McNabb a future Hall of Famer? - Page 6

Paranoidmoonduck · 07-18-2009, 03:16 AM

7-8 years of domination? You're telling me the Saints will hold together a strong offense and Brees will still be running it when he's 38? I think it's wholly unreasonable to suggest that Brees can bank on more than another 4 years of strong play, especially considering he's had shoulder trouble before. Are the Saints going to be a Superbowl team in the next 4 years? It's entirely possible, but I wouldn't bank on it.

Has McNabb been afforded more opportunities because of his defense? You bet. But the fact that he's had them and Brees hasn't doesn't mean Brees gets more Hall consideration as some sort of recompense. Drew Brees, as of right now, as big a fan of his as I am (I desperately wanted Oakland to go after him when he was a FA), has no claim to the Hall right now and needs to be tremendously successful going to forward for a case to made. McNabb, as it stands, is himself just short of having a serious case.

d34ng3l021 · 07-18-2009, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck

7-8 years of domination? You're telling me the Saints will hold together a strong offense and Brees will still be running it when he's 38? I think it's wholly unreasonable to suggest that Brees can bank on more than another 4 years of strong play, especially considering he's had shoulder trouble before. Are the Saints going to be a Superbowl team in the next 4 years? It's entirely possible, but I wouldn't bank on it.

Has McNabb been afforded more opportunities because of his defense? You bet. But the fact that he's had them and Brees hasn't doesn't mean Brees gets more Hall consideration as some sort of recompense. Drew Brees, as of right now, as big a fan of his as I am (I desperately wanted Oakland to go after him when he was a FA), has no claim to the Hall right now and needs to be tremendously successful going to forward for a case to made. McNabb, as it stands, is himself just short of having a serious case.

I think he can put up numbers like this for another 5 years, but I was asking whether 7-8 good years would get him into the HoF. I think it is reasonable to possibly expect this sort of production for another 7 or so years out of him. His strengths include reading defenses, accuracy, and timing with the WRs; none of those decline significantly as you reach the 35s. Brees has increased his yardage and TD total for the past 4 years in a row while boasting a solid 65% comp. rate during that time. He may never get close to 5000 yards again, but I can see 4000-4500 yards and 25-30 TDs out of him for a while. Whether or not the Saints will be Superbowl worthy is another thing completely.

The Eagles have a team that is Superbowl ready and have a higher chance of getting there within the next few years, but all Brees needs is a solid defense that doesn't hold the offense back to have a shot at a SB win.

I wasn't implying that the Hall would recompense for Brees' situation, but if Brees and McNabb finished with the same amount of rings, would McNabb get more consideration from the Hall because of his 5 NFCCGs and 0 SB wins over Brees (and his probable statistical superiority)?

Paranoidmoonduck · 07-18-2009, 04:15 AM

I don't know. I guess? It's a useless discussion, because 7 more years of this kind of production would make Brees one of the most productive quarterbacks in the modern era of football. While it's possible, it's far from likely. If it happens, we can revisit the discussion, but for now Brees isn't Hall-bound and if I can to bet on it, I would bet that he doesn't wind up in the Hall.

Geo · 07-18-2009, 10:48 AM

Brees is the best pure passer in the game right now. If he can continue to play around this level for at least 4 more years, he should get into the Hall. Because he will be as good as Dan Fouts if not actually better.

Fouts' career numbers

And I think Brees can do it. He gets rid of the ball quick, it hopefully limits chances of injury. He tore his shoulder up in his last game with San Diego in trying to recover a lost fumble, not because of anything to do with him as the QB.

Paranoidmoonduck · 07-18-2009, 02:42 PM

Shoulder trouble is shoulder trouble. Brees completely changed his throwing motion after the injury anyhow, but it doesn't mean that he can't run into trouble again. Having torn a shoulder once increases the chances of injuring it again hugely.

The question isn't whether Brees can beat Fouts' numbers, it's whether he can eclipse the perceived importance Fouts had to the game. That is something I am far less sure of.

BlindSite · 07-18-2009, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck

Shoulder trouble is shoulder trouble. Brees completely changed his throwing motion after the injury anyhow, but it doesn't mean that he can't run into trouble again. Having torn a shoulder once increases the chances of injuring it again hugely.

The question isn't whether Brees can beat Fouts' numbers, it's whether he can eclipse the perceived importance Fouts had to the game. That is something I am far less sure of.

Realistically the likelihood of re-injuring a shoulder comes with activity, which is bad news for an NFL QB but most injuries of the shoulder occur in a single part of what is a very complex grouping of muscles and tendons from the armpit to the back of the arm.

It's possible that by altering his motion the tortion that was being put on whatever tore or got hurt is reduced or even removed so much so that it's unlikely he has an issue again.

Then again there's a pretty big chance when he's under pressure he forgets whatever he was taught and worked on and just flings it causing problems.

I dunno I suppose the risk is there, but one could argue that risk isn't any higher than concussions or breaking a leg or tearing an ACL.

Paranoidmoonduck · 07-18-2009, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlindSite

Realistically the likelihood of re-injuring a shoulder comes with activity, which is bad news for an NFL QB but most injuries of the shoulder occur in a single part of what is a very complex grouping of muscles and tendons from the armpit to the back of the arm.

It's possible that by altering his motion the tortion that was being put on whatever tore or got hurt is reduced or even removed so much so that it's unlikely he has an issue again.

Then again there's a pretty big chance when he's under pressure he forgets whatever he was taught and worked on and just flings it causing problems.

Brees' motion change, as far as I know, wasn't as much an effort to make his shoulder less injury prone (as someone already mentioned, he hadn't hurt it by throwing in the first place), but it was part of the rebuilding process and it had fantastic results. Really, Brees is the best example I've ever seen of a NFL quarterback significantly changing his motion after hitting the pros and having that good a result. However, tendon damage is tendon damage. Any repair job is less ideal than no repair job being needed at all, and no matter how much you strengthen the muscles around it the tendons are either sacrificing elasticity or are a bit loose. This is at least my experience as a high school quarterback who tore his shoulder.

Quote:

I dunno I suppose the risk is there, but one could argue that risk isn't any higher than concussions or breaking a leg or tearing an ACL.

Considering how often a quarterback uses his right shoulder and how often they tend to get hit as they release the ball, I would say the risk is higher. At any rate, I was just pointing out that you can't simply say that since Brees' skill set is based heavily around mental acuity, he'll age gracefully. His shoulder will lose gas and he will be less and less of a great deep passer. Not saying that he's absolutely going to get a shoulder injury, just that the number thrown out there (7-8 years of consistent productivity like he had in 2008) is a ridiculously unlikely event (for more reasons than simply his own health).

BlindSite · 07-18-2009, 08:34 PM

Fouts played till he was 36 and Brees only has 7 years starting experience, so realistically if he lasts till he's 36 he would be in 44-47 thousand yard range.

Injuries are a concern, but Favre has a degenerative hip condition (the same as bo jacksons), almost died in a car accident, had a vicodin addiction, various injuries in various body parts, concussions, family deaths and still managed to become one of the best of all time.

Fouts, Jim Kelly, Marino all had injuries from what I've been able to dig up, I think it's going to go with the territory of playing for over a decade in one of the worlds toughest sports.

I agree an injury may derail his hopes, but when is that not a factor in football?

Paranoidmoonduck · 07-18-2009, 08:40 PM

Yes, but Favre is a freak and Marino could still toss the ball when his knees gave out. I don't know anything about Kelly or Fouts' injuries, but I don't believe they were major or involved their throwing arm.

Truth be told, the number of 30 year old quarterbacks who I have ever reasonably predicted as likely candidates to have 8 more years of production matching their production at that point is extremely small. Like, Peyton Manning and no one else small.

BlindSite · 07-18-2009, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck

Yes, but Favre is a freak and Marino could still toss the ball when his knees gave out. I don't know anything about Kelly or Fouts' injuries, but I don't believe they were major or involved their throwing arm.

Truth be told, the number of 30 year old quarterbacks who I have ever reasonably predicted as likely candidates to have 8 more years of production matching their production at that point is extremely small. Like, Peyton Manning and no one else small.

He doesn't need 8 years of production. He's been in the league for 8 years but only started for 7 and his first year wasn't all that great.

Realistically if he has another 6 years around the production he's had for the last few seasons he'll make a serious push.

That will put him at 36 and that's not outside the realm of possibility for a QB.

Brothgar · 08-02-2009, 07:58 PM

I wanted to be non biased (for once) So I'm looking at McNabb with four more average seasons (average for him) Average was determined based on his current career totals divided by the number of seasons.

Numbers (All Career with 4 more average years)
Completions: 3547.6
Rank (all time NFL): 9-10 depending on Kerry Collin's numbers for the rest of his career.

Attempts: 6024.2
Rank: 10

Yards: 41048
Rank:10

TD: 272
Rank: 10 - 14 Depending on the performances of Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, Kerry Collins, and Drew Brees.

Records
1st - Most consecutive passes completed 24
2nd - Lowest interception percentage. 2.12 (second to Neil O'Donald with 2.11)
t-3rd Most games with 4 or more TD's in a single season.

Accolades

5x Pro Bowler (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004)
NFC Offensive Player of the Year (2004)
NFC Champion (2004).

He has HOF numbers there is no doubt about that (assuming the 4 years of average production) You know who else is a HOFer I was kind of surprised Drew Bledsoe. Drew Brees would likely have similar or better numbers as well. I have to say that he is borderline but that interception percentage is something that will put him over.

Seamus2602 · 08-03-2009, 07:57 AM

Without getting into the numbers debate, I will mention this. There are, in my opinion, definately two and probably three Hall of Fame Quarterbacks still playing. They are Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and possibly Kurt Warner. All three have a number of things in common, things that Donovan McNabb lacks. Payton Manning, Tom Brady and Kurt Warner have all been named league MVP, have all been named All-Pro, and have all led Superbowl winning teams.

How can you declare a player to be amongst the best of All-Time when he has never even been the 2nd best Quarterback of the year? McNabb is a good, Franchise Quarterback. You don't get into the Hall of Fame by being good. You get in by being great. Maybe if McNabb was to win a Superbowl, finally get a ring, then yeah maybe he could have a shot. But if McNabb retires now he doesn't go to the Hall of Fame. Manning, Brady and probably Warner would.

Halsey · 08-03-2009, 08:26 AM

I'd put him in. Many people blame him for the Eagles not winning a Super Bowl, but the fact is he's been the MVP of a very good, consistently top 10 franchise for the last decade. I blame the Eagles not getting over the hump more on the lack of skill position talent on offense. Mcnabb has been throwing to below average targets and handing off to an inconsistent rushing attack. The Eagles couldn't even muster 50 rushing yards in their 24-21 Super Bowl loss to the Patriots. Guess who threw for all 21 of the Eagles points?

Brothgar · 08-03-2009, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamus2602

Without getting into the numbers debate, I will mention this. There are, in my opinion, definately two and probably three Hall of Fame Quarterbacks still playing. They are Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and possibly Kurt Warner. All three have a number of things in common, things that Donovan McNabb lacks. Payton Manning, Tom Brady and Kurt Warner have all been named league MVP, have all been named All-Pro, and have all led Superbowl winning teams.

How can you declare a player to be amongst the best of All-Time when he has never even been the 2nd best Quarterback of the year? McNabb is a good, Franchise Quarterback. You don't get into the Hall of Fame by being good. You get in by being great. Maybe if McNabb was to win a Superbowl, finally get a ring, then yeah maybe he could have a shot. But if McNabb retires now he doesn't go to the Hall of Fame. Manning, Brady and probably Warner would.

Well no one in their right minds would put McNabb in the hall if he retired right now. The only name that can be dropped to the defense of McNabb is Sonny Jurgensen he is in the hall of fame never won a super bowl and was never named MVP. McNabb has across the board better numbers than him (assuming 4 more years of his career average seasons). So now the biggest question arises what numbers matter? When he retired Jurgansen was top 5 in TDs completions and yards all time. I think that most of his career he couldn't be considered one of the top two QBs of his time either (Johnny Unitas and Frank Tarkanian would likely hold those honors). If we only went on pure numbers then McNabb would have to be in the hall because he is beating Jugensen in all statistical categories. But if they do put McNabb into the hall with his numbers we would likely have to put in Karry Collins, Drew Bledsoe and Drew Brees as well does that water down the hall?

So basically the argument boils down to...

Con: McNabb never had a SB or MVP.
Pro: There are players in the hall that do not have SB or MVP.
Con There are 3 that do. All of them have completed something that McNabb hasn't.
Pro: His numbers are better than most of the QBs that are in the Hall.
Con: Those numbers are augmented by the times he played in which favored offenses.

or to put it simply accomplishments vs numbers do either alone get you into the hall?

eaglesalltheway · 08-03-2009, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broth223

Well no one in their right minds would put McNabb in the hall if he retired right now. The only name that can be dropped to the defense of McNabb is Sonny Jurgensen he is in the hall of fame never won a super bowl and was never named MVP. McNabb has across the board better numbers than him (assuming 4 more years of his career average seasons). So now the biggest question arises what numbers matter? When he retired Jurgansen was top 5 in TDs completions and yards all time. I think that most of his career he couldn't be considered one of the top two QBs of his time either (Johnny Unitas and Frank Tarkanian would likely hold those honors). If we only went on pure numbers then McNabb would have to be in the hall because he is beating Jugensen in all statistical categories. But if they do put McNabb into the hall with his numbers we would likely have to put in Karry Collins, Drew Bledsoe and Drew Brees as well does that water down the hall?

So basically the argument boils down to...

Con: McNabb never had a SB or MVP.
Pro: There are players in the hall that do not have SB or MVP.
Con There are 3 that do. All of them have completed something that McNabb hasn't.
Pro: His numbers are better than most of the QBs that are in the Hall.
Con: Those numbers are augmented by the times he played in which favored offenses.

or to put it simply accomplishments vs numbers do either alone get you into the hall?

In order for McNabb to even have a chance he needs to A... keep up a high level of production, B... win a Superbowl, C... be named MVP. If he can do two of those, espectially if it is B and C, I'd say he is a lock to go in, but that remains to be seen. If he can get one of either B or C, then the argument will be real tough. But as it stands now, he is not a HOFer...

NY+Giants=NYG · 08-03-2009, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eaglesalltheway

In order for McNabb to even have a chance he needs to A... keep up a high level of production, B... win a Superbowl, C... be named MVP. If he can do two of those, espectially if it is B and C, I'd say he is a lock to go in, but that remains to be seen. If he can get one of either B or C, then the argument will be real tough. But as it stands now, he is not a HOFer...

Just win a big game or come up huge consistently. He has his shot in front of the world during the superbowl, the last drive. The one where TO said McNabb got tired. Also, clock management was an issue as well, which falls on Andy and the QB.

McNabb needs to win big games consistency to go along with his stellar production.

eaglesalltheway · 08-03-2009, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shockey+Manning=Shocking

Just win a big game or come up huge consistently. He has his shot in front of the world during the superbowl, the last drive. The one where TO said McNabb got tired. Also, clock management was an issue as well, which falls on Andy and the QB.

McNabb needs to win big games consistency to go along with his stellar production.

That is kind of assumed there with the superbowl winning, you know what I mean?

NY+Giants=NYG · 08-03-2009, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eaglesalltheway

That is kind of assumed there with the superbowl winning, you know what I mean?

Well you can win a superbowl and not really do much because your special teams scores points, or defense ints alot of passes too.