Getting REALLY sick of the McNabb Hall of Fame talk

[Senser81]

Its even worse when people tack it on as a sort of throwaway line like "This could be the end of McNabb's Hall of Fame career..." or some BS like that.

If McNabb gets into the Hall of Fame, its only because the current composition of voters are retarded (see: Floyd Little).

McNabb's numbers are not up to HOF snuff. He never led the league in any significant passing category for any season. His career 85.6 rating is average compared to his peers. His 59% completion rate is bad. In his 11 year career, he threw for over 30 TDs once, and over 20 TDs only 5 times. He doesn't rank in the top 10 in any significant career passing category.

He never was an All-Pro. He made the pro bowl 6 times, which is actually one of the strongest parts of his resume, but he did it in an era when there would routinely be 5 or 6 QBs named to the pro bowl in each conference.

2000 - McNabb 4th best QB in NFC, makes pro bowl
2001 - McNabb 4th best QB in the NFC, makes pro bowl
2002 - McNabb 5th best QB in the NFC, makes pro bowl
2003 - McNabb 4th best QB in the NFC, makes pro bowl
2004 - McNabb 2nd best QB in the NFC, makes pro bowl
2009 - McNabb 5th best QB in the NFC, makes pro bowl


Looking back, its amazing to me how many times McNabb ended up in the pro bowl despite never being an elite QB. 2004, far and away McNabb's best season, was the only year in which he had a legit case for being in the pro bowl. Otherwise, he was just a fill in for when guys like Brees, Warner, Favre, etc. took a powder for the game.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

He's still better than Ken Anderson.

 

[nflman2033]

In before someone mention "rings"

 

[Senser81]

He's still better than Ken Anderson.

But Ken Anderson's Hall of Fame movement is more hipster, most likely led by underground people like Aaron Schatz at Football Outsiders.

McNabb's Hall of Fame movement is more mainstream, as guys like Mike Greenberg refer to McNabb as "Hall of Famer".

 

[nflman2033]

But Ken Anderson's Hall of Fame movement is more hipster, most likely led by underground people like Aaron Schatz at Football Outsiders.

McNabb's Hall of Fame movement is more mainstream, as guys like Mike Greenberg refer to McNabb as "Hall of Famer".

I find the ken Anderson for hall of fame movement as founded by the same group as Dave Concepcion for HOF, basically pissed of Cincinnati people.

 

[Champ]

*Waits for Big Bucs to compare him to Josh Freeman*

 

[Woy]

*waits for Dave's case*

 

[Villain]

:thumbsdown:

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

McNabbs the most inaccurate **HOFer** Ive ever seen. The guy has some of the ugliest throws of any highly coveted QB I can name. The Eagles blitz crazy defense and McNabbs ability to extend a play with his feet is what got them to those championship games. The fact his comp% is that low for a guy who threw more screens than anyone in the league is scary.

 

[Champ]

McNabbs the most inaccurate **HOFer** Ive ever seen. The guy has some of the ugliest throws of any highly coveted QB I can name. The Eagles blitz crazy defense and McNabbs ability to extend a play with his feet is what got them to those championship games. The fact his comp% is that low for a guy who threw more screens than anyone in the league is scary.

I honestly cant even remember how many times he threw the ball at his WR's feet.

 

[Primetime]

He's garbage and always has been. I've been trying to tell friends that he's overrated for over a decade now. Only now are they starting to believe me.

 

[Deviant]

Maybe it's just me, but I always thought of Donovan McNabb as the black version of:

 

 

[young2rice]

He shouldn't be in the HOF for the simple reason, when I think of the best/top quarterbacks of an era his name never crosses my mind, it's simply Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and even Kurt Warner. Period. (Brett Favre sort of bled between two eras and wasn't so hot the 2nd one)

 

[Kuzzy Powers]

Maybe it's just me, but I always thought of Donovan McNabb as the black version of:

 

:smh:. Jim Kelly is a legit, 100% unqestionable HOFer.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

He's still better than Ken Anderson.

I think I did a big comparison in the last McNabb HOF thread, but Anderson is the perfect bar for McNabb. Very similar players, yet no one (well, very few people anyway) thinks Anderson is a HOF QB. For some reason, like senser is saying, people nonchalantly call McNabb a future HOF'er like it's a virtual lock.

Edit-found it.

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.

 

[Senser81]

I think I did a big comparison in the last McNabb HOF thread, but Anderson is the perfect bar for McNabb. Very similar players, yet no one (well, very few people anyway) thinks Anderson is a HOF QB. For some reason, like senser is saying, people nonchalantly call McNabb a future HOF'er like it's a virtual lock.

Edit-found it.

Don't want to piss on your parade, but I think a difference between Anderson and McNabb is that Anderson's stats relative to his peers are much better, but while he played no one thought that Anderson was equal to Bradshaw, Staubach, Stabler, etc. He was an efficient, unspectacular QB. In the end, when you saw Anderson's stats, you were surprised at how good they were.

McNabb is almost the opposite. For all the hype surrounding him, his statistics aren't good at all. He is very inefficient. He doesn't generate points, yards, or TDs. (But if you actually sit down and watch McNabb play an entire game, and not just highlights, you'll think "how is this guy a HOFer?). In the end, when you saw McNabb's stats, you were surprised at how bad they were.

 

[Diivox]

It's not just his completely overblown reputation, it is also his attitude. he's been a snippy, whiny, self-important guy for a long time. not one, but TWO financial apologies? All of our arguments aside, arent HOF voters mostly old sportswriters who he was rude to?

no chance, and it's unfortunate, because we'll hear about him every year as a possible candidate anyway. we'll be having this argument for the next 10-15 years.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Don't want to piss on your parade, but I think a difference between Anderson and McNabb is that Anderson's stats relative to his peers are much better, but while he played no one thought that Anderson was equal to Bradshaw, Staubach, Stabler, etc. He was an efficient, unspectacular QB. In the end, when you saw Anderson's stats, you were surprised at how good they were.

McNabb is almost the opposite. For all the hype surrounding him, his statistics aren't good at all. He is very inefficient. He doesn't generate points, yards, or TDs. (But if you actually sit down and watch McNabb play an entire game, and not just highlights, you'll think "how is this guy a HOFer?). In the end, when you saw McNabb's stats, you were surprised at how bad they were.

No, I agree. I think Anderson was better than McNabb, and I don't think either belongs in the HOF.

 

[Deviant]

:smh:. Jim Kelly is a legit, 100% unqestionable HOFer.

The black version. So, essentially, a poor man's Jim Kelly. Instead of 4 straight Super Bowl appearances, he'll just give you 4 straight NFC Championship appearances.