So all the regular season games and non-superbowl playoff games are irrelevant? Unless a QB wins a superbowl, he's overrated?
Thanks for this. The Eagles aren't great, but McNabb sure as **** isn't the reason why. Eagles fans are almost to a person unable to see that they've been spoiled at QB for the past seven years.
Dan Marino sucks, Jim Kelly sucks, Boomer Esaison sucks, and a lot of other good and great quarterbacks suck by your standards.
What quarterback has become one of the greats WITHOUT an elite receiver? STUPID POINT! McNabb has never had one except one that year. Oh guess what? Receivers need somebody good to get them the ball. Remember Randy Moss? He had a lot of success in Oakland didn't he? No he was regarded as washed up and no good, until of course he went to New England and had Brady throwing to him. I rest my case. Yes because injuries can be avoided. He would have started 16 games the Super Bowl year but was not started the last game because it was irrelevant and this season isn't over. In his career, which has spanned 9 years, he has thrown for 3000 yards 4 times, thrown for more than 20 TDs 3 times, thrown for less than 10 interceptions 6 times, and rushed for more than 400 yards 3 times. 7-5 post season record. 1 NFC Championship, Among active starting quarterbacks with at least 95 starts, ranks 1st in win percentage (.663). As said, is this a joke?
Brady went 12-0 in the playoffs and got 3 rings without an elite reciever. Define elite QB please. because without a ring or monster stats you are not elite. Not sure but #4 seems to do OK in WI
Quit changing your stance. You brought up all this stuff that makes McNabb look bad and I responded. Then you change your definition yet again. Please. Brady did have Patten and Branch. Patten made the Pro Bowl during their first Super Bowl run and had a career season. Branch was a Super Bowl MVP. They may not be in the league of Moss, Owens, or other big names but they are definitely a step above Pinkston, Lewis, and Mitchell. He also had a running game. I give Favre a lot of respect but he has been lucky not been hit with some type of significant injury. It's just luck unless you attribute it to something else.
Again - so your standard is comparing him to two of the best QB's in the history of the game? If he's not at that level, he's overrated? It seems to be me that McNabb doesn't get a free pass - instead, he's held to a higher standard than any other QB on the planet.
Good point. Andy Reid made a good statement about quarterbacks: "A quarterback gets an undue amount of praise when things are going well and receives an undue amount of scrutiny when they are not." Which has been said countless times before but it is still a good point.
Pardon me for joining in the pile up here but this is really a highly questionable statement. To claim that there is a bias on the part of not wanting to criticize McNabb out of fear of being racist you should show that there is that sort of bias towards other black QB's. The problem is though black QB's like Daunte Culpepper, Rodney Peete and Aaron Brooks have been criticized quite abit. Warren Moon was frequently pilloried by the media for not being able to win big games and throwing interceptions. Even Vince Young has been criticized for supposedly not being very bright. If there is a bias then we should see a pattern of black QB's given a pass but we're not. Daunte Culpepper is criticized as much Joey Harrington because they both are flawed QB's and not because one is white or one is black.
that's the way I look at him. He is at the top of the second tier and has been for a while and he had that one great year. Steve Young is still the model for what you want a running qb to be, Randel was pretty dam good but guys like McNabb/Vick/VY and soon Tebow(when he is in the NFL) just cant get it done in the playoffs. The jury is still out on VY and Tebow of course. McNabb and Vick got paid like Brady and Manning but can't hold there jock straps.
so now the argument is, he isn't as good as manning or brady. what's your point, i don't think anyone ever said he was. qbs get paid a lot of money when they are franchise qbs. so that's neither here nor there. you're still reaching.
You're just going by stats now, earlier you said winning. Which is it? Because the previous 4 years before 2004 he was pretty damn successful with the Eagles. 11-5 in 2000, 2nd in the NFC East, Divisonal playoffs 11-5 in 2001, 1st in NFC East, NFC Championship 12-4 in 2002, 1st in NFC East, NFC Championship 12-4 in 2003, 1st in NFC East, NFC Championship In three of his 8 years prior to this year his season was shortened by injuries in which his stats would have been better than what they were. His first year was his rookie season which he did not even get to start 10 of those games and only played in 12. If you guys want to argue that he isn't durable, that would stick even though he did finish out that Arizona game with a freaking broken ankle. I'm seriously amazed that you guys are even trying anymore. Do you think Brady, Manning, or Favre's stats would be where they were if they were injured? Favre's stats, as somebody said have been horrible. Then when they brought that up you guys turn on the winning. So which is winning or stats? make up your minds.
those guys don't get injured because they are pure pocket passers, if McNabb was as good of a qb he would not have to use his legs so much thus not getting injured as much. McNabb has had his moments at times where he has been on target but as it was in that super bowl he is just not a first tier passer and is overrated based on that contract and I don't see why he is not being ripped in the national media. McNabb likes to take the pressure off himself with his statements or he likes to make excuses before something bad happens.
Could not disagree more. He does receive heavy criticism, especially from the public. And I have no idea of any examples of players anywhere getting a free pass because they are black.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! He could not possibly be forced into using his legs due to the fact his receiving corps durring the majority of his years have been subpar, right? Guess what, if you're receivers cannot get open then the defense is going to get to the quarterback. He was given that contract after consistent success. It was not based on stats, but success. I would rather have a QB that goes 46-18 in 4 years with less superior stats than one throws for unbelievable stats with a losing record. So would all the owners, GMs, and coaches in the league. A winning team brings in fans not one guy on a losing team. Such as???
