Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
May 21, 2018, 02:58:28 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: McNabb!!!!  (Read 13594 times)
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 53506

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #75 on: January 15, 2009, 02:42:52 PM »

How many come from behind wins had McNabb had? I don't know and I also feel that shows what a great QB is. Coming from behind shows moxie and focus. IMO, if a QB's team leads all the time through a game, he's untested. That's what made Montana, Brady,Elway, Manning, Staubach, etc. put on elite levels.

Agree.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 53506

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #76 on: January 15, 2009, 02:46:03 PM »


The story on McNabb has been the same for years.  A guy who is a great qb, but when it comes down to it, he finds a way to stink up the joint so bad that you second guess calling him great.  He does not make players around him better, but he shows flashes of being elite for short periods. 



I agree he has been inconsistent at times. 

On the other hand, the fact he took sub par talent to the NFC Championship game multiple times really cuts against the argument that he does not make the players around him better.  Look where they are now with a rookie and Kevin Curtis at WR.  They have overachieved . . . again.   
 
Report to moderator   Logged
body88
Guest
« Reply #77 on: January 15, 2009, 03:45:10 PM »

I agree he has been inconsistent at times. 

On the other hand, the fact he took sub par talent to the NFC Championship game multiple times really cuts against the argument that he does not make the players around him better.  Look where they are now with a rookie and Kevin Curtis at WR.  They have overachieved . . . again.   
 

Why do you keep leaving out Westbrooke and their good offensive line? The Eagles D is pretty damn good to (ranked 3rd in the NFL this year?).  If McNabb made guys around him better, than they don't stink......which goes against you saying he has no one to throw to.  Until he wins something he is good not great.  If he takes the Eagles to the sb and wins he is great.
Report to moderator   Logged
Option D
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17286


Kelly the Con Way


« Reply #78 on: January 15, 2009, 03:48:03 PM »

Why do you keep leaving out Westbrooke and their good offensive line? The Eagles D is pretty damn good to (ranked 3rd in the NFL this year?).  If McNabb made guys around him better, than they don't stink......which goes against you saying he has no one to throw to.  Until he wins something he is good not great.  If he takes the Eagles to the sb and wins he is great.

yeah they did good this year..

IMO i think he is already great
Report to moderator   Logged
body88
Guest
« Reply #79 on: January 15, 2009, 05:15:51 PM »

yeah they did good this year..

IMO i think he is already great

That's cool.  But to me great = Brady, Montana and Manning. 
Report to moderator   Logged
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18891

If you're reading this you have too much free time


« Reply #80 on: January 15, 2009, 05:22:32 PM »

What will stick out in my mind the most about with McNabb was his performance in the last moments of the SB. they had a chance to win the game yet he took his sweet time.

He wasn't great most of the game, the opposite of steppin up. Clearly psyched out to the point of throwing up and playing well below good let alone great.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 53506

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #81 on: January 15, 2009, 06:29:49 PM »

Why do you keep leaving out Westbrooke and their good offensive line? The Eagles D is pretty damn good to (ranked 3rd in the NFL this year?).  If McNabb made guys around him better, than they don't stink......which goes against you saying he has no one to throw to.  Until he wins something he is good not great.  If he takes the Eagles to the sb and wins he is great.

I'm not leaving out Westbrook.  He is a stud.  But he suffers from the same problem as McNabb (injury prone).  Also, he didn't become a starter till about 2004.  He only started 3 games in 2002, 8 games in 2003, and 12 games in 2004.  McNabb was already taking Thrash, etc. deep into to playoffs by that point. 

The Eagles D really doesn't have anything to do with McNabb making sub par WRs better. 

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the standard for greatness.  He doesn't need a Super Bowl win to prove he is great.  I agree with Phil Simms.   Smiley

Also, the issue wasn't whether or not he is "great."  It was whether he is overrated.  I'm still waiting for your laundry list of QBs that outperformed McNabb the past ten years.   Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18891

If you're reading this you have too much free time


« Reply #82 on: January 15, 2009, 07:18:09 PM »

Phil Simms is hardly the arbiter, much of what he says is fluff, doesn't want to offend some of his buds.

Definitely over-rated-if he'd played most or all of his career as he is now or has every once in a while during a streak, he'd deserve the accolades. Even for his style of QBing, he's not the best, McNair was better. McNair wasn't over-hyped, he was justifiably considered very good, just short of great, which left him near the top at the time and a few notches higher than McNabb.

It'll be amusing to see Bum try to come up with any serious list of great QBs who were streaky like McNabb. NONE come to mind. Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
body88
Guest
« Reply #83 on: January 16, 2009, 06:03:46 AM »

I'm not leaving out Westbrook.  He is a stud.  But he suffers from the same problem as McNabb (injury prone).  Also, he didn't become a starter till about 2004.  He only started 3 games in 2002, 8 games in 2003, and 12 games in 2004.  McNabb was already taking Thrash, etc. deep into to playoffs by that point. 

The Eagles D really doesn't have anything to do with McNabb making sub par WRs better. 

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the standard for greatness.  He doesn't need a Super Bowl win to prove he is great.  I agree with Phil Simms.   Smiley

Also, the issue wasn't whether or not he is "great."  It was whether he is overrated.  I'm still waiting for your laundry list of QBs that outperformed McNabb the past ten years.   Smiley

The eagles D has something to do with the teams success.  In regards to McNabb making receivers better, if that is true, your argument is slightly flawed imo.  If McNabb causes his receivers to overachieve they are no longer garbage....unless you're saying that they are so terrible that even with McNabb elevating their play they still stink.  Whats the difference between an average QB with great receivers and a Great QB (as you say) with average receivers?  I'd say it's a wash.  As I said before great QB's make average receivers better, and they excel when it matter most.  They win, plain and simple. Westbrooke has a lot to do with the Eagles success, because teams have to change their whole gameplan around him.  This year that rookie McNabb has is pretty damn good if you ask me.

I'm not talking about being overrated or underrated.  I'm talking about being great.  McNabb is not great.  Until he stops being a streaky choker and he wins something of substance he is not great.  No one cares if you win an AFC championship game.  If he wins it all this year I will change my tune.  Great = Brady, Montana, Manning.  Very good = McNabb.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 53506

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #84 on: January 16, 2009, 09:57:20 AM »

The eagles D has something to do with the teams success.  In regards to McNabb making receivers better, if that is true, your argument is slightly flawed imo.  If McNabb causes his receivers to overachieve they are no longer garbage....unless you're saying that they are so terrible that even with McNabb elevating their play they still stink.  Whats the difference between an average QB with great receivers and a Great QB (as you say) with average receivers?  I'd say it's a wash.  As I said before great QB's make average receivers better, and they excel when it matter most.  They win, plain and simple. Westbrooke has a lot to do with the Eagles success, because teams have to change their whole gameplan around him.  This year that rookie McNabb has is pretty damn good if you ask me.

I'm not talking about being overrated or underrated.  I'm talking about being great.  McNabb is not great.  Until he stops being a streaky choker and he wins something of substance he is not great.  No one cares if you win an AFC championship game.  If he wins it all this year I will change my tune.  Great = Brady, Montana, Manning.  Very good = McNabb.

You're not really saying McNabb has had good WRs and TEs in Philly, are you? 

What about Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, Dan Marino, and Dan Fouts.  Were they "great" QBs?

Was Trent Dilfer a great QB?     
Report to moderator   Logged
ATHEIST
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1614


« Reply #85 on: January 16, 2009, 11:16:30 AM »

Why do you keep leaving out Westbrooke and their good offensive line? The Eagles D is pretty damn good to (ranked 3rd in the NFL this year?). 

thats my point, everyone says he did all this with no help. all the years he won the NFC championships, he had one of the best defenses in the league, with one of the best D coordinators in the league. A defense like that can be just as helpful as an All Pro wide receiver.
and Westbrooke is one of the best int he league.
Report to moderator   Logged
ATHEIST
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1614


« Reply #86 on: January 16, 2009, 11:28:34 AM »

That's only if the standard for greatness means you win a Super Bowl.  I don't think that's the standard.  Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. 

Marino was a great QB.  Fouts was a great QB.  There are many others who were great QBs and didn't win Super Bowls. 

winning a SB doesnt make you a great QB. a QB doesnt do it by himself. Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Jim McMahon, Phil Simms, Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien, Brad Johnson all won the SB.
 you could be the greatest QB ever and if your team isnt good enough then you're not going to win it period. you need a defense.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 53506

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #87 on: January 16, 2009, 11:34:56 AM »

winning a SB doesnt make you a great QB. a QB doesnt do it by himself. Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Jim McMahon, Phil Simms, Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien, Brad Johnson all won the SB.
 you could be the greatest QB ever and if your team isnt good enough then you're not going to win it period. you need a defense.

I agree. 
Report to moderator   Logged
body88
Guest
« Reply #88 on: January 16, 2009, 11:42:44 AM »

You're not really saying McNabb has had good WRs and TEs in Philly, are you? 

What about Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, Dan Marino, and Dan Fouts.  Were they "great" QBs?

Was Trent Dilfer a great QB?     

No, I'm saying that you said that McNabb was a GREAT player who made those around him better.  If that is true, then he was not surrounded by offensive garbage because he made them better than average.  Whats the difference between an ELITE qb with average recievers and an average QB with great recievers?  Matt Leinert had the same team that Warner has and they stunk under him.

Trent Dilfer was not a great QB because he did not have the stats to go with the sb win.  I said that the reason that McNabb is not a great player yet, it because he chokes in big situations and has yet to lead his team to sb.  The great ones don't choke.

Did the above qb's play streaky and cost their team sb's at every chance they got?
Report to moderator   Logged
body88
Guest
« Reply #89 on: January 16, 2009, 11:44:25 AM »

winning a SB doesnt make you a great QB. a QB doesnt do it by himself. Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Jim McMahon, Phil Simms, Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien, Brad Johnson all won the SB.
 you could be the greatest QB ever and if your team isnt good enough then you're not going to win it period. you need a defense.


I never said that sb's made the QB.  It's a combination of sb's, stats and showing the ability to lead your team to huge wins.  McNabb has been a choker up to this point.  The great ones don't puke during a big game.  They show leadership and poise.  Who would you rather have at the helm of your team in the sb?  Brady, Manning or McNabb?  McNabb is not great yet.
Report to moderator   Logged
ATHEIST
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1614


« Reply #90 on: January 16, 2009, 12:19:34 PM »


I never said that sb's made the QB.  It's a combination of sb's, stats and showing the ability to lead your team to huge wins.  McNabb has been a choker up to this point.  The great ones don't puke during a big game.  They show leadership and poise.  Who would you rather have at the helm of your team in the sb?  Brady, Manning or McNabb?  McNabb is not great yet.

 yeah i know you didnt say that, there are many average qb's who have won it because they were on a good team.
  i can think of many qb's who i'd rather have on a good team in the SB other than McNabb, his performance in the last minutes of the SB against your Pats was horrendous.
 McNabb has had enough help to win the SB IMO.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 53506

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #91 on: January 16, 2009, 12:37:52 PM »

No, I'm saying that you said that McNabb was a GREAT player who made those around him better.  If that is true, then he was not surrounded by offensive garbage because he made them better than average.  Whats the difference between an ELITE qb with average recievers and an average QB with great recievers?  Matt Leinert had the same team that Warner has and they stunk under him.

Trent Dilfer was not a great QB because he did not have the stats to go with the sb win.  I said that the reason that McNabb is not a great player yet, it because he chokes in big situations and has yet to lead his team to sb.  The great ones don't choke.

Did the above qb's play streaky and cost their team sb's at every chance they got?

The fact McNabb was able to succeed with below average WRs doesn't mean those WRs became good.  It just means he is that good and made those average WRs play better.  Maybe it's more accurate to say he succeeded in spite of them.    

An average QB is always going to be average IMO.  He could be more successful with "great" WRs, but at the end of the day he's still going to be average.  

I've never been a Leinart fan.  Warner had one of the best seasons in NFL history with the Rams, so he's already proved he can be "great."  His problem is he can't play under pressure.  Give him time and good WRs and he'll produce.

How do you characterize McNabb's WRs and TEs the past 8 years?

You said McNabb needs to win a Super Bowl before he can be considered great.  I disagree.  I guess that's just a matter of opinion.

Your comments about him choking in big games are not supported by his stats.  All playoff games are "big games."  I just looked at his playoff numbers.  Here they are:

01:
Game 1:  24 for 33, 161 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT, 8 carries for 32 yards, 1 TD
Game 2:  20 for 41, 181 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT

02:
Game 1:  16 for 25, 194 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT
Game 2:  26 for 40, 262 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT, 4 carries for 57 yards
Game 3:  18 for 30, 171 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 4 carries for 26 yards, 1 TD

03:
Game 1:  20 for 30, 247, 1 TD, 0 INTs, 4 carries for 24 yards

04:
Game 1:  21 for 39, 248 yards, 2 TDs, 0 INTs, 11 carries for 107 yards

05:
Game 1:  21 for 33, 286 yards, 2 TDs, 0 INTs
Game 2:  11 for 24, 136 yards, 0 TDs, 1 INT, 4 carries for 26 yards
Game 3:  30 for 51, 357 yards, 3 TDs, 3 INTs

09:
Game 1:  23 for 34, 300 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT
Game 2:  22 for 40, 217, 1 TD, 2 INTs, 5 carries for 16 yards, 1 TD

Keep in mind that his WRs were Thrash, Pinkston, Freddie Mitchell, etc. for most of those games.  
  
Do you think Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, Dan Marino, and Dan Fouts were "great" QBs?
Report to moderator   Logged
Option D
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17286


Kelly the Con Way


« Reply #92 on: January 16, 2009, 12:49:30 PM »

Playoff Numbers
Passing
19Tds 12 Ints
252-440 57%
3 Rushing touchdowns

Report to moderator   Logged
body88
Guest
« Reply #93 on: January 16, 2009, 01:26:08 PM »

Playoff Numbers
Passing
19Tds 12 Ints
252-440 57%
3 Rushing touchdowns




Sb wins?  At this point he's good but not great.  He will be great if he wins it all.
Report to moderator   Logged
ATHEIST
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1614


« Reply #94 on: January 16, 2009, 02:16:38 PM »

The fact McNabb was able to succeed with below average WRs doesn't mean those were WRs became good.  It just means he is that good and made those average WRs play better.  Maybe it's more accurate to say he succeeded in spite of them.    

An average QB is always going to be average IMO.  He could be more successful with "great" WRs, but at the end of the day he's still going to be average.  

I've never been a Leinart fan.  Warner had one of the best seasons in NFL history with the Rams, so he's already proved he can be "great."  His problem is he can't play under pressure.  Give him time and good WRs and he'll produce.

How do you characterize McNabb's WRs and TEs the past 8 years?

You said McNabb needs to win a Super Bowl before he can be considered great.  I disagree.  I guess that's just a matter of opinion.

Your comments about him choking in big games are not supported by his stats.  All playoff games are "big games."  I just looked at his playoff numbers.  Here they are:


if he is so great, why arent free agent WR'ers or TE rushing to play in Phili?
Report to moderator   Logged
Option D
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17286


Kelly the Con Way


« Reply #95 on: January 16, 2009, 02:17:48 PM »

if he is so great, why arent free agent WR'ers or TE rushing to play in Phili?

Please tell me that you didnt just type that
Report to moderator   Logged
ATHEIST
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1614


« Reply #96 on: January 16, 2009, 02:18:25 PM »

 
  
Do you think Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, Dan Marino, and Dan Fouts were "great" QBs?

i think 4 are better. Marino easily.
Report to moderator   Logged
ATHEIST
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1614


« Reply #97 on: January 16, 2009, 02:30:36 PM »

Please tell me that you didnt just type that


please tell me you have more than that  Roll Eyes

Report to moderator   Logged
Option D
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17286


Kelly the Con Way


« Reply #98 on: January 16, 2009, 02:34:27 PM »

please tell me you have more than that  Roll Eyes



Dude the NFL free agent process is way more complicated than that.
Wideouts would love to play with McNabb..
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 53506

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #99 on: January 16, 2009, 02:35:33 PM »

if he is so great, why arent free agent WR'ers or TE rushing to play in Phili?

I have no idea.  Salary cap?  Bad personnel decisions?  Poor drafting?  What does that have to do with McNabb?  Why didn't FA WRs flock to NE to play with Brady for years? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!