Dell's Pointless Lists - Greatest Black Quarterbacks

[dell71]

There was a reason why Moon never made it to Super Bowls. The offensive philosophy made good defensive teams bad, and bad defenses look awful. And I'm not talking about who they played, but the defense they were playing with. The year they were up 35-3 against the Bills at half, they ended up throwing the ball 50 times vs 20 runs. Even Andy Reed shakes his head at that. He put up numbers that McNabb will never come close to. McNabb at 32 yrs old is closing out his career. At 32 Warren was in the process of writing his hall of fame resume. Again I'm an Eagles fan and I am still holding out hope the McNabb will bring a championship.

This sounds good in theory, but there simply is no truth to this. The Oilers are generally credited with using the run & shoot from 1990 to about '94. This of course includes the massive meltdown they had against the Bills in the playoffs that you & Senser already went over. Their defensive ranks for those years:

Yr.             Rush Def.   Pass Def.   Overall
1990             8th             14th        14th
1991             6th             14th        6th
1992             9th              3rd        9th
1993             1st             23rd        4th
1994            28th              2nd        21st

You can see that for the first 4 seasons they used the run & shoot, their defense ranked in the top half of the league and in the top 10 three of those seasons. By the time they did have a bad defense, Moon had moved on to Minnesota in '94. BTW, he played with the 13th ranked defense that year (they were #1 against the run, holding opponents to a ridiculous 3.1 ypc). At some point, you can't say that it was "just" everyone else's fault, he never won anything.

By the same token, you can't say that it's "just" everyone else getting McNabb to conference championship games (or "just" everyone else's fault he lost 4 of them). And how do you know for sure that at age 32, McNabb is "closing out his career?" Moon played until he was 44. Brett Favre is still going at 40 and there's a pretty good sized list of QBs that played until their late 30s.

 

[Senser81]

You can see that for the first 4 seasons they used the run & shoot, their defense ranked in the top half of the league and in the top 10 three of those seasons. By the time they did have a bad defense, Moon had moved on to Minnesota in '94. BTW, he played with the 13th ranked defense that year (they were #1 against the run, holding opponents to a ridiculous 3.1 ypc). At some point, you can't say that it was "just" everyone else's fault, he never won anything.

By the same token, you can't say that it's "just" everyone else getting McNabb to conference championship games (or "just" everyone else's fault he lost 4 of them). And how do you know for sure that at age 32, McNabb is "closing out his career?" Moon played until he was 44. Brett Favre is still going at 40 and there's a pretty good sized list of QBs that played until their late 30s.

Its a bit of a misnomer to criticize Moon for his lack of postseason success...and then post regular season D stats. In the Bills game, Houston's defense gave up 41 points...I don't see how you can knock Moon for that. I remember watching a playoff game in 1989 where Moon tore up the Steelers defense...but the inept Steelers offense marched up and down the field with Bubby Brister completing ducks to Derek Hill and Mark Stock. The game was tied 23-23 at the end of regulation. Lorenzo White fumbles, and the Steelers kick the game-winning FG. Again, is that Moon's fault?

As with all of Jerry Glanville's teams, they could destroy bad teams but they would crumble against any team that could put up resistance. This gave them problems in the playoffs.

Moon's points scored in playoff losses: 10, 10, 23, 24, 38, 20, 18.

Avg pts in loss: 20.4
Rating: 84.9

McNabb's points scored in playoff losses: 10, 24, 10, 3, 21, 25

Avg pts in loss: 15.5
Rating: 80.8

 

[dell71]

Its a bit of a misnomer to criticize Moon for his lack of postseason success...and then post regular season D stats. In the Bills game, Houston's defense gave up 41 points...I don't see how you can knock Moon for that. I remember watching a playoff game in 1989 where Moon tore up the Steelers defense...but the inept Steelers offense marched up and down the field with Bubby Brister completing ducks to Derek Hill and Mark Stock. The game was tied 23-23 at the end of regulation. Lorenzo White fumbles, and the Steelers kick the game-winning FG. Again, is that Moon's fault?

As with all of Jerry Glanville's teams, they could destroy bad teams but they would crumble against any team that could put up resistance. This gave them problems in the playoffs.

Moon's points scored in playoff losses: 10, 10, 23, 24, 38, 20, 18.

Avg pts in loss: 20.4
Rating: 84.9

McNabb's points scored in playoff losses: 10, 24, 10, 3, 21, 25

Avg pts in loss: 15.5
Rating: 80.8

I posted the regular season D stats to show that just because they used the run & shoot doesn't mean they had bad defenses as shag suggested. Quite to the contrary, they had pretty good defenses.

And I don't mean to blame Moon for all of their playoff shortcomings but to say that with all of those failures, he can't be completely absolved of fault. Yes, he did have great playoff games. In fact, he's statistically better in playoff losses than wins. But he also had some stinkers. And so has McNabb, he's been downright horrible in most of the playoff games they lost. But to show that McNabb's teams scored fewer points in their playoff losses than Moon's is to ignore what McNabb did in playoff wins. And he has 9 of them, against 6 losses while Moon was just 3-7.

In playoff wins:

Moon: 65/98 - 757 yards - 4 td - 5 int - 81.9 rating

McNabb: 190/300 - 2095 yards - 15 td - 6 int - 92.3 rating


In playoff losses:

Moon: 194/305 - 2113 - 13 td - 9 int - 85.9 rating

McNabb: 132/240 - 1427 - 8 - 10 int - 66.4 rating


Obviously Moon has been better in playoff losses, but in their wins he was not as big a factor as he should've been. He was downright average. Conversely, McNabb far outperformed what he does in the regular season in games they won, and has won at least one playoff game every time his team has made it to the post-season.

Give me the guy who's almost guaranteed to give me at least one good post-season performance and normally doesn't turn the ball over as opposed to the guy who might pile up yardage & have a higher comp % but still might throw a pick or two - even when he's playing good. While both threw more than a pick a game in their post-season losses, Moon also does this in his wins. Taking that back to the regular season, Moon has the advantage of finishing top 10 in td passes 9 times to McNabb's four but he also finished top 10 (or bottom 10 depending on your pov) in interceptions thrown 8 times. The next time McNabb does this will be the first as he's never thrown more than 13 ints in any season.

 

[Senser81]

Give me the guy who's almost guaranteed to give me at least one good post-season performance and normally doesn't turn the ball over as opposed to the guy who might pile up yardage & have a higher comp % but still might throw a pick or two - even when he's playing good. While both threw more than a pick a game in their post-season losses, Moon also does this in his wins. Taking that back to the regular season, Moon has the advantage of finishing top 10 in td passes 9 times to McNabb's four but he also finished top 10 (or bottom 10 depending on your pov) in interceptions thrown 8 times. The next time McNabb does this will be the first as he's never thrown more than 13 ints in any season.

Again, you throw all these stats out there which are only tangentially relevant, and in the end you conclude with 'give me McNabb over Moon'. Which I say is ridiculous, just from having seen both of them play for their entire careers.

You make it seem like Moon fumbled away every snap to make the Oilers lose in the playoffs. If you look at their losses, Moon would be throwing 50 times a game and he might have 1 INT, 2 INTs AT MOST. Look at McNabb...he's throwing 3 INTs in only 22 attempts.

Also, the Oilers defense would completely collapse. Look at the Bills game. Look at the Broncos game when they gave up two long drives to Elway at the end of regulation and in OT. Even the 1989 Steelers game was a fiasco, because the Steelers had the worst offense of any playoff team in history. I don't see how this can be overlooked when your sole rationale for picking McNabb over Moon is because Moon didn't win in the postseason.

McNabb came up short in a lot of postseason games in which he could and/or should have won. There defense played tremendous against the 2001 Rams, but McNabb couldn't even average 5 YPA. McNabb laid an egg the next year at home against TB. McNabb was dreadful against a mediocre Panthers team in 2003, when all Carolina could do was muster 14 points. We all remember the barfing against the Pats. Then last year, the Eagles once again were beaten in the NFC Championship by an inferior team.

 

[dell71]

Again, you throw all these stats out there which are only tangentially relevant, and in the end you conclude with 'give me McNabb over Moon'. Which I say is ridiculous, just from having seen both of them play for their entire careers.

You make it seem like Moon fumbled away every snap to make the Oilers lose in the playoffs. If you look at their losses, Moon would be throwing 50 times a game and he might have 1 INT, 2 INTs AT MOST. Look at McNabb...he's throwing 3 INTs in only 22 attempts.

Also, the Oilers defense would completely collapse. Look at the Bills game. Look at the Broncos game when they gave up two long drives to Elway at the end of regulation and in OT. Even the 1989 Steelers game was a fiasco, because the Steelers had the worst offense of any playoff team in history. I don't see how this can be overlooked when your sole rationale for picking McNabb over Moon is because Moon didn't win in the postseason.

McNabb came up short in a lot of postseason games in which he could and/or should have won. There defense played tremendous against the 2001 Rams, but McNabb couldn't even average 5 YPA. McNabb laid an egg the next year at home against TB. McNabb was dreadful against a mediocre Panthers team in 2003, when all Carolina could do was muster 14 points. We all remember the barfing against the Pats. Then last year, the Eagles once again were beaten in the NFC Championship by an inferior team.

Again, I'm not saying Moon was totally at fault. I even admitted he played well in a number of playoff games and that McNabb had his share of crappy ones. But the fact is, McNabb also had quite a few playoff gems which you're completely ignoring. You're also ignoring the fact both the '03 Panthers and last year's Cardinals very nearly won the SuperBowls they played in despite both being solid 'dogs, losing by a combined 7 points so its not as if the teams they lost to didn't prove themselves worthy of making the SB. And it could certainly be argued that the Eagles themselves shouldn't have made it as far as they did, last season.

And I would hardly say the Eagles defense played "tremendous" against the '01 Rams or that McNabb completely laid an egg. That defense allowed Marshall Faulk to gain 159 yards on the ground and score twice, Kurt Warner to complete 2/3 of his passes and a score, while only getting to him once (for a mere 2 yard sack). They didn't force a turnover and gave up 29 points. McNabb could've played better but he threw for a score and ran for one while throwing a pick. And while he was short of 6 ypa, he did surpass 5 (171 yards on 30 attempts).

As far as the '02 NFCC game against Tampa, let's not pretend that Tampa's D wasn't awesome & completely on a roll by the time the playoffs came around. They shut out the Bears in the reg season finale, then held the 49ers to 6 in their first playoff game, the Eagles to 6 in this game & went on to destroy Oakland in the SB.

 

[Senser81]

Again, I'm not saying Moon was totally at fault. I even admitted he played well in a number of playoff games and that McNabb had his share of crappy ones. But the fact is, McNabb also had quite a few playoff gems which you're completely ignoring. You're also ignoring the fact both the '03 Panthers and last year's Cardinals very nearly won the SuperBowls they played in despite both being solid 'dogs, losing by a combined 7 points so its not as if the teams they lost to didn't prove themselves worthy of making the SB. And it could certainly be argued that the Eagles themselves shouldn't have made it as far as they did, last season.

And I would hardly say the Eagles defense played "tremendous" against the '01 Rams or that McNabb completely laid an egg. That defense allowed Marshall Faulk to gain 159 yards on the ground and score twice, Kurt Warner to complete 2/3 of his passes and a score, while only getting to him once (for a mere 2 yard sack). They didn't force a turnover and gave up 29 points. McNabb could've played better but he threw for a score and ran for one while throwing a pick. And while he was short of 6 ypa, he did surpass 5 (171 yards on 30 attempts).

As far as the '02 NFCC game against Tampa, let's not pretend that Tampa's D wasn't awesome & completely on a roll by the time the playoffs came around. They shut out the Bears in the reg season finale, then held the 49ers to 6 in their first playoff game, the Eagles to 6 in this game & went on to destroy Oakland in the SB.

So, your argument is that McNabb is better than Moon because the 2002 Tampa Bay Bucaneers shut out the Bears in the regular season finale.

Again, tangential relevance earns you no bonus points.

 

[dell71]

So, your argument is that McNabb is better than Moon because the 2002 Tampa Bay Bucaneers shut out the Bears in the regular season finale.

Again, tangential relevance earns you no bonus points.

???

My argument is that McNabb has a 9-6 post-season record and played excellently in those 9 wins while Moon has a 3-7 record and only played well in 3, maybe 4 of those 10 games. When the competition is at its stiffest, McNabb has been a more consistent performer. I don't see how showing that he threw 15 tds against 6 ints with 90+ rating in his playoff wins is only tangentially relevant when you yourself used the even less relevant stat that Moon's teams averaged more points in their playoff losses than McNabb's.

I only mentioned the '02 Bucs & the '01 Rams because you specifically pointed out those games as examples of McNabb basically blowing it when that's not the case. At the same time, you've made numerous ways to excuse Moon for his losses but not credit McNabb for his wins.

If you wanted to boil my argument down to one game, then because the '02 Bucs won the SB by destroying Oakland and very clearly proving they were the best team in football would've been a better choice.

 

[Senser81]

???

My argument is that McNabb has a 9-6 post-season record and played excellently in those 9 wins while Moon has a 3-7 record and only played well in 3, maybe 4 of those 10 games. When the competition is at its stiffest, McNabb has been a more consistent performer. I don't see how showing that he threw 15 tds against 6 ints with 90+ rating in his playoff wins is only tangentially relevant when you yourself used the even less relevant stat that Moon's teams averaged more points in their playoff losses than McNabb's.

I only mentioned the '02 Bucs & the '01 Rams because you specifically pointed out those games as examples of McNabb basically blowing it when that's not the case. At the same time, you've made numerous ways to excuse Moon for his losses but not credit McNabb for his wins.

If you wanted to boil my argument down to one game, then because the '02 Bucs won the SB by destroying Oakland and very clearly proving they were the best team in football would've been a better choice.

Moon CLEARLY is the better regular season QB. Statistically speaking, Moon is also better than McNabb in the playoffs. Moon is in the HOF, there is a 95% chance McNabb won't be in the HOF. The only thing that McNabb has over Moon is a couple more postseason wins. You act as if McNabb is the NFC's answer to Tom Brady. He isn't. IMO, he hasn't distinguished himself at all in the playoffs. Its very similar to this overall career...a couple great games, several nondescript games, and a few games that he lost which were easily winnable.

 

[ram29jackson]

That's because the only black QB to win a superbowl, wasn't even as good as Trent Dilfer.

Are you saying Dilfer and Williams werent Good QBs?

Lets see,..they played in the Pro's and were successful on winning teams. That basically means they were good. Very good .

 

[ram29jackson]

Moon CLEARLY is the better regular season QB. Statistically speaking, Moon is also better than McNabb in the playoffs. Moon is in the HOF, there is a 95% chance McNabb won't be in the HOF. The only thing that McNabb has over Moon is a couple more postseason wins. You act as if McNabb is the NFC's answer to Tom Brady. He isn't. IMO, he hasn't distinguished himself at all in the playoffs. Its very similar to this overall career...a couple great games, several nondescript games, and a few games that he lost which were easily winnable.

McNabb wont be a first ballot guy. But He will more than likely be in the hall of fame.

 

[Archer]

Are you saying Dilfer and Williams werent Good QBs?

Lets see,..they played in the Pro's and were successful on winning teams. That basically means they were good. Very good .

You are kidding right? Dilfer and Williams were both below average . The Ravens never won because of Dilfer . All he had to do was "not make mistakes" and the Ravens D and run offense would do the rest

 

[Nukleopatra]

Are you saying Dilfer and Williams werent Good QBs?

Lets see,..they played in the Pro's and were successful on winning teams. That basically means they were good. Very good .

Doug Williams had an 0-2 record before playing in that superbowl game. The guy wasn't good, he wasn't even decent.. He was one of the most ignorant sports figures in history. He finished below .500, he didn't even reach 50% completion %, and he was black. He sucked almost as much as Marlin Briscoe.

Blow me.... but if this post is indeed sarcasm - Well played.

 

[ram29jackson]

You are kidding right? Dilfer and Williams were both below average . The Ravens never won because of Dilfer . All he had to do was "not make mistakes" and the Ravens D and run offense would do the rest

Anyone who actually plays/played in the Nfl would disagree with you . There is no such thing as a QB who just manages the game. You are either good enough to start in the league or you are not. Granted, because of parity there are plenty of sub par starters now in my opinion. But you still have to do most things well to play / start in the NFL.

Dilfer wasnt just some -yes- man in the huddle. Once he became the starter for Ravens. You dont become a Superbowl champion with just a game manager.

 

[Archer]

Anyone who actually plays/played in the Nfl would disagree with you . There is no such thing as a QB who just manages the game. You are either good enough to start in the league or you are not. Granted, because of parity there are plenty of sub par starters now in my opinion. But you still have to do most things well to play / start in the NFL.

Dilfer wasnt just some -yes- man in the huddle. Once he became the starter for Ravens. You dont become a Superbowl champion with just a game manager.

You aren't seriously comparing NFL QBs to every day normal people??? well of course every NFL QB is talented compared to me and you at home but I am obviously comparing them to people doing the same job at the same level (QB - NFL) . And when you do that ... Trent Dilfer is below average .

 

[ram29jackson]

Doug Williams had an 0-2 record before playing in that superbowl game. The guy wasn't good, he wasn't even decent.. He was one of the most ignorant sports figures in history. He finished below .500, he didn't even reach 50% completion %, and he was black. He sucked almost as much as Marlin Briscoe.

Blow me.... but if this post is indeed sarcasm - Well played.

first off- youre avatar gives me the willies haha and heres why haha

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPMn__VKWPI&feature=fvwe1"]YouTube - Dead or Alive - Lover come back to me (Extended Version)[/ame]

it reminds me of that vid

not good ? not decent? The Redskins were 0-2. not just him. Yes, his career wasnt that great,but, football, being a team game you cant blame it all on him.

I just think its rediculous to call someone bad, whom played in the playoffs and Superbowl and won.

haha keep in mind also, Williams and Dilfer had some of their earlier careers sucked away from them thanks to the Buc's front office and coaching ineptness in those earlier days.

 

[Nukleopatra]

I just think its rediculous to call someone bad, whom played in the playoffs and Superbowl and won.

haha keep in mind also, Williams and Dilfer had some of their earlier careers sucked away from them thanks to the Buc's front office and coaching ineptness in those earlier days.

Trent Dilfer threw 113 TDs, and 129 INTs in his career, with a QB rating of 70.

And just for the record, Dilfer even referred to himself as a game manager, so it's not as if people are just pulling this shit out of the air. He had 12 TDs and 11 INTs during that superbowl season. You really can't blame the teams for this, since Kurt Warner lead two of the worst organizations in sports history to the superbowl. So, it is possible to turn an organization around, with a great quarterback.

As for Doug Williams - TB went 10-6 back in '79, with Williams having a whopping QB rating of 52.4. His dumb ass couldn't even game manage the right way.

 

[ram29jackson]

Trent Dilfer threw 113 TDs, and 129 INTs in his career, with a QB rating of 70.

And just for the record, Dilfer even referred to himself as a game manager, so it's not as if people are just pulling this shit out of the air. He had 12 TDs and 11 INTs during that superbowl season. You really can't blame the teams for this, since Kurt Warner lead two of the worst organizations in sports history to the superbowl. So, it is possible to turn an organization around, with a great quarterback.

As for Doug Williams - TB went 10-6 back in '79, with Williams having a whopping QB rating of 52.4. His dumb ass couldn't even game manage the right way.

when Dilfer said -game manager- it wasnt the way you interpret it. He said it as a tongue in cheek reference. Think about it, no NFL QB thinks to himself- i'm a game manager-

they are commanders of the huddle who have to know playbooks and audibles.

-you bring up the only good year tampa had in that stretch- they were an inept organization up until the battles with philly in the playoffs.

you give Warner too much credit- the rams werent bad that year- yes they had Warner- but that was the culmination of 3 years of being taught and conditioned by a great coach plus Warners arm.

my thing in all of this is looking at the whole picture. Calling anyone bad or sub par who went to- played in- and won a Superbowl is just alot of pointless fodder

 

[Nukleopatra]

you give Warner too much credit- the rams werent bad that year- yes they had Warner- but that was the culmination of 3 years of being taught and conditioned by a great coach plus Warners arm.

my thing in all of this is looking at the whole picture. Calling anyone bad or sub par who went to- played in- and won a Superbowl is just alot of pointless fodder

The Rams were 4-10 with Tony Banks (black) the previous year. 4-12 overall.

Yeah. I give Warner too much credit.

 

[ram29jackson]

The Rams were 4-10 with Tony Banks (black) the previous year. 4-12 overall.

Yeah. I give Warner too much credit.

haha , I aint complaining. I'm a Rams and Warner fan here in Southern California- still waiting for a team to be a homer of haha