Donovan McNabb and the Hall of Fame

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Ken Anderson is considered widely to be the "best QB not in the Hall of Fame" (IMO, its actually Phil Simms, but whatever, moot point) and I think its a nice litmus test to determine if a QB is Hall of Fame worthy (is QB A better than Ken Anderson?).

However, IMO, at this moment, McNabb (IMO, a better QB than Anderson) will be the new standard for best QB not to get into the Hall of Fame.

Best of the rest. About as borderline as you get at QB. Probably the John Brodie of his era.

Thoughts here?

Is McNabb a Hall of Famer? If not, is he that "best of the rest" QB or does he come somewhere outside of it. Where do you place him historically amongst QBs?

 

[Saluki]

Depends on how he ends his career. Right now he's flirting with being in the top 10 all-time in most major Passing stats, and he's got a 62% winning percentage under his belt. If he can finish out his career strong, maybe make another Superbowl i could see him getting into the HOF, not as a 1st ballot or anything, but eventually.

 

[G-men]

I think he will get in just because he was the third best quarterback in a decade (behind Manning and Brady). The lack of great quarterbacks of the past decade should help his chances.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I think he will get in just because he was the third best quarterback in a decade (behind Manning and Brady). The lack of great quarterbacks of the past decade should help his chances.

Breesus and Slim Roethlisberger.

 

[G-men]

Breesus and Slim Roethlisberger.

Brees didn't put up superstar numbers until he was with the Saints and Roethlisberger is like Terry Bradshaw. He's the above average quarterback on Super Bowl winning teams. If that puts him in the Hall of Fame than so be it.

 

[FirstTimer]

I say he gets in.

Do you I think he should?..........Meh, I could either way on the subject.

 

[Acesuper]

He is playing in a decade that has witnessed some of the all time greatest QB's to ever play the game. Statistically and simple on the field. His stats are up there. Shoe in, but debatable on first ballot based off situational moments. And he is a black QB. But I'm not sure if racism exist now a days. So I could be talking out of the 1950's.

 

[Diivox]

If he finished his career in philly, he could have gotten in after a few ballots even without a ring. if he got the ring, he would have been first ballot. but since neither of these things have happened, alot is going to depend on what he does in Minnesota. Washington is one of the worst run organizations in the NFL right now so I have a feeling the hall will give him a pass if he can do something with the Vikings before he calls it a career. I do not think he is a hall of famer if he cant at least get a couple of deep playoff runs in (and even thats a stretch, I really do think he needs a superbowl ring).

 

[G-men]

If he finished his career in philly, he could have gotten in after a few ballots even without a ring. if he got the ring, he would have been first ballot. but since neither of these things have happened, alot is going to depend on what he does in Minnesota. Washington is one of the worst run organizations in the NFL right now so I have a feeling the hall will give him a pass if he can do something with the Vikings before he calls it a career. I do not think he is a hall of famer if he cant at least get a couple of deep playoff runs in (and even thats a stretch, I really do think he needs a superbowl ring).

You are extremely narrow-minded if you think that these next couple years are what are gonna make or break it for him being in the Hall of Fame. His best days are behind him, that's just a fact. The only way his last few years will affect his stock is if he does in fact with a Super Bowl, which is highly unlikely at this point. Voters will be looking at his years in Philly in the early 2000s when he was one of the best quarterbacks in the game leading one of the best teams in the league. His time in Minnesota means almost nothing on whether he is in or not. No voter should be swayed on their opinion of McNabb because of the last few years of his career.

 

[red33]

no. really? i bet there are other QBs out there that put 3 seasons or so that match mcnabbs and they arent in.

was he ever considered the best QB of his time at any point?

 

[Shayn•Da•Pain]

Stop it. Stop it right now.

Did he show HOF caliber potential for a time, yes. I think if he does get in, he'll have to wait longer than most QB's, and he's really got to make a late career comeback/push IMO. It's just not likely.

He never got a ring.

He never lead the NFL in any significant stat category.

Never threw for 4,000 yards in a decade when we saw forty six 4,000 yard seasons.

His most efficient year in terms of completion percentage was in 2004, 64%. He had the 10th best percentage that year, damn near the middle of the pack for starting QB's that season.

Hell, Seneca Wallace has a higher career passing percentage than McNabb. Jason Campbell has a higher career passing percentage.

His best year for yardage was in 2008, when he was 7th in passing.

He's 4th in active career passing yardage, and he'll never see the top spot here. When Brees and Brady both pass him up in career yardage next year, he'll be 6th, and falling.

I don't see any leg a McNabb HOF supporter can firmly stand on. Winning percentage? Vick and company showed they could live without him, no problem. Playoffs? Made the conference championship 5 years in a row, very nice. He also lost 4 out of 5 of those championship games, and was 4-6 in TD-INT ratio in those NFC championships. 175 passing average in those games. He wasn't exactly the model of a winner.

HOF QB's are either stat whores, or they win championships. McNabb was neither. Just another very good QB who I think will go down in infamy, not in the Hall of Fame.

 

[Aso]

No..

 

[Diivox]

You are extremely narrow-minded if you think that these next couple years are what are gonna make or break it for him being in the Hall of Fame.

I think if there was ever a situation where these next couple of years make or break someones candidacy, McNabb is it. Without a strong finish to his career, he's a system QB. he's a glorified Trent Dilfer who was in the right place at the right time. Andy Reid is regarded as one of the best quarterback guys in the business. Without a strong finish, his stats come from playing in Philly for that coach. If he can get a few playoff runs throwing to Percy Harvin for the 50% of games he doesnt have a migraine, he displays that it was at least as much his skill as it was the playcalling.

His best days are behind him, that's just a fact.

Agreed completely, pretty much every post I made in the thread about the trade makes this argument, no need to elaborate here.

The only way his last few years will affect his stock is if he does in fact with a Super Bowl,

(and even thats a stretch, I really do think he needs a superbowl ring).

which is highly unlikely at this point. Voters will be looking at his years in Philly in the early 2000s when he was one of the best quarterbacks in the game leading one of the best teams in the league. His time in Minnesota means almost nothing on whether he is in or not. No voter should be swayed on their opinion of McNabb because of the last few years of his career.

bottom line is those years in philly mean nothing unless he finishes his career strong. those years support Andy Reid's candidacy if McNabb fails spectacularly in Minny. When Reid retires, if McNabb sucks it up with the Vikings, we'll all go "look at the numbers he got out of McNabb, who was awful elsewhere".

A ring wearing the horned helmet locks him in. a couple deep playoff runs makes it an argument. being benched by week 10 for Christian Ponder means he really was the most overhyped QB of his generation (if he isnt already)

*EDIT* just for the sake of an interesting thread, check out his career stats. I believe stats mean absolutely jack and shit to actual football, but some people put more emphasis on them than I do, and looking at them, they really arent that bad.

60% completion, 3500 yards, better than 2:1 TD:INT just a season removed? you could definitely do alot worse (although as i stated in the other thread, it was an awful move given the other options for Minnesota, however, I'm simply posting the image for reference for those who post after me)

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

McNabb is going to compile a lot of pretty stats in the yardage and TD categories, but when watching him play I never, ever felt like I was watching a HOF level player.

He had one dominant season (2004), which was also the only season of his career where you could make a reasonable argument that he was the best QB in the league (and you would still lose the argument).

His lifetime completion percentage is under 60% in an era where 60% isn't even spectacular.

And no, he isn't as good as Ken Anderson. Anderson was more accurate (in a much tougher era for accuracy), leading the league in completion percentage multiple times (including a season over 70%!). Anderson led the league in passer rating multiple times, cracking 90+ in an era where that was far from routine. Anderson was alomst as good with his feet too, rushing for 2200 yards and 20 scores.

Anderson was a better player, so if he is the bar, McNabb falls short.

I vote no. But I think he will get in. He's not nearly as good as his rep, and never really was.

 

[Houston]

Too inconsistent.

 

[Champ]

Nope. He sucks. Worst intermediate passer i have ever seen. Always hit his WRs in the feet.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Nope. He sucks. Worst intermediate passer i have ever seen. Always hit his WRs in the feet.

I don't think i've ever seen a long term starting QB who threw more one hoppers that hit WR's in the shin.

 

[Shayn•Da•Pain]

McNabb is going to compile a lot of pretty stats in the yardage and TD categories, but when watching him play I never, ever felt like I was watching a HOF level player.

He had one dominant season (2004), which was also the only season of his career where you could make a reasonable argument that he was the best QB in the league (and you would still lose the argument).

His lifetime completion percentage is under 60% in an era where 60% isn't even spectacular.

And no, he isn't as good as Ken Anderson. Anderson was more accurate (in a much tougher era for accuracy), leading the league in completion percentage multiple times (including a season over 70%!). Anderson led the league in passer rating multiple times, cracking 90+ in an era where that was far from routine. Anderson was alomst as good with his feet too, rushing for 2200 yards and 20 scores.

Anderson was a better player, so if he is the bar, McNabb falls short.

I vote no. But I think he will get in. He's not nearly as good as his rep, and never really was.

this.

He was consistently overrated by so many people.





Back to Diivox post of his career stats, yes they really don't look bad. Nobody is going to say he wasn't at least a good QB. At times he was great. I can recount a few times when he was just terrible, in the NFC championship games especially when you would expect a HOF QB to play well, he almost never did. He was never ever ever ever the best QB in the league. Which IMO is what you need to be in order to get into the HOF. As I said before, he never once lead the league in any important stat category. This includes, passing yards, percentage, touchdowns, ints, rating...Never. The best he came was 3rd in passing yards in '08. There has been at least 2-3 QB's who were better QB's, even in his best year. He's just not HOF. One of the really good QB's of our time though, but that's as far as he should get.

 

[Shayn•Da•Pain]

This is his legacy in a nutshell.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QBUtmyHOvM&feature=related[/ame]

 

[dave]

I hate all the McNabb hate.
25-26 NFL teams would have killed for a QB with his W-L during his Philadelphia run.
I am not saying he is the best QB of his generation or anything, but the amount of hate this guy gets is unbelieveable.