Is Donovan McNabb a top 10 QB?

[Oldfan]

if he did in this thread, then I apologize, in other discussions with him...

I've explained my position clearly and often whenever this discussion comes up.

but I'd agree that the fans would not have access to this information and it would be those with game tape and an understanding of the scheme/play called that would be able to make those evaluations..

Excellent! Now, will you explain the following?

I've never seen him acknowledge that aspect of QB'ing (if he did, he'd recognize Montana was elite)...

How did you determine from the intangibles that Montana was elite if it wasn't from listening to others hype his intangibles and jumping on the bandwagon?

[bulldog]

Donovan McNabb doesn't get the respect he deserves because the Eagles lost the 2004 Super Bowl 24-21 to New England.

Let's face it, if McNabb and Philadelphia had won that game he would be acclaimed as a top quarterback without question.

How many Super Bowls has Brett Favre won? ONE.

How many Super Bowls has Peyton Manning one? ONE.

But that one victory takes these guys from the 'great passer' category to the 'great leader' category.

And that's the way some people look at it.

[JRAB]

Like most fans and the media, you grade QBs on team stats and team accomplishments. I'm grading the player as a scout would grade him, on the tangibles, what can be seen if you watch him play and watch carefully.

My approach grades Joe Montana, not Joe Montana and his 49er team.

Phil Simms won't knock QBs, but he shares my opinion that when he hears people talk about a QB's intangibles he turns a deaf ear -- not because the intangibles aren't important, but because the talk is mostly BS intended to hype a QB or knock him.

Steve Young shares my opinion that Archie Manning was a very underrated QB. He was underrated because he played his prime years with the hapless Saints. He had the worst win percentage of any QB with 100 starts in NFL history.

Sooooooo.... you're saying that Ryan Leaf would be in your top 3 best QB's of all time.

Gotcha.

[MartinC]

The tangible stuff isn't that much of a problem. It's what goes on in the QB's head that is hard to grade.

I think that's a pretty good summary of this whole debate and sums up both the strength and weakness of your approach to grading QBs.

It's entirley logical to start any analysis with what can actually be measured to at least some extent objectively. Your approach which I'm pretty sure is used by every professional Scout/GM/Coach as an essential part of their grading process. It woud make sense to draw up your list of potential QB's and grade them form a physical and mechanical perspective as a starting point.

Lets call that our short list. From that we pare down to the guys who based on the tangible stuff we think may fit our need.

But thats only half the job and the easy part at that. In making a decision of which QB to recruit/draft/trade for/sign as a free agent/start we then need to get into the murky bit in between the ears and also make some subjective judgements based on best information, past experience, gut feel and putting on a blind fold and sticking a pin in the list.

Then you take your pick, pay your money and keep everything you have crossed that it all works out.

Without the second bit you get a list of guys who would be great contestants in a QB skills challenge but not THAT much help in predicting who will be a successful QB.

The problem that you rightly point out for fans like you and me grading QBs is that all we have to go on which is the physical stuff. We know intutively thats not enough so we mix in all the team stats and production to grade QBs. Thats fun but of no use to a professional GM who has to predict performance BEFORE it happens.

[Oldfan]

Sooooooo.... you're saying that Ryan Leaf would be in your top 3 best QB's of all time.

Gotcha.

Friendly suggestion: Do a Websearch for "strawman argument" in order to help you avoid this logical fallacy in the future.

[Oldfan]

...The problem that you rightly point out for fans like you and me grading QBs is that all we have to go on which is the physical stuff. We know intutively thats not enough so we mix in all the team stats and production to grade QBs.

It's on this point that I separate from most fans and come up with radically different opinions on QBs.

I think Archie Manning was a more talented QB than Joe Montana. That's based on watching them play. Archie's a bright guy, so's Joe from what I can tell. I have no way of comparing their intangibles. It's impossible to get impartial expert opinions on that because the few people qualified as experts on the topic are not impartial.

But most fans and the media don't grade QBs, they grade the team with the QB, thus they regard Joe as one of the greatest of all time while Archie, who played most of his career with the hapless Saints, and has the lowest win percentage in NFL history for QBs with 100 or more starts, is forgotten.

Incidentally, darrelgreenie recently posted a clip of Steve Young identifying Archie Manning as the best QB of his era.

Bill Walsh got Steve Young in a trade for the final pick in the fourth round. Had Steve played his entire career with Tampa Bay, nobody would remember him.

[MartinC]

It's on this point that I separate from most fans and come up with radically different opinions on QBs.

I understand that. My post acknowledged that your way of grading is sensible and logical and is almost certainly a part of the way all NFL teams grade QBs. It only does half the job though and, on its own, is not that effective at predicting how successful a QB will be. Its a good and probably essential starting point though.

[Oldfan]

I understand that. My post acknowledged that your way of grading is sensible and logical and is almost certainly a part of the way all NFL teams grade QBs. It only does half the job though and, on its own, is not that effective at predicting how successful a QB will be. Its a good and probably essential starting point though.

I can reliably predict that a grade A quarterback coming out of the draft will be successful if selected by a good, well-coached team and, if not, he'll be unsuccessful.

[MartinC]

I can reliably predict that a grade A quarterback coming out of the draft will be successful if selected by a good, well-coached team and, if not, he'll be unsuccessful.

Then you are - or were - in the wrong profession. Guys who get paid a lot to do NFL player personnel decisions struggle to get it right.

[Oldfan]

Then you are - or were - in the wrong profession. Guys who get paid a lot to do NFL player personnel decisions struggle to get it right.

Maybe I didn't make my point clearly.

It's not that easy to grade a QB -- I grant that.

But, my point assumes that the player is a grade A QB. I'm saying that even if he's a grade A player, he's not going to succeed without a strong supporting cast because the position is so team-dependent for success.

[Section123OnSundays]

McNabb above Rodgers???? Really? I LOVE the Redskins but come on man...

[GreenRiggins]

I consider Hall top 10 or very close

D.Hall isn't anywhere near the Top 10 in CB's.

Some teams have 2 CB's better than him. His tackling is very suspect just ask Jake Delhome. He gets burned easy when in one on one coverage.

I wish Rogers had his hands then we might have something there.

Some teams have 2 starting corners better than him.

NY Jet CB's

Green Bay CB's

Dallass CB's

Bengal CB's

Not to mention that these CB's are better: Asomugha, Trufant, D.Rodgers-Cromartie, Rashean Mathis, Asante Samuel, Champ Bailey,Cortland Finnegan, Jabari Greer, Antoine Winfield, Corey Webster, Quentin Jammer, Cedric Griffin and I'm sure theres more.

Our defense will be a Top 5 defense in spite of D. Hall not because of him. :helmet:

[Conn]

Our defense will be a Top 5 defense in spite of D. Hall not because of him. :helmet:

No.

You're trying to grade DHall on something he isn't: a reliable coverage corner. He's never been that, and never will. That's not his game. He's a turnover machine, however. He'll gamble, and its 50/50 whether he makes the play or gives up a play. That's why you NEED a solid guy like Carlos Rogers across the field from him, who CAN shut guys down, even if he can't get INT's like DHall.

Used correctly, and with pressure on opposing QB's, DHall will be the type of play that allows our aggressive defense to prosper. You just have to understand his game, and use it as a strength, rather than a weakness.

But you are correct that he isn't top 10. What offsets that, is that over the past few years, he's at the top of the league in turnovers.

[MartinC]

Maybe I didn't make my point clearly.

It's not that easy to grade a QB -- I grant that.

But, my point assumes that the player is a grade A QB. I'm saying that even if he's a grade A player, he's not going to succeed without a strong supporting cast because the position is so team-dependent for success.

Its still not that simple though your chances of success clearly get higher. Take Kyle Boller - everyone had him graded very highly from a physical talent perspective. Amazing arm, prototype size, decent mobility, good mechanics. Then he got drafted by the Ravens with a stacked Defense, great running game and Ogden at LT.

By your measure he was a can't miss. Yet he is now competing with Colt Brennan for the 3rd spot on the Raiders roster. Even Ozzie Newsome shoots some blanks its seems.

I agree though that NFL history is littered with QBs who had great talent from a physical point but who were sunk by being drafted by lousy teams or being asked to run a system totally unsuited to their skillset.

[Oldfan]

Its still not that simple though your chances of success clearly get higher. Take Kyle Boller - everyone had him graded very highly from a physical talent perspective. Amazing arm, prototype size, decent mobility, good mechanics. Then he got drafted by the Ravens with a stacked Defense, great running game and Ogden at LT.

By your measure he was a can't miss. Yet he is now competing with Colt Brennan for the 3rd spot on the Raiders roster. Even Ozzie Newsome shoots some blanks its seems.

I agree though that NFL history is littered with QBs who had great talent from a physical point but who were sunk by being drafted by lousy teams or being asked to run a system totally unsuited to their skillset.

Where did I claim that my method can't miss? It misses often; but your opening sentence describes my claim pretty well, "It's still not that simple, though your chances of success clearly get higher." That's what smart decision-making attempts to do, increase the chances of success.

EDIT: Perhaps you misunderstood my earlier statement. When I assumed that the QB coming out of the draft was a grade A player, it was a conditional premise... IF the QB was a grade A player, then he still needs a good support system or he will fail. Boller might have carried a grade of A, but he didn't pan out.

[bikie]

I've explained my position clearly and often whenever this discussion comes up.

Excellent! Now, will you explain the following?

How did you determine from the intangibles that Montana was elite if it wasn't from listening to others hype his intangibles and jumping on the bandwagon?

it was listening to the experts who had access to the film of him that detailed his ability to make these decisions... and with all due respect, experts whose opinion (based on film) I value over this all the members on this board combined...

and what is so "intangible" about concluding that a QB in an offense that relies heavily on the option routes, who performed expertly in that offense for many years is not elite? whether he would have succeeded in other schemes is speculation; what we do know, is that he was a master of walsh's scheme which required great decision making and excellent accuracy (not to mention his ability to perform under in big moments).. and those are two qualities I'd take over anything else a QB could possess...

we differ on this but I respect your opinions and enjoy your posts.. have a good weekend...

[Oldfan]

it was listening to the experts who had access to the film of him that detailed his ability to make these decisions... and with all due respect, experts whose opinion (based on film) I value over this all the members on this board combined...

The only qualified experts were Bill Walsh and his OCs. I guess you aren't aware that coaches tend to hype their QBs.

and what is so "intangible" about concluding that a QB in an offense that relies heavily on the option routes, who performed expertly in that offense for many years is not elite?

It's an intangible because it can't be seen and measured. You really don't know that Montana was any better at running that offense than, say, Don Hasselbeck. It's football not rocket science.

whether he would have succeeded in other schemes is speculation; what we do know, is that he was a master of walsh's scheme which required great decision making and excellent accuracy

So was Don Hasselbeck.

(not to mention his ability to perform under in big moments)..

How do you know that someone like Don Hasselbeck couldn't have done as well or better if he had the 49ers offense to work with?

we differ on this but I respect your opinions and enjoy your posts.. have a good weekend...

I enjoy good debate. Thanks.

[MartinC]

Where did I claim that my method can't miss? It misses often; but your opening sentence describes my claim pretty well, "It's still not that simple, though your chances of success clearly get higher." That's what smart decision-making attempts to do, increase the chances of success.

I was basing my comments on the statement you made below. Perhaps I misunderstood but I read this as you saying that if you get a grade A QB from a talent perspective and put him in a good situation you can reliably predict he would succeed.

I can reliably predict that a grade A quarterback coming out of the draft will be successful if selected by a good, well-coached team and, if not, he'll be unsuccessful.

I guess this hinges on the definition of 'reliably'

IF the QB was a grade A player, then he still needs a good support system or he will fail. Boller might have carried a grade of A, but he didn't pan out.

Maybe I'm still misunderstanding - its been a long week - but Boller, a Grade A QB physically, had an excellent support system (I would argue) and flopped.

[Oldfan]

I was basing my comments on the statement you made below. Perhaps I misunderstood but I read this as you saying that if you get a grade A QB from a talent perspective and put him in a good situation you can reliably predict he would succeed.

I guess this hinges on the definition of 'reliably'

Maybe I'm still misunderstanding - its been a long week - but Boller, a Grade A QB physically, had an excellent support system (I would argue) and flopped.

I see where we have the misunderstanding...let me see if I can clear it up.

A) Tom Brady is a grade A quarterback.

Kyle Boller is a quarterback who was given a grade of A in the draft but that grade turned out to be too high

A conditional premise states, in effect: "If this assumption is true, then.."

So, repeating: I can reliably predict that a grade A quarterback (like Tom Brady) will be successful if he is drafted by a good, well-coached team, if not, he will fail.

I didn't mean that the grading system is infallible and all players getting A grades would succeed with a good football team.

[darrelgreenie]

Its still not that simple though your chances of success clearly get higher. Take Kyle Boller - everyone had him graded very highly from a physical talent perspective. Amazing arm, prototype size, decent mobility, good mechanics. Then he got drafted by the Ravens with a stacked Defense, great running game and Ogden at LT.

And this is where production comes into play.

[TheItalianStallion]

Before I continue, let me say that I think the Shanahans' system of a balanced offense with moving pockets, rollouts, and intermediate throws will be a good fit for McNabb, and it's entirely possible that he'll have a career year, or close to it.

Looking at McNabb's career numbers.......

59%, 222.2 ypg, 6.9 ypa, 1.46 TDpg, 0.676 INTpg, 86.5 rating.

Not bad, but really not that great either, though he has substantially improved in the years after 2003. Here are how his defenses have fared on a papg basis........

2000-4th

2001-2nd

2002-2nd

2003-7th, but 1st in the post season

2004-2nd, and 1st in the post season to the Patriots' 2nd

2005-27th (didn't make playoffs)

2006-15th, but 7th in the post season

2007-9th (didn't make playoffs)

2008-4th

2009-19th (great D-Coordinator Jim Johnson died before the season started)

Seems like the D largely carried McNabb, especially early in the decade when they were going to NFCCGs.

[JRAB]

Friendly suggestion: Do a Websearch for "strawman argument" in order to help you avoid this logical fallacy in the future.

I don't know man... it seems like to me almost all the QB's drafted are gifted physically and that it is the intangibles that separate the good one's from the bad one's.

Of course, being drafted by a good team with a good support system is important... but then, not all physically gifted QB's drafted by good teams are a success.

Call it what you will, but it seems like you're saying that Ryan Leaf, who was one of the most physically gifted QB's to come out in quite some time, would have been a pro bowl QB if drafted by a good team

I strongly disagree with that.

[Conn]

Call it what you will, but it seems like you're saying that Ryan Leaf, who was one of the most physically gifted QB's to come out in quite some time, would have been a pro bowl QB if drafted by a good team.

No, I'm pretty sure he's saying that since you can't accurately measure or predict the intangibles (which are what lead to Ryan Leaf sucking), the best that you can do is go for a QB LIKE Leaf, and put him into a system in which he can succeed and play to his strengths.

Horrible intangibles like Leaf's and JaMarcus Russel's are purely bad luck for the teams that draft them, because if they were that obvious, they wouldn't have been drafted where they were.

You're arguing a point that OF never made.

[darrelgreenie]

This thread needs a pole

[MartinC]

I see where we have the misunderstanding...let me see if I can clear it up.

A) Tom Brady is a grade A quarterback.

Kyle Boller is a quarterback who was given a grade of A in the draft but that grade turned out to be too high

A conditional premise states, in effect: "If this assumption is true, then.."

So, repeating: I can reliably predict that a grade A quarterback (like Tom Brady) will be successful if he is drafted by a good, well-coached team, if not, he will fail.

I didn't mean that the grading system is infallible and all players getting A grades would succeed with a good football team.

Thats helpful, thanks.

I think we are getting to the very core though of where we seem to disagree. Our views are not that far away from each other in that I agree that grading a QB can really only be done objectively using measurable factors and that wins/loss and stats are in fact a result of more than just the QBs and so not really a measure of his ability.

However you seem to be saying that if a QB graded A for an objective talent perspective fails its the grading that is at fault. He failed becuase he really was not a grade A. Now that may be true but I would also argue that there are plenty of examples of QBs who really ARE grade A QBs from a physical/talent perspective and who where in good/decent situations from a supporting cast perspective but who failed to produce.

Kyle Boller really is a grade A QB from a pure talent perspective. For some reason though - probably in the six inches between his ears - he is a mediocre QB where it really matters. Under centre in games.

I think we are starting to get to the point though where we are debating a really fine point. Its been fun though, have a great weekend