Is Donovan McNabb a top 10 QB?

[Oldfan]

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.

I'm having trouble explaining this point. I wasn't implying that lacking the intangibles could not cause the QB to fail. So, I have no problem agreeing with this:

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.

But, you are speaking of "grade A" strictly from the tangibles. Whereas, I was talking about a grade A quarterback like Tom Brady, not one lacking the intangibles.

[Oldfan]

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.

ConnSKINS26 responds to this post to explain my position in Post 248. However, I think you will still have a problem understanding my position if you think "physically gifted" is a synonym for "tangibles."

Jason Campbell is physically gifted, but when drafted, he had very sloppy mechanics... which are tangible. They can be seen. McNabb is physically gifted, but he can't seem to keep his mechanics together causing him to be inconsistent. This is a tangible piece of evidence to be used when grading him.

[MartinC]

But, you are speaking of "grade A" strictly from the tangibles. Whereas, I was talking about a grade A quarterback like Tom Brady, not one lacking the intangibles.

Gotcha.

[bulldog]

Anyone who looks at the Eagles skill players from 2000-2008 and says McNabb simply failed to perform at a high enough level for the Birds to win is just wearing blinders

Peyton Manning had Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne.

Tom Brady has Moss and Welker.

Last year Matt Schaub had Andre Johnson.

Only in 2004 with TO did McNabb EVER have a prime level performer with the Eagles.

Why?

Because the vaunted Eagles front office that gets WAY TOO MUCH CREDIT consistently FAILED to provide him with the outside players the team needed:

Freddie Mitchell

Greg Lewis

Reggie Brown

Todd Pinkston

James Thrash

How many Super Bowls are you going to win with these WRs?

DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin only came to the Eagles in the last year or two.

So for the majority of his career in Philly McNabb had NOTHING BUT MEDIOCRITY to work with.

Santana Moss is Jerry Rice when compared to the receivers Philly has had.

And what is truly ironic is that when the Eagles did finally get Jackson and Maclin, it was at the exact time their offensive line took a big hit with the aging of Runyan and Tra Thomas.

That Eagles line that had pro bowlers for much of the decade was left with Winston Justice, Stacy Andrews and the most overpaid LT in the NFL in Jason Peters.

Watch the protection in 2010, Kolb is going to be running for his life against the better defenses he faces.

Philly upfront is simply not as stong as they once were.

[darrelgreenie]

.......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.

The stats alone may not be reliable but no method is gonna be completely reliable.

But, a critical look at the states with consideration to the supporting cast and consideration of the tangibles is imo more accurate then just looking only at tangibles.

And later on in your post you actual refer back to production as proof of Boller's mediocrity.

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.

Eventually no matter how much you de-value it; production becomes integral in the evaluation of a QB.

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.

You're making my point.

His lack of production despite the proper supporting factors spoke to the quality of his QB play i.e. Production

Lets say we give the supporting factors grades:

pass protection

running game

receiving corps

coaching/gameplanning

A QBs production should be at least on the same grade as their surrounding talent.

Does a QB play above/below or equal to their supporting cast?

[mo808]

McNabb is going to blow :point2sky it up this year for the Redskins! Go McNabb, Go Redskins! HTTR!!

[HawaiianTime]

After speaking with a lot of Eagle fans, I always question them on why they don't like McNabb. I believe all of them think he is a quality QB, they just think he's a bum because, as they say it, "McNabb Chokes!" I remind them how he consistently gets them to post season and that doesn't matter. So, I say OK, and thank them for being honest. No rhyme or reason, they just are mad because he didn't win a Super Bowl.

McNabb, in my opinion is definitely one of the top ten active QBs.

[MartinC]

But, a critical look at the states with consideration to the supporting cast and consideration of the tangibles is imo more accurate then just looking only at tangibles.

I think you may be missing my point - I'm not aruguing that looking at tangible fators ALONE is all you can do to grade a QB. My debate with OF in this thread was that looking at tangibles is the starting point of a grade but in itself is not enough to determine if a QB will be sucessfull - read productive.

Dont forget though that production is an outcome - so in looking to project future performance it needs to be used with caution. What a QB produced in College is in no way indicative of what he may produce in the Pro's for example.

And later on in your post you actual refer back to production as proof of Boller's mediocrity.

I'm using Boller as an example of a QB who has great measurables and was drafted high based on them but failed to produce as evidence that tangibles alone are not enough to judge which QBs will produce and which will not.

Eventually no matter how much you de-value it; production becomes integral in the evaluation of a QB.

To a point but if you are say a GM deciding if to draft Ryan Leaf or Peyton Manning you have no RELEVANT performance to factor into your decision. In that case performance is far from integral.

A QBs production should be at least on the same grade as their surrounding talent.

Does a QB play above/below or equal to their supporting cast?

Thats maybe useful if as a fan you are looking back and having a message

board argument about where a QB should rank in all time best QBs list. It maybe useful if you are a GM deciding if you should sign a certain QB as a free agent or retain the guy you already have - but I think you underestimate just how hard it would be to do with any accuracy in real life.

[Redskins4ever]

After speaking with a lot of Eagle fans, I always question them on why they don't like McNabb. I believe all of them think he is a quality QB, they just think he's a bum because, as they say it, "McNabb Chokes!" I remind them how he consistently gets them to post season and that doesn't matter. So, I say OK, and thank them for being honest. No rhyme or reason, they just are mad because he didn't win a Super Bowl.

McNabb, in my opinion is definitely one of the top ten active QBs.

The city of Philadelphia didn't deserve McNabb. I don't think he choked. When the Eagles lost three straigt NFC Championship games in 2001, 2002, and 2003, it wasn't McNabb's fault. The other team played well but McNabb got the blame. He's guided the Eagles to many playoff appearances and one Super Bowl.

Give McNabb credit. He's definitely a top ten QB in the NFL.

[Oldfan]

His lack of production despite the proper supporting factors spoke to the quality of his QB play i.e. Production

Lets say we give the supporting factors grades:

Here are the factors involved with the yards-per-attempt stat:

A) quarterback's contribution to production

pass protection

C) running game

D) receiving corps

E) coaching/gameplanning

The length + width + height of a room = 100 feet. How long is the room? You can't answer the question because I've given you a useless number.

The YPA is a useless number in grading QBs. You are in effect saying "Well, if we could isolate the width and height of the room, we could estimate its length." It doesn't make sense because isolating the QB's supporting cast from the QB involves the same problem as isolating the QB from his supporting cast.

[pointyfootball]

As an Eagles fan, my main struggle with McNabb had always been that he couldn't be counted on to drive down the field late in a game and win it. There were probably times he did, but fewer than a top 10 QB should have.

[2cents]

One simple question solves this. Would you rather have McNabb or Campbell under center on Sept 12? I saw more from McNabb in two preseason games that I saw from Campbell in four years. Enough said.