Is Donovan McNabb a top 10 QB?

[Oldfan]

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.

Bobby Beathard has admitted that he didn't do his homework on Ryan Leaf. There was evidence of his emotional problem in college. But, if we assume that there is no way to predict a problem like that in most cases, then the kind of decision Bobby made will turn out right more often than not over 100 cases.

[darrelgreenie]

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 agree it much easier to judge physical traits then what goes on in a QBs head. But, i'm talking about the meaningfulness of production.

At some point production is a factor.

(Although without hard proof there's always differing opinions e.g. Manning's accuracy, or my own mistake with John Beck's supposed lack of arm strength (turn's out dude has an exceptionally strong arm but listening to the draft pundits had me thinking he had a weak arm)

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.

Like i said before the difference in supporting cast wouldn't be certain, but over the course of 16 games 1 game outliers, like the above game, would even out. E.g. you wouldn't claim that because of this 1 game Brady's overall pass protection for the season was sub-par. You would view the production stats in toto with regard to supporting cast factors like i layed out in the Cassell vs Campbell or Palmer vs Campbell don't you think that the comparison in those specific cases of production is meaningful with regard to their supporting factors?

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.

I'm not trying to quantify individual pass to pass decision making.

I'm saying that decision making/effeciency is evident in production.

(Kurt Warner throwing to Fitzgerald in double coverage isn't the same as throwing to ARE in double coverage.)

A QBs production can show efficiency of their specific passing system.

Because Campbell had imo near bottom barrell supporting factors across the board I kinda view Campbell's 2009 production as an NFL mendozza line of sorts.

Some of those INTs that looked like bad QB decisions were dumb routes.

Sure.

But, at the same time we can't absolve him for all those Ints because a QB has to know his receivers and know which receivers he can trust to make a play for him.

Cutler is very talented but like many QB with great arms he can be a bit reckless.

Oh BTW-Still curious why you have Sanchez higher then some of those other guys.

[Oldfan]

DG: ...i'm talking about the meaningfulness of production. At some point production is a factor.

I understand what you're trying to do. I'll try to explain why I think it's impossible.

The sum of the length + height + width of a room is 95 feet. How wide is it? You can't answer this question because I've given you a useless number. On 550 attempts in 2009, QB Smith had a completion percentage of 63.4% while on 510 attempts QB Wesson had a completion percentage of 59.8% -- which QB showed greater accuracy, Smith or Wesson? You can't answer the question because I've given you two useless numbers.

Another problem: teamwork creates a synergistic effect, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. For this reason, the individuals on a very good team will produce stats that they could not reproduce with lesser teams. Therefore, it's pointless to compare QBs Smith and Wesson on production when they play for teams of different quality.

Another problem: football rules give the offense a fresh set of downs if they gain 10+ yards which creates value for a ball control strategy. This, in turn, screws with the averages. We can't look at QB Smith's team's 7.1 YPA and QB Jones's team's 7.1 YPA and declare that they are equal because there's an undetermined consistency factor involved.

Right off the top, those of the few of the problems standing in your way.

You asked about Sanchez. The scouting reports on him projected sound mechanics and abilities that would make him an excellent pick to run a disciplined offense. From what I've seen, those reports were accurate. Do you disagree?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Bobby Beathard has admitted that he didn't do his homework on Ryan Leaf. There was evidence of his emotional problem in college. But, if we assume that there is no way to predict a problem like that in most cases, then the kind of decision Bobby made will turn out right more often than not over 100 cases.

I cringe when I read that name because I told everyone who would listen to me that April that Indy would regret picking Manning over Leaf!

From a physical standpoint, I'll stand by it...but yeah, I was WAY OFF!

[Oldfan]

I cringe when I read that name because I told everyone who would listen to me that April that Indy would regret picking Manning over Leaf!

From a physical standpoint, I'll stand by it...but yeah, I was WAY OFF!

Based on the evidence made public before the draft, and lacking a crystal ball, you made the right call.

[rumpshakers]

Interesting debate going on right now on 980. Sheehan wants to know what Redskin players are in the top 10 of their position. A caller called in and said McNabb. Sheehan disagreed, well I disagree with Sheehan. What 9 QBs are better than McNabb? I'm not just talking fantasy wise, I'm talking wins and numbers.

Here's my top 10 in no particular order:

Peyton Manning

Brady

Brees

McNabb

Rodgers

Roethlisberger

Romo sits to pee

Schaub

Rivers

Favre

McNabb is 4th in wins among active QBs. So I'm not sure how he isn't a top 10 QB.

For the record, Sheehan says that Cooley and Fletcher are the only players the Skins have that are top 10 at their positions.

I agree with you on this. No doubt McNasty is a top QB.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Based on the evidence made public before the draft, and lacking a crystal ball, you made the right call.

Yeah...I still believe that. I guess if Leaf had Manning's head, the guy would be the best QB of all time.

On a side note, I think that's the first time we've agreed in our debating history. That's worth a cold one...

:2drunks:

I wonder what it means that we agree that Leaf was a better pick than Manning...

[Oldfan]

On a side note, I think that's the first time we've agreed in our debating history

I don't agree with that.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I don't agree with that.

[Ryman of the North]

it means that physically Leaf was far better than Peyton, but mentally he was the epitome of ten cent head.

[darrelgreenie]

On 550 attempts in 2009, QB Smith had a completion percentage of 63.4% while on 510 attempts QB Wesson had a completion percentage of 59.8% -- which QB showed greater accuracy, Smith or Wesson? You can't answer the question because I've given you two useless numbers.

I don't think you understand what i'm trying to do at all.

I'm not trying to determine who's more accurate based on the completion %.

Like i said before i'm looking at the stats in total between QBs with consideration for the factors we've previously mentioned like: pass protection, running game, receiving corps, offensive scheme playcalling/coordination.

And looking at their production as a measure of quality with supporting cast as major consideration.

That's why i gave the specific example of production between: Cassell vs Campbell and Campbell vs Palmer.

I agree that looking at raw stats without consideration of their supporting cast isn't a very meaningfull assesstment of the QBs.

But, when/if the impact of supporting cast is acknowledged it allows for a meaningful view of a given QBs production.

Another problem: teamwork creates a synergistic effect, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. For this reason, the individuals on a very good team will produce stats that they could not reproduce with lesser teams. Therefore, it's pointless to compare QBs Smith and Wesson on production when they play for teams of different quality.

The point i'm making is that if you can identify that there are differences in production; due for example to a team running an highly effective passing game, then you can account for it.

When you look at the raw stats for players from that scheme you take that into consideration.

For example if a scout was grading QB/WR that come from Texas Tech or some other pass happy offenses they view their passing stats differently then the passing stats of QB/WR from a run-option offense.

This is the exact type of consideration i'm refering to in regards for viewing productoin stats.

Another problem: football rules give the offense a fresh set of downs if they gain 10+ yards which creates value for a ball control strategy. This, in turn, screws with the averages. We can't look at QB Smith's team's 7.1 YPA and QB Jones's team's 7.1 YPA and declare that they are equal because there's an undetermined consistency factor involved.

I don't follow.

YPA is a good general snap-shot of the degree to which an passing game throws downfield vs short once a consideration is made for the the quality of the WR in terms of YAC.

Right off the top, those of the few of the problems standing in your way.

The possible flaws in looking at raw stats are the exact type of factors you take into consideration when looking at QB production.

You asked about Sanchez. The scouting reports on him projected sound mechanics and abilities that would make him an excellent pick to run a disciplined offense. From what I've seen, those reports were accurate. Do you disagree?

I agree about the mechanics and the projection about Sanches being a good WCO style QB, but i don't agree with ranking him higher then other QBs that have already excelled at running disciplined offenses (Peyton and Eli Mannings, McNabb, Romo sits to pee, Rothlisberger and Matt Schaub).

They already accomplished what Sanchez is only projected to accomplish. Unless you think his stats are indicative of QB executing their offense at a high level, because Sanchez has a good set of supporting factors. And unlike Stafford i don't think Sanchez possess far superior physical tools to justified a bump based on potential.

[Ryman of the North]

DG- that was one of my arguments against Mcnabb being considered an elite franchise QB

1- his stats (already borderline other than one superlative season) weer skewed by playing on a team that passed an extremely high percentage of the time, despite him having all those extra chances he never really set it on fire.

2- the argument about his receivers is flawed because he did have very solid backs and Tes as well as pretty solid Olines for his entire career. with all of his attempts you would think some of his recs would have put up some sort of numbers.

I agree mostly with OF about being able to tell if a Player is gonna fit physically and usually its a great indicator, BUT I also believe that a players metality is a huge thing and that once you established they can physically do the job you need to at least try to see if you judge intangibles.

[Oldfan]

DG: I don't think you understand what i'm trying to do at all. I'm not trying to determine who's more accurate based on the completion %.

Yes, I do understand what you're trying to do. I used the completion percentage only as an example of a useless number similar to the one used in my analogy.

Like i said before i'm looking at the stats in total between QBs

In my opinion, you are wasting your time by beginning with a collection of useless numbers. You're trying to make chicken salad out of chicken feathers.

For example if a scout was grading QB/WR that come from Texas Tech or some other pass happy offenses they view their passing stats differently then the passing stats of QB/WR from a run-option offense. This is the exact type of consideration i'm refering to in regards for viewing productoin stats.

Even casual football fans know that they should disregard the stats produced by the QBs coached by June Jones or Mike Leach. What they don't seem to realize is that the scheme-effect applies to all colleges and all NFL teams thus (along with other factors) rendering stats useless in grading QBs.

I don't follow.YPA is a good general snap-shot of the degree to which an passing game throws downfield vs the the quality of the WR YAC.

Team A: 7.1 YPA -- doesn't include lots of big plays

Team B: 7.1 YPA -- includes lots of big plays

Team A has the more effective offense because of the consistency factor. It will do a better job of moving the chains and playing the field position/ball control game.

I agree about the mechanics and the projection about Sanches being a good WCO style QB, but i don't agree with ranking him higher then other QBs that have already excelled at running disciplined offenses (Peyton and Eli Mannings, McNabb, Romo sits to pee, Rothlisberger and Matt Schaub).

I'm trying to grade QBs, not the accomplishments of their teams with them at QB.

[Oldfan]

I agree mostly with OF about being able to tell if a Player is gonna fit physically and usually its a great indicator, BUT I also believe that a players metality is a huge thing and that once you established they can physically do the job you need to at least try to see if you judge intangibles.

But, here's what happens in reality... the QB who plays for a very good team will get hyped; and since it's hard to hype the tangibles, we hear a whole lot of BS on the intangibles.

[darrelgreenie]

Once again we'll just have to disagree, but good discussion.

I'm trying to grade QBs, not the accomplishments of their teams with them at QB.

Right, but i'm curious about how you put Sanchez ahead of those QBs?

You said he would be excellent pick to run a disciplined offense but those guys have already done just that and those guys have just as good if not better physical tools.

[Oldfan]

Once again we'll just have to disagree, but good discussion.

Right, but i'm curious about how you put Sanchez ahead of those QBs?

You said he would be excellent pick to run a disciplined offense but those guys have already done just that and those guys have just as good if not better physical tools.

Peyton and Eli don't throw the football as well, nor are they mobile. Romo sits to pee doesn't throw from the pocket as well, so he hasn't shown he can run a disciplined offense. Smart teams keep him in the pocket. Schaub doesn't move well. Big Ben is high risk/ high reward. You can't get consistency from him.

[darrelgreenie]

DG- that was one of my arguments against Mcnabb being considered an elite franchise QB

1- his stats (already borderline other than one superlative season) weer skewed by playing on a team that passed an extremely high percentage of the time, despite him having all those extra chances he never really set it on fire.

2- the argument about his receivers is flawed because he did have very solid backs and Tes as well as pretty solid Olines for his entire career. with all of his attempts you would think some of his recs would have put up some sort of numbers.

Okay, interesting opinion.

But, I'm confused as to how this is a reponse to me?

BTW-how are you defining an elite franchise QB?

I agree mostly with OF about being able to tell if a Player is gonna fit physically and usually its a great indicator, BUT I also believe that a players metality is a huge thing and that once you established they can physically do the job you need to at least try to see if you judge intangibles.

I'm not sure how germane your point is to my point because i'm talking about production not intangibles.

BTW Ryman who's your top 10?

[darrelgreenie]

Peyton and Eli don't throw the football as well, nor are they mobile. Romo sits to pee doesn't throw from the pocket as well, so he hasn't shown he can run a disciplined offense. Smart teams keep him in the pocket. Schaub doesn't move well. Big Ben is high risk/ high reward. You can't get consistency from him.

Okay, although i would argue that:

Sanchez probably throws more spirals but the Mannings especially Eli have him beat in arm strength.

Romo sits to pee is more mobile, but yes he's not as steady in the pocket.

Schaub is a less mobile but his equal in the other areas.

Big Ben has a better arm, throws the ball as well and has that 'hard to bring down type' of elusiveness that allows him to be more of a playmaker then Sanchez but he does it at the cost of discipline.

Then of course there's the production issue.

The Jets have the supporting elements for Sanchez to produce at much higher level given his talents. (great pass protection, great running game, good receiving corps, good offensive system/coordination w/ Brian Shotty)

Sanchez didn't produce on the same level as Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco's in their rookie seasons.

Your list still smacks of a top 10 most talented QBs

[Oldfan]

Your list still smacks of a top 10 most talented QBs

That's what it is. I don't use production because there's no way to isolate the QB from his team-dependent stats.

I grade that which can be graded, and concede that there are intangibles which only a few people very close to the QB can grade with any accuracy.

[bikie]

I'd rather have a QB with the decision making of a peyton or brees than a QB with the arm of palmer or stafford and average decision making... I don't think OF gives enough credit to all the ingredients that go into a successful play, sometimes before the ball is even snapped...

with most QB's having the authority to call from a set of audibles based on what they are seeing pre-snap (with guys like brady and manning having the whole playbook at their discretion for audibles versus a 3 set audible that other QB's are limited to), and with the majority of teams running option routes and the decisions they and their WR's must make post snap before throwing the ball, you don't need a cannon for an arm if you can make the correct decisions based on what the defense is giving you...

give me a QB who can read what the D is sugaring and what they are really showing, and who can audible into the correct play based off that information, and I'll show you a QB who always seems to be hitting wide open WR's without the need for an arm that can fit the ball into a window that probably should have never been thrown at any ways...

[Conn]

I think OF gives plenty of credit to those things, bikie.

I just think that he acknowledges that you can't quantify them reliably. So he doesn't use them in his evaluation of a QB.

[bikie]

I think OF gives plenty of credit to those things, bikie.

I just think that he acknowledges that you can't quantify them reliably. So he doesn't use them in his evaluation of a QB.

if he did in this thread, then I apologize, in other discussions with him, I've never seen him acknowledge that aspect of QB'ing (if he did, he'd recognize Montana was elite)...

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..

it just cracks me up though when people watch brees or brady and say, "their WR's were wide open all day, anyone could have thrown those balls", failing to acknowledge that they were wide open for a reason and there aren't many WR's that get that type of space due to their route running... it's most likely what a result of the adjustments made at the line and the read after it...

[Conn]

if he did in this thread, then I apologize, in other discussions with him, I've never seen him acknowledge that aspect of QB'ing (if he did, he'd recognize Montana was elite)...

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..

it just cracks me up though when people watch brees or brady and say, "their WR's were wide open all day, anyone could have thrown those balls", failing to acknowledge that they were wide open for a reason and there aren't many WR's that get that type of space due to their route running... it's most likely what a result of the adjustments made at the line and the read after it...

He admits that they are important, but that not many people can measure the intangibles, and no one can do it accurately. Its why they are intangibles. And he goes from there with his evaluation, it seems. He's said it numerous times, but people always twist around what he's saying, as if those things aren't important. Of course they are. All he's saying is that they are just used to fluff a conversation between fans, most of the time. Because none of us can really determine intangibles.

[DC_BearsFan]

He admits that they are important, but that not many people can measure the intangibles, and no one can do it accurately. Its why they are intangibles. And he goes from there with his evaluation, it seems. He's said it numerous times, but people always twist around what he's saying, as if those things aren't important. Of course they are. All he's saying is that they are just used to fluff a conversation between fans, most of the time. Because none of us can really determine intangibles.

really don't understand how you guys can watch a play like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3L09liVopc#t=3m10s

(the most recent meaningful game in fact, that Im pretty sure you watched)

and not think that Peyton Manning is the best QB we(NFL fans) have out there. there is no one in the league who can put that much touch on a deep pass while rolling out, to a player blanketed by other jerseys. Maybe cutler at his best could make that throw but manning makes it look easy in the superbowl. Isnt that tangible?

when I read in this thread that OldFan thinks Peyton Manning is not accurate and throws "ducks" I thought it was a joke, only to find that some posters namely ConnSKINS26 actually backing him up.

in regards to the original question, I think McNabb is probably in the 12 best category now. He was top 5 in the prime of his career, i think he has lost a bit with all his injuries, but hes still very good.

[Conn]

really don't understand how you guys can watch a play like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3L09liVopc#t=3m10s

(the most recent meaningful game in fact, that Im pretty sure you watched)

and not think that Peyton Manning is the best QB we(NFL fans) have out there. there is no one in the league who can put that much touch on a deep pass while rolling out, to a player blanketed by other jerseys. Maybe cutler at his best could make that throw but manning makes it look easy in the superbowl. Isnt that tangible?

when I read in this thread that OldFan thinks Peyton Manning is not accurate and throws "ducks" I thought it was a joke, only to find that some posters namely ConnSKINS26 actually backing him up.

in regards to the original question, I think McNabb is probably in the 12 best category now. He was top 5 in the prime of his career, i think he has lost a bit with all his injuries, but hes still very good.

Maybe you should improve on your reading comprehension, then.

Peyton Manning is my favorite QB to watch, bar none. I think when all is said and done, he'll arguably be the GOAT, with another SB.

I'm merely supporting the right of Oldfan to have these views without being ridiculed, and without his argument being twisted every which way to say things he was never actually saying.

Because I can see where he's coming from on all of it, even if I only agree with certain parts. The broader aspect of what he's saying has merit, even if your strong opinion doesn't allow you to acknowledge that.

Your problem is that you can't seem to get past the Manning part of this debate, when in fact its a much broader issue that is being debated. That is a small portion of it that I don't agree with, like yourself.

If you had actually gone back and read all of it, you'd know all of this. I don't appreciate being "called out" for views that A) you manufactured, and you don't fully understand in the first place.