Is Donovan McNabb a top 10 QB?

[Ryman of the North]

Ryan leaf was a better athlete than Peyton manning. but not many people would choose Leaf over manning now.

[MartinC]

I think you misunderstood the remark you quoted. I don't see a contradiction.

When I try to grade a QB, I try to isolate him from the context by grading the tangible evidence of his talent. In contrast, most fans and the media are grading the QB in the context, thus comparisons to other QBs in other contexts can't be done fairly.

We have had this debate before

Your approach is valid but it is not a useful way to predict if a QB will be successful in the NFL. There are hundreds of people who have the physical skills to be an NFL QB but less than 32 who compliment that with the mental ability, work ethic and the good fortune to end up in the right system with the right coach and supporting cast.

If it's just an academic excercise your approach is fine. If you are actually trying to find your starting QB for the next 10 years I think it's less useful.

Mike Holmgrens comments about Montana were interesting by the way. It seems he rates him quite highly :evilg:

[darrelgreenie]

If you could get the 32 OCs to watch game film and grade their QBs on decision-making, tell us whether the receiver or the QB was at fault on an incompletion or an INT, and son on, then some reasonably good statistics would be possible. But we can't do that as spectators, and unless one is very familiar with the scheme, just watching game film wouldn't help a whole lot.

The extreme example you mention would produce a very accurate statistic for decision making.

But, that's not what i'm talking about. (Football Outsiders attempts something like this with their DVOA ratings and K.C. Joyner actually has a stat he calls the bad-decision rate that attempts to quantify QB choices that result in or almost result in a turn-over.)

I'm talking about looking at the raw data compiled by the NFL and making a deduction about a given QB decision making/effeciency and production based on the stats with consideration for the supporting cast for a given QB.

^^It wouldn't be any more subjective then your approach especially since it would actually include production.

Point being that without somehow ,even if subjectively, accounting for production a QB ranking would end up being a list of the most talented QBs in the league which is quite different from the most productive and i would rather have production.

Eli Manning a tier above Aaron Rodgers, huh?

Wow

Yep.

[darrelgreenie]

Quick thought.

Ever imagine what kind of QB Mike Vick would have been with a top tier QB guidance(the late Bill Walsh, Holmgren, Reid) and a willingness to commit to the scheme?

[Schizlor]

Do you have any data to back up your asertion that Manning isn't accurate?

No. No such data exists (despite your claim to the contrary).

My opinion is a logical deduction based on physics which I understand only enough to know that a spiral can cut through air much like a streamlined car cuts through the air in a wind tunnel.

Ok, wait.

You say Manning is not an accurate passer. Then you admit there is no data to support this, but claim the immutable laws of physics prove it's so? Based on the fact that a spiral moves through the air with less friction and more velocity than a wobbly pass, and therefore it is impossible to be accurate if you aren't throwing a perfect spiral? And conversely, a spiral = accurate?

What kind of nonsense is this? So when Brett Favre throws a wobbler to his tight end and it is perfectly led so the reciever can snatch it and continue his run....that pass was inaccurate (though a perponderance of evidence such as the ball going exactly where Favre wanted it to, and the ball was caught perfectly in stride, indicate the pass was accurate) because physics tells you passes can't be accurate unless they are spirals?

Conversely, when Jason Campbell goes deep to Moss on a beautifully-thrown spiral which proceeds to land 15 yards beyond Moss in full-sprint...that pass, while horribly overthrown, was an accurate pass, irrespective of the fact that it was nowhere near the intended receiver, because the indisputable laws of physics dictate that a perfectly-thrown spiral = accurate pass?

Nonsense.

And you say you aren't discounting the intangibles, but then say that's all he has and they aren't as important, ergo, he's overrated. How can you separate the two? Who cares what someone could do? Results are the only thing that matters. You criticize his working endlessly with receivers off the field to perfect the timing routes and get into a rhythm where he could run the play in his sleep, as being indicatative of a lack of skill. Like practicing to master your craft means that you're somehow deficient? How do you think people become proficient at things? Luck? You think they just show up on Sundays, crack their knuckles, and go out and throw for 378yds and 4 TD's with no INT's? People who don't put in the work fail, and fail quickly (Jamarcus Russell). Manning going the extra mile day in and day out is not a sign of weakness. He's not making up for a severe lack of talent. He's not Rudy Rudiger for christ's sake.

"When I try to grade a QB, I try to isolate him from the context by grading the tangible evidence of his talent."

Impossible, no matter how it might make sense in your head, it's impossible. How can you honestly claim you can take, say, Brian Orakpo, and "Isolate" his performance last year, and try and disregard the impact that Haynesworth had on the line, or where Orakpo was told to line up on specific plays, or the adjustments that London Fletcher was yelling at him right before the snap? You can't. It may seem like you can, but you cannot.

Your approach of "Im going to judge someone solely on what they are potentially capable of, and disregard everything they have done as simply a product of the environment they played in and not indicative of actual talent" is fatally flawed, for reasons which have been more than adequately explained by other posters. There may be situations in which that logic would apply, but Manning is not one of them.

You can say that despite making it to a Superbowl, Rex Grossman is an overrated QB, and I'd be inclined to believe you. Same for Trent Dilfer. But when you say it about Peyton Manning, you just look like a fool.

[Oldfan]

We have had this debate before :)Your approach is valid but it is not a useful way to predict if a QB will be successful in the NFL. There are hundreds of people who have the physical skills to be an NFL QB but less than 32 who compliment that with the mental ability, work ethic and the good fortune to end up in the right system with the right coach and supporting cast.

In making a prediction, let's agree that factors A, B, C and D are equally important, but D is virtually unpredictable. My approach would focus on accurately grading options based on factors A, B and C while ignoring the unpredictable D.

I think Marc Bulger and Tom Brady are fairly close in abilities. They were both drafted in the sixth-round, but Brady was drafted by the Patriots and Bulger went to the Saints. So, who in this forum will listen to me when I say that Marc Bulgar is underrated and Tom Brady is overrated? I think they both are grade A quarterbacks, but Brady will be the first ballot HOF selection.

Mike Holmgrens comments about Montana were interesting by the way. It seems he rates him quite highly :evilg:

As evidence, I will listen to the opinions of impartial experts. I accept Holmgern as an expert, but not as impartial.

[Oldfan]

I'm talking about looking at the raw data compiled by the NFL and making a deduction about a given QB decision making/effeciency and production based on the stats with consideration for the supporting cast for a given QB..

I don't think that's possible. Do you have the method worked out?

[bigjumbo1971]

It would be nice if you could take in consideration the talent around the QB but there is no way to measure it...a good OL can give an average QB a hall of fame year (Mark Rypien)

[MumboSauce]

I think McNabb is a top 10 QB. Right at 10. He could possibly be 11-12 but I give him a top 10 nod. I hate when I have a sig that supports the thread and my argument..takes away any credibility lol

[Oldfan]

Schizlor, with regard to your post #180:

Your remarks with regard to the accuracy issue have already been debated at some length. You added nothing new.

And you say you aren't discounting the intangibles, but then say that's all he has and they aren't as important, ergo, he's overrated.

That wasn't what I said. So, I don't need to defend that position.

Impossible, no matter how it might make sense in your head, it's impossible. How can you honestly claim you can take, say, Brian Orakpo, and "Isolate" his performance last year...

I didn't say that. I said that I try to isolate the QB and grade his talent. Read any scouting report on Brian Orakpo for an example of someone grading his talent.

[Schizlor]

I didn't say that. I said that I try to isolate the QB and grade his talent. Read any scouting report on Brian Orakpo for an example of someone grading his talent.

So, knowingly ignoring all empirical data to the contrary, when we "isolate" Peyton Manning from the fact that he's a former #1 overall draft pick, and has accomplished the following:

10× Pro Bowl selection (1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009)

5× First-team All-Pro selection (2003, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2009)

3× Second-team All-Pro selection (1999, 2000, 2006)

4× AP NFL MVP (2003, 2004, 2008, 2009)

Indianapolis Colts All-time leader (Career Wins, Passing Touchdowns , Pass Attempts, Pass Completions and Passing Yards)

Pro Bowl MVP (2005)

Super Bowl MVP (XLI)

Fastest ever to reach 10,000 yards passing

Fastest ever to reach 30,000 yards passing

Fastest to 1,000 completions

NFL 2000s All-Decade Team

...your contention is, after careful film study and hours of analysis using your "approach", that this man is overrated?

Dynamite work professor.

Look, using your reasoning, any QB substituted for Manning, especially if they have more raw talent to begin with, would post similar numbers and achieve similar results as Manning has, given the same supporting cast. Besides being absolutely unproveable, that statement is false. And you coming back and putting that in quotes and saying, "I didn't say that, so your point is meaningless" will not in any way detract from the fact that the fundamental logic underlying your point is still fatally flawed.

[barnacle]

Reading the board is pure comedy. If Mcnabb is so great, why did the Eagles let him go for practically nothing? If Mcnabb were still on the Eagles this year instead of the Redskins, not a single person here would have said he is a top 10 QB.

[ACW]

I was thinking the same thing. You know, I don't like Manning at all but I can admit that he's an elite quarterback.

Peyton? :yes: Only Brady, Brees (after this season it's fair to put hm up there), and MAYBE Big Ben are up there. I'd want Peyton leading my O.

Eli? :no: Good, yes, but not elite. Hell, he's only the 3rd best team in the NFCE (and THAT only because Kolb's unknown).

[mossomo]

If Mcnabb is so great

McNabb, just another average quarter back leading the Eagles to four consecutive NFC East division championships (2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004), five NFC Championship Games (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2008), and one Super Bowl.

[Oldfan]

Look, using your reasoning, any QB substituted for Manning, especially if they have more raw talent to begin with, would post similar numbers and achieve similar results as Manning has, given the same supporting cast...

I think a QB with more talent, one who fits the scheme, given the same supporting cast, would have better results than Peyton.

You, and others, make what I call an "argument by labeling." You give me team stats and call them QB stats; you give me team accomplishments and call them QB accomplishments; you talk about individual awards that were the direct result of team accomplishments and you label them QB awards.

If I said that a college QB's stats were inflated because he played in Mike Leach's system at Texas Tech, nobody would raise an eyebrow. But when I say that Peyton's stats are inflated because he plays in a QB friendly system, you come unraveled. Why? Do you think that the scheme-effect on QBs only happens in college?

[darrelgreenie]

darrelgreenie

I'm talking about looking at the raw data compiled by the NFL and making a deduction about a given QB decision making/effeciency and production based on the stats with consideration for the supporting cast for a given QB..

I don't think that's possible. Do you have the method worked out?

I don't think its possible to know or quantify with certainty, the same way i don't think you can with physical attributes like velocity or accuracy(unless measured by radar gun or in side by side throwing contest)

But, for the sake of a comparison a quick and dirty method would be to look at the quality of:

pass protection using: hurries, sacks allowed

running game: rushing avg/yards per game

scheme/coordination: is the OC/playcaller a known quantity/proven/veteran

WRs: pro bowls/raw stats

P.S.-i would also factor in consistency/longevity

e.g. Matt Cassell vs Jason Campbell; they have similiar circumstances yet one clearly had better production then the other:

(I hate using Campbell as an example but he's a QB we're both very familiar with)

Cassell/Campbell: both had sub-par pass protection (although one could argue to what extent Cassell's pass protection issues were a by product of his tendency to hold the ball the was present even when he was with New England)

Cassell had a better running game Campbell had better receivers

Scheme/Coordination/Playcalling: I'll give it a push b/c Haley is a new HC/OC but was highly touted OC prior to becoming a HC/play-caller and well we had Zorn

or you could compare Campbell to Palmer

both had similiar production but Palmer had a superior to far superior supporting cast in almost every way save for TE; but Palmer has shown in the pre-injury past the ability to produce at a much higher level

a much easier comparison is between Vince Young vs Todd Collins

for the obvious reasons and their comparison would be a rare instance where i think a W/L comparison would be meaningful

[Chachie]

Ssssoooooooo.... Is Donovan McNabb a top ten QB?

[Conn]

I think Marc Bulger and Tom Brady are fairly close in abilities. They were both drafted in the sixth-round, but Brady was drafted by the Patriots and Bulger went to the Saints. So, who in this forum will listen to me when I say that Marc Bulgar is underrated and Tom Brady is overrated? I think they both are grade A quarterbacks, but Brady will be the first ballot HOF selection.

I actually am with you 100% on this. I just don't think its possible, with the technology and knowledge that we have now, at least as fans, to separate the team/coaching vs. talent of the QB, in terms of production. Which you also believe.

Its just impossible to judge a QB's singular effect on production, for fans. I do use how a QB throws the ball as one of the biggest factors in deciding who I like to watch play (subconsciously, in all probability). Those guys are Jay Cutler, Matt Stafford, etc. Man, can they sling it. And it looks great, and the ball flies like its meant to.

The difference is, I don't think that gives me enough valid information, in regards to grading QB's.

Because while I acknowledge that its the only available means of evaluating JUST the QB that I realistically have access to, I also acknowledge that with the limits of such a system, my grades are just as subjective and potentially inaccurate as those of others who DO factor in production.

[Conn]

Reading the board is pure comedy. If Mcnabb is so great, why did the Eagles let him go for practically nothing? If Mcnabb were still on the Eagles this year instead of the Redskins, not a single person here would have said he is a top 10 QB.

I would, and have for years. I will until he shows me that he's not.

He led the league in passes over 40+ yards last season. And no, he didn't have a good running game or a great OL, and his main weapon was a largely one-dimensional WR, I don't care how fast and explosive he is. Take notes here, Jason Campbell.

He's just as explosive as ever, in terms of production. Just because his age goes up, doesn't mean his skills deteriorate, not until I see it with my own eyes. And I haven't.

[Late Night Roach]

Without providing any scientific explanation whatsoever, I believe that Donovan McNabb is indeed a top 10 caliber QB. Especially now that Kurt Warner has retired, that frees up another spot on my top ten list.

[Oldfan]

DG:I don't think its possible to know or quantify with certainty, the same way i don't think you can with physical attributes like velocity or accuracy(unless measured by radar gun or in side by side throwing contest).

Grading the tangibles isn't that much of a problem. For example, in 2007, I gave Jay Cutler the WOW grade after watching one half of one preseason game. later that same year, ESPN ran an article on young QBs quoting a scout and an NFL exec who had him head and shoulders above his peers. That same article verified my opinion that Al Saunders had done a good job in cleaning up Jason Campbell's mechanics. 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.

Last season, in his first meeting with the Jets, Tom Brady was only sacked once, but Ryan's overload blitzes had him throwing off his back foot even when the pressure wasn't there. His QB rating for the game was 50. In their second meeting, Belichick adjusted and Brady's rating was 120, I think. The difference in those numbers reflects the difference in the pressure he had to deal with.

Sacks and hurries can be counted, but that stat would not have indicated the difference in pressure Brady felt in those two games. The difference had to do with game strategy and adjustments.

Decision making? It's generally a bad idea to throw into double coverage, but Kurt Warner did it all the time when throwing to Fitzgerald. Brady does it regularly throwing to Moss. It's a bad decision to throw into single coverage if the DB is Revis.

Cutler is like a young Favre. He's a gunslinger and he needs smart receivers who can adjust their routes on the fly when he scrambles. He had them in Denver. He didn't have them last season. Some of those INTs that looked like bad QB decisions were dumb routes.

[Oldfan]

Because while I acknowledge that its the only available means of evaluating JUST the QB that I realistically have access to, I also acknowledge that with the limits of such a system, my grades are just as subjective and potentially inaccurate as those of others who DO factor in production.

When I got my first look at Jason Campbell, my reaction was : Damn. I hope Joe (Gibbs) knows what he's doing. I saw a kid with sloppy footwork and a loop in his delivery. At the time, the scouting reports didn't have much to say about a QB's mechanics. That has changed. Today's scouting reports cover mechanics pretty thoroughly. So, we're now getting better information from experts to verify what we can see ourselves.

When Al Saunders came to the Skins, he cleaned up a lot of Jason's mechanical problems, a job which Jim Zorn finished. But, why was Gibbs willing to give up three high picks for a QB with sloppy mechanics? The reason is that Joe is among the group who think that mechanics aren't important. If you get the ball there, that's all that counts -- and Jason had close to a 70% completion rate in his senior year at Auburn.

I'm in the camp with Jim Zorn who believes that the quality of the QB's mechanics sets the limits on his potential. So, when I saw Campbell's sloppy footwork, I was pretty sure that 70% completion rate was deceptive as a measure of accuracy.

So, with verification from scouting reports, I have more confidence in my grades than you seem to have. I don't think mine are potentially as inaccurate as those who use team-dependent stats.

[Conn]

Cutler is like a young Favre. He's a gunslinger and he needs smart receivers who can adjust their routes on the fly when he scrambles. He had them in Denver. He didn't have them last season. Some of those INTs that looked like bad QB decisions were dumb routes.

Favre famously has unorthodox, and even ugly, passes very often. His delivery/ugly passes are his signature "cringe" factor, but they get the job done.

Of course, then there are many other times where he throws a beautiful spiral that could break someone's hand.

But my point stands, by your criteria, he's not a QB that a young player should try to be, correct? Or is he the exception to your rule?

[Conn]

When I got my first look at Jason Campbell, my reaction was : Damn. I hope Joe (Gibbs) knows what he's doing. I saw a kid with sloppy footwork and a loop in his delivery. At the time, the scouting reports didn't have much to say about a QB's mechanics. That has changed. Today's scouting reports cover mechanics pretty thoroughly. So, we're now getting better information from experts to verify what we can see ourselves.

When Al Saunders came to the Skins, he cleaned up a lot of Jason's mechanical problems, a job which Jim Zorn finished. But, why was Gibbs willing to give up three high picks for a QB with sloppy mechanics? The reason is that Joe is among the group who thinks that mechanics aren't important. If you get the ball there, that's all that counts -- and Jason had close to a 70% completion rate in his senior year at Auburn.

I'm in the camp with Jim Zorn who believes that the quality of the QB's mechanics sets the limits on his potential. So, when I saw Campbell's sloppy footwork, I was pretty sure that 70% completion rate was deceptive as a measure of accuracy.

So, with verification from scouting reports, I have more confidence in my grades than you seem to have. I don't think mine are potentially as inaccurate as those who use team-dependent stats.

You know, I'm coming around to your way of thinking.

Purely in terms of QB talent/potential at this level, that is. We've already established that intangibles, intelligence, and coaching are nearly impossible to evaluate without being entirely too subjective.

And yes, there will always be the outliers: The Jamarcus Russels, the Jeff Georges, the Mike Vick's. Those with superior deliveries and/or ability to make all of the throws, but without the mental capacity/toughness/drive or football intelligence to follow through. And there will always be those who do not get put into the ideal position to succeed, those who aren't drafted or started in an offensive scheme that fits to their strengths and allows them to reach their potential. Or those who aren't surrounded with enough talent to win or put up gaudy stats.

But none of those things can be properly or effectively scouted, as you say.

So I'm starting to think that in some ways, your line of thought is, as you argue, less subjective and possibly more accurate in terms of judging QB potential, assuming that their are no obvious, glaring character flaws, football intelligence shortcomings, or work ethic issues.

[Oldfan]

Favre famously has unorthodox, and even ugly, passes very often. His delivery/ugly passes are his signature "cringe" factor, but they get the job done.

Of course, then there are many other times where he throws a beautiful spiral that could break someone's hand.

But my point stands, by your criteria, he's not a QB that a young player should try to be, correct? Or is he the exception to your rule?

Cutler and Favre are creative artists. They can't be judged by ordinary standards. They're fun to watch, but forget about running a highly disciplined scheme with them.

If you want to run a highly disciplined scheme, Tom Brady is your prototype. He isn't a great athlete, but he has solid mechanics and a good combination of velocity, touch and accuracy.

If you want to run a lot of movement passes , like Shanahan, you need legs; Cutler, Stafford -- but their kind won't be found in the sixth round like Brady. So, they're hard to find and hard to replace.