redman Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 McNabb is a great athlete and an excellent leader who works best when he's mobile and throws the ball downfield. Therefore, the genius Andy Reid tries to force him to stay in the pocket while running the WCO, emphasizing short to medium range passes in crossing routes. Go figure. Joe Gibbs would have McNabb throwing for 4000+ yards and 25-30 TD's year in and year out in the one-back offense. Reid's a boob for insisting that McNabb play away from his strengths. And, Antonio Freeman or no, McNabb's still the straw that stirs the Philly offense. If he goes down, they immediately lose 5-6 wins. That's no exaggeration. 3-13 is a bit pessimistic, but I could easily see them going 5-11 or 6-10 without him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 If the straw that stirs the drink on every team went down the same could be said. However I dont want to see that happen. I want the skins to win and lose with both teams healthy and at full strength, none of this Armstead toughing it out with a bad hamstring stuff like last year so there arent any excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildbill Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 You're right Chris, I jumped in there without reading the whole thread and I forgot you were a Boys fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 Kilmer, Dilfer had a pro-bowl running back to hand the ball off too, and the best defense of his era to fall back on. (The Eagle defense isn't THAT good. ) Despite all that he still got released the following year. I don't think there were many QBs in this league that had less talent to work with than McNabb. Even the Bears had better WRs than the Eagles last year. Look at your list again and tell me who's working with a lesser WR corps, or a weaker running game than the Eagles had. Sonny, what you are saying basically is that the Eagle front office is so stingy that they refuse to surround McNabb with enough talent to make the Eagles a truly dominant team on both sides of the ball. I agree with that. And picking up a couple bargain-basement has-beens isn't going to change that this year. Only a very few QBs are good enough to elevate an offense to above average all by themselves. Elway, Favre ... maybe Manning. Is McNabb one of those guys? No. If he is regarded as such then I agree he is overrated. But throwing out names like Jim Miller and Trent Dilfer? You might as well add Kerry Collins, Jay Feidler, Kordell Stewart and Jon Kitna to that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 I would add Jay Fiedler to the list. McNabb supposedly had terrible receivers 3 years ago with Small and (Name escapes me). So they cut them and added Thrash via free-agency and drafted high with Mitchell. Now they had to go out and sign another FA in Freeman. Why is it so impossible to believe that maybe it's not the WRs. Maybe the QB isnt what the mediots claim he is. Duce made the probowl as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasEagle Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 Hey all.. long time reader of the site (since last year) but I've never posted and I won't post much here other then to offer some insight. I saw this thread though and wanted to chime in... McNabb is a good QB with the potential to be great, but his offense isn't suited for him. I'm not a blind, ignorant, or crazy enough Eagles fan to think the team is all world. Our D is excellent (save the middle of the D-Line :puke:, our O wins enough to get buy but I hesitate to call them good. Reid is a good coach, and he should stick to coaching. His play calling sucks, his version of the WCO sucks and none of it suits McNabb. McNabb needs a vertical offense, and that's receivers that can streak and stretch the field and occasionally cross underneath. EVERYONE sees and acknowledges that except for Reid. If the Eagles ever play long ball (with receivers that can catch Read: true #1's) they'll be one of the tops in the NFC with their D to fall back on. But this WCO (or very weak approximation of) that Reid is forcing on the team is doing way more harm then good. I'll be glad when it changes to... well anything else. McNabb on the Vikings or with the Rams would be a match from hell. Jim Miller?? Trent Dilfer?? Better then McNabb? I'm not even going to touch that one...:puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 I've said it before and I'll say it again. With McNabb, Philly is a 10-6, 11-5 football team. Without him, they are 5-11. One can not agree with that general assessment and then say McNabb is not as good as a dozen other players because he clearly is worth several wins a year all by his lonesome. What may not be clear is how good a QB he is. He's not a great QB. He is a superior player all around. That's what sets him apart. It's not hard for me to envision our QBs being better statistically than McNabb, but that won't make them anything like the player he is. Without him the Eagles are just a bad football team. With him they have special qualities because of what he can bring to the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 Originally posted by Kilmer17 I would add Jay Fiedler to the list. McNabb supposedly had terrible receivers 3 years ago with Small and (Name escapes me). So they cut them and added Thrash via free-agency and drafted high with Mitchell. Now they had to go out and sign another FA in Freeman. Why is it so impossible to believe that maybe it's not the WRs. Maybe the QB isnt what the mediots claim he is. Duce made the probowl as well. Ok, this is the last post I will make in this thread, because I really don't enjoy defending McNabb. BUT, has Duce ever made the pro-bowl? Maybe five years ago. I know he at one time WAS the Eagles offense, but that was before McNabb was drafted, and the Eagles were terrible. He's old and injury prone now, and has been so for the last two years. When I said Dilfer had a pro-bowl RB, I meant in the same year Dilfer went to the SB, not at some time in the past before Dilfer ever played pro-ball. And I don't think it's not the mediots or the WRs because we've ALL seen Thrash play. I like Thrash, but he was the #3 WR here behind all-stars like Westbrook and Connell. He was ineffective as a #2 when Westbrook was out. Why is he suddenly a world-beater when the Eagles overpay for him and make him their #1 guy? Mitchell was a rookie last year, and we've all read Art's Thesis on The Effectiveness of Rookie WRs. With the RARE exception, rookie WRs are not generally impact players. I can't comment on Freeman. He hasn't played a down with McNabb, but I do think it's a little silly to put his name out there as an addition that hasn't helped McNabb when he hasn't actually PLAYED with McNabb yet. McNabb may be overrated, but he IS the best QB in the division, and the Eagles offense will live and die with him. And that's all I have to say about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasEagle Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 Kilmer, Thrash is a great #2 stuck being a #1 and Mitchell, so far, is a bust. Hopefully this will change, but he's done little so far in the offense. He gets wide open by running the wrong routes. Milons has potential, but he's got a broken leg and is a rookie on top of that. He not going to help this year. Pinkston... he's a question mark right now. Freeman. Well, he just is. Last year... not much better. And the year before that significantly worse. Our WRs are just NOT that good. I'm not going to hype up my team. If they suck somewhere I'll say it outright. Our WRs don't suck, but I'd take WRs from A LOT of other teams before I took any from ours. The exception being Thrash as a #2. I think it's less a matter of the personnel for the Eagles, and more the offense they are made to work in. Look at your team from last year. Good team, workable personnel, bad offensive scheme. It's the same for the Eagles. It works because or D keeps the scores low and McNabb is good enough to make some things happen because he's a good QB. The offensive scheme itself flat out sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phanatic Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 Ok McNabb is a middle of the road QB. Serviceable at best. :doh: i'm not even going to argue such a rediculous topic. You just keep right on believing that. Next time your in the presence of other football fans, say a neutral sports bar, get everyones attention and make that point. :gus: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSF Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 To put Fiedler, Miller, and Dilfer in the same class as McNabb is crazy. No offense Kilmer, but you're kidding yourself. I agree that if he goes out (I hope he doesn't) the Eagles season is done. I also agree the he's a little overrated and has some issues w/ accuracy, but he's a good QB who's only going to get better. I'd hate to agree w/ the Eagles fan, but McNabb has 2 big problems slowing him down: first, mediocre at best wr's and second, an offensive system that doesn't suit him at all. I saw a few Eagles games last year where their playcalling was absolutely terrible. Too conservative and very predictable(kinda like the Skins under Marty:puke: ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins4Life Posted September 3, 2002 Share Posted September 3, 2002 Stats-wise, I would also take Miller and Dilfer over McNabb for the main reason that they're more suited to the type of offense that they run, rather than McNabb is with his. ... However, I think another guy that is off "better than McNabb" list, that SHOULD be on it, is Steve McNair. The guy is a warrior. He takes a beating, but he keeps on ticking, and I would definitely take him over McNabb (and I did, in the majority of my FFLs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavarthebeast Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 Originally posted by Redskins4Life However, I think another guy that is off "better than McNabb" list, that SHOULD be on it, is Steve McNair. The guy is a warrior. He takes a beating, but he keeps on ticking, and I would definitely take him over McNabb (and I did, in the majority of my FFLs). How is one better than the other? They are both identical every year in completion %, and both equal in trying to be Randall Cunningham. Further, McNair lost that SB for the Titans. He flat out stunk for 3 1/2 quarters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 I wouldnt have McNair either. Same type of problems. Someone please cite evidence that McNabb is a great QB. The defense carried his team, and when put in the position to take his team to the SuperBowl, he choked. His defense annihilated the Bears. His defense beat the Giants for the division title. His defense continually saved his *** after turnovers in the second game vs the Skins last year. Get over the hype and please give some evidence to support the claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisFul Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 McNabb is NOT a great QB, but he's hardly the average or the TRASH that some of you are making him out to be. Here's all the evidence i need. TDs. McNabb passed for 25, got 2 on the ground. That's 27 TDs total. QBs job is to get the team in the End Zone. That puts him 6th amongst QBs in that category. Its hard to argue with that. That, and the fact that it was only his second FULL season as a starter. His QB rating was 7th in the League. Yeah, you are right. McNabb sucks alright.:puke: Just thank God that Andy Reid doesn't know how to call a game or design an offense properly... if he did, McNabb would be clearing out a space for an MVP trophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PennEagle Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 Originally posted by Kilmer17 I wouldnt have McNair either. Same type of problems. Someone please cite evidence that McNabb is a great QB. The defense carried his team, and when put in the position to take his team to the SuperBowl, he choked. His defense annihilated the Bears. His defense beat the Giants for the division title. His defense continually saved his *** after turnovers in the second game vs the Skins last year. Get over the hype and please give some evidence to support the claims. You're wrong on 2 of the 3 counts, dude. McNabb put up 33 on the best scoring defense in the league last season. A few were set up by the D and special teams, but that number speaks for itself. As for the Giants game, McNabb BAILED OUT the defense that day. If you saw the game, you'd know that. The defense sagged late in the game, giving up a long TD run to Ron Dayne of all people. Afterwards, McNabb drove down the field for a TD to Chad Lewis, and then went back down to set up the game-winning field goal. And even then, the defense managed to almost screw things up with that now-famous hook-and-lateral play. You're right about the second Skins game. And, as far as preferring other QB's 'stats-wise' over McNabb...well, I looked at the NFL listings in the paper and I see three categories: W, L, and T. So, keep those pretty stats if you want, but I prefer wins, and McNabb's provided them aplenty. And about McNabb not being able to elevate a bad offense to another level? Uh, two years ago, here's the starting skill players from the 2000 team that went 11-5 and lost to the Giants in the playoffs. WR - Torrance Small, Charles Johnson TE - Chad Lewis RB - Darnell Autry, Stanley Pritchett, Chris Warren FB - Cecil Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PennEagle Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 I agree with the talk about McNabb not being a perfect fit in the West Coast offense...however, he is a more than effective fit. You can't always pick players who fit your system to a T, but you can get guys that can be effective in it. And I somehow don't think Aaron Brooks, Dante Culpepper, Akili Smith, etc. (other guys available at QB that year) would fit in any better. Same with Reid. He's not an offensive genius, but he's solid in almost all the other aspects of coaching, so I'll vouch for him too because he's a good coach when you look at the overall picture. It ain't pretty but that's 22 wins over the last two seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins4Life Posted September 4, 2002 Share Posted September 4, 2002 Originally posted by lavarthebeast How is one better than the other? They are both identical every year in completion %, and both equal in trying to be Randall Cunningham. Further, McNair lost that SB for the Titans. He flat out stunk for 3 1/2 quarters. The difference between the two, is that McNair has better receivers to get the ball thrown to, and is a better passing QB than McNabb. However, McNair is a better POCKET passer, and wasn't as much of a scrambler at Alcorn St. (his college), compared to he is now. Fisher gives him a lot more freedom, than his college coach did in that aspect of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted September 5, 2002 Share Posted September 5, 2002 So one QB goes down and Philly's toast. Lets see who we cant replace on our team...... Matthews --> Wuerfull Davis --> Betts Jansen --> Vickers Stai --> Tucker Moore --> ??Tucker?? Loverne --> Tucker Samuels --> Vickers Flemster --> Stephens I dont know about you, but i any of these guys, with the exception of Matthews, goes down I'm not too confident in their Backups. Given they are not all very crucial positions and some of the backups can maybe stand for a game or so, but do you honestly think that we're going to the playoffs with Vickers on the starting OL?? If Philly is one player away from 3-13, then we're less than half a player away. I'd feel good to be in their shoes and be able to deal with a player who didnt depend on the OL and could still make the offense function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryman of the North Posted January 30, 2003 Author Share Posted January 30, 2003 well im man enough to admit when im wrong and i was wrong the iggles really picked it up after mcnabb got hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 True enough Ryan. I gave incredible credit to McNabb's brilliance as a player as a key reason the Eagles were what they were. It does appear that the Eagles are more than McNabb, and more is made of McNabb as a talent than is appropriate, perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Diggler Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 I will take this opportunity to pat myself on the back for starting a thread about the same time for saying how unbelievably overrated McNabb is/was. I don't have the specific link but my premise was pretty much that the Eagles were all about defense and McNabb could win his fair share of games by simply leading the offense them to 17 points. That he was simply a caretaker and not the MVP-like "playmaker" he was made out to be. The man is good but far, far from great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles_Legendz Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 I thought someone made this thread today initially. That would have been funny. :laugh: McNabb is a playmaker, but he is NOT a great QB- well certainly not for the WCO. He can win games on a few plays, and statistically he actually had a good year this year, but the Eagles need to design a new offense around him (which won't happen) since McNabb will be around for a longgg time. McNabb has incredible ability, but lacks touch and accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 and today...Jan 30th, 2003. He's the best QB in the NFC East. I'd take him. As much as I think Ramsey can be a force for years, its still unknown. McNabb makes things happen....if he had some real WR's, I think you would of taken out Tampa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 It depends on what "best" means. He's certainly not the best fit for his offense. Collins is a much better QB fit for the Giants. McNabb is what he is. A great talent. But he's not a very good quarterback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.