with the alleged under-utilization of McNabb. It had to do with the overall strength of the Eagles at that time. They were a good team. FWIW, McNabb led the Eagles only twice in "approximate value". They had guys like Brian Dawkins, Hugh Douglas, Brian Westbrook, etc. who were very good players in their own right. They could win games with Koy Detmer if they had to.

[The Messenger]

You basically wrote a big excuse. I overlooked that McNabb had one of the best deep balls in the league, he just never completed them. I overlooked that McNabb would make homerun plays, the Eagles just didn't utilize him. So I am overlooking things that never happened in the first place. Got it.



His single-season numbers are good, not great. His yardage totals were always low. His QB rating was above-average, but never great. His numbers were good, but they were pedestrian compared to other great QBs of his era.



He didn't reach 4000. He rarely reached 3500. Those are facts.



It wasn't a knock on him. It partly explained his low INT totals. Hard to throw an INT on a play when you run.



My point had nothing to do with the alleged under-utilization of McNabb. It had to do with the overall strength of the Eagles at that time. They were a good team. FWIW, McNabb led the Eagles only twice in "approximate value". They had guys like Brian Dawkins, Hugh Douglas, Brian Westbrook, etc. who were very good players in their own right. They could win games with Koy Detmer if they had to.

Something like that.

I think the points I made were very valid. You just see them as excuses. Therefore there's really no point in debating it anymore. I'll just say that I believe your line of thinking is very black-and-white. I'm more of a grey person.

[Senser81]

Something like that.

I think the points I made were very valid. You just see them as excuses. Therefore there's really no point in debating it anymore. I'll just say that I believe your line of thinking is very black-and-white. I'm more of a grey person.

I'm not disagreeing with any of your points. They are all true. I just don't see how relevant they are to discussing a player's HOF potential. If McNabb makes it to Canton, will his plaque read "Threw the best deep ball in NFL history that no one caught"?

[The Messenger]

I'm not disagreeing with any of your points. They are all true. I just don't see how relevant they are to discussing a player's HOF potential. If McNabb makes it to Canton, will his plaque read "Threw the best deep ball in NFL history that no one caught"?

I responded to your post that responded to mine. My original post was not making a case for him being in Canton (I said he shouldn't be in the HOF). I was just pointing out that other posters here were giving him very little credit.

I was also responding to you using the word "pedestrian". Statistically, maybe. However, you're still saying that statistically speaking he was nothing special, I don't fully agree with that. On the field though, I think he was far from pedestrian.