jbooma Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 I know what you think of McNabb as a QB. I am curious did yesterday's game change your opinion in anyway?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 He still threw his signature one hoppers in the dirt and was an absolute nightmare for his offensive line to protect. If it wasn't for GBs complete breakdown we'd all be talking about how overrated McNabb is.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Uh, no. Why would it change when the game would simply reconfirm for me what he is? McNabb is not a very good quarterback. He's an elite playmaker. Always has been. May be able to evolve into an excellent QB as well one day, but he's not there now. McNabb can make plays on the ground that few can at his position, which makes him more dangerous than most. At the same time, his mobility doesn't prevent him from getting sacked 8 times. McNabb completed 54 percent of his passes in what remains an exceptionally short passing offense. Without a fourth and 26 conversion he'd be at home with a playoff record for running the football. As long as McNabb remains more dangerous with his feet than his arm, he'll merely be a so-so QB while remaining an elite playmaker. Yesterday's game was an excellent example of that. Until he actually completes 60 percent of his passes and has 26 touchdown passes and throws for 3,500 yards on some regular basis, he'll merely not be a great QB. He'll remain a great player though. Perhaps the definition of QB being used here is one of a passer. As the game evolves and mobility eventually becomes the standard we may judge QBs differently than we do today. But, for now, to be a great QB, you get their with your arm. McNabb has achieved great player status. He deserves that. He just doesn't deserve to be considered a very good QB because at this point, he's just not that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 McNabb had a HORRIBLE first half. His rushing pretty much bailed him out for 3 quarters, and a lot of that can be put on Green Bay's defensive cooridnator for allowing his D to go out and get burnt on the SAME PLAY over and over and over. It is sort of hard to gauge McNabb straight up, because granted he has no #1 reciever and his recievers might even have to battle to even be #2 on some teams around the league, however you could say the same about Favre through his career, I mean his best reciever was who, Antonio Freeman...Donald Driver!?! McNabb will continue to be effective until a Defensive coordinator puts a scheme in place that can limit McNabb's rushing. I thought in 2000 the Skins had the right idea with Lavar spying McNabb. That was when the Eagles didn't even cross midfield in the first half until the Skins got a penalty. Plus they did that with a pretty porus D-line. It is ok to put a spy on him, but it takes a LB like Lavar that has the wheels to catch McNabb before he turns a corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 I guess you can skip my rant cause Art summed it up great. McNabb is an elite playmaker but not and elite QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted January 13, 2004 Author Share Posted January 13, 2004 Originally posted by Art Yesterday's game was an excellent example of that. Until he actually completes 60 percent of his passes and has 26 touchdown passes and throws for 3,500 yards on some regular basis, he'll merely not be a great QB. He'll remain a great player though. Perhaps the definition of QB being used here is one of a passer. I agree there with you. However how much of his bad percentage falls on his bad WR's?? The other thing I would add if being a leader is a characteristic of a great QB then you would have to give him that. I loved the line he used in the huddle right before the 4 and 26th, "I don't want to hear what you should have done come monday" something like that. He is a lot like Farve to me though, it is hard when you are watching to turn and look away because you might miss something great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-Skin Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 The Rush look-alike on Fox pre-game says McNabb is great -- because of his early season ESPN comments! :laugh: And judging by the "McNabb" reaction, he really appreciated them. Seriously, I agree with Art. McNabb is a great playmaker. Hail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPare Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 The point about the WRs cannot be understated. A good lot of Ramsey's success early in the year can be attributed to Coles. That said, I do think that McNabb is Randall, part 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NASMTrainer Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 I agree with Art. I don't think he is a great "QB" like most people do. Now I will probably be verbally killed for this but I think Vick is overrated as well. While he has amazing speed and great arm strength I don't think he is all that good a "QB". I think he has the ability to become one but he is not there yet. Now, with that being said, I do think he is the most exciting player in the game and I do love to watch him play. Oh course thats just my :2cents: and most of you know I'm as dumb as a stick so........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 After watching that game, I still feel that McNabb should run more and that Reid is still not using him to his strengths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakofthesouth Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Originally posted by NoCalMike McNabb will continue to be effective until a Defensive coordinator puts a scheme in place that can limit McNabb's rushing. I thought in 2000 the Skins had the right idea with Lavar spying McNabb. Spying is an effective way to limit a mobile QB, but it limits your flexibility w/ zone coverages. It takes one man out of the equation as far as blitzing schemes and pass coverage. That plays into the mobile QB's hands. Here the trick- it's a simple, yet difficult-to-accomplish-task: disciplined rushing lanes. The way to stop a mobile QB is to apply pressure w/ your front four, and not allow gaping holes in the pass-rush (a la Bruce Smith!). This is the way to contain a mobile QB like McNabb, and force him to his weakness. which is obviously pocket-passing. Ex: Tampa Bay, 02 season: they successfully defeated Micheal Vick in both meetings, forcing him out of his scrambling abilities through the strength of their front four. Even in the NFC Championship game, McNabb, as I recall, did very little w/ his legs that game. I'm sure they occasionally included the spy, w/ Brooks on Vick/McNabb on some plays, but it was not their game-plan. The most effective way to contain a mobile passer is through your front-four. Just watch the pressure/containment by Carolina's DL this weekend. McNabb will do very little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 McNabb isn't half the passer Randall was. Randall's great weakness besides consistent pocket play(though he could play great sometimes in the pocket, UNLIKE McNabb) was his extremely long and slow release. But Randall was actually quite accurate with many of his throws, unless he was getting flustered all day. No, Randall Cunningham is a borderline HOF QB. McNabb is a glorified RB playing the QB position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.