Vick signs with Eagles
51 RepliesJump to last post
They actually both have 5 pro bowls, but Kelly was all-pro once and McNabb never was. Making it to 4 Superbowls is an impressive feat.I’ll agree that if his career ended today there is a very good chance he wouldn’t get in. I would hope he does simply because I’m a Philly homer. I think the fact that Jim Kelly is in the Hall of Fame despite having a 2 TD vs. 7 INT line in his 4 Super Bowls and has one more Pro Bowl than Kelly may help his case. Again, we’ll need at least 2-3 very solid years of him playing in order to strengthen the case.
It's a team sport and the great quarterbacks seem to find a way to make their teams play better. If we were talking about baseball and world series wins, I would agree with you. A QB doesn't have to have a Superbowl win, but to ignore this sure doesn't make sense. The job of quarterback is to manage the team on offense to do everything possible to win. Right now, he is not a HOF QB, unless the HOF is for the very good. Give him another 2 pro-bowls, 1 all pro season, or one Superbowl and I'd agree with the HOF. Let's face it, right now, McNabb has about 5 years where he has been one of the top 6 QBs in the league. That makes him "very good". There needs to be something more than this.Looking at Superbowls is stupid. It’s a team sport. QB can’t make it happen alone. If McNabb finishes his career with any type of form, he should have a shot @ the Hall.
Any team can win on any given Sunday, but football isn't about any given Sunday. It's about 16 of them.
When we are talking about teams, it has to be about winning. The Pats would have been considered the best team ever. However, to be the best ever, you have to win the big one. Otherwise, we're simply just talking about potential. The great quarterbacks find a way to will their teams to victories. It never seems to be the guy who can just throw the ball the furthest or run the fastest. It's the intangibles that simply don't show up in a stat sheet. It's making the big play when it has to be made and not making the big screw up. However, it is a team sport and a great quarterback without enough talent surrounding him won't ever win the Super Bowl. My opinion is that Dan Marino is the best QB to ever play the game and he never won a Superbowl. He made the Pro-bowl 9 times and was all-pro 3 times. Marino is great whether he wins or loses. To me, it just seems awfully tough if he doesn't have additional pro bowls or Super Bowl wins to put him in the all time great category. To me, he belongs in the all-time good category with guys like Steve McNair.It's a team sport and the great quarterbacks seem to find a way to make their teams play better. If we were talking about baseball and world series wins, I would agree with you. A QB doesn't have to have a Superbowl win, but to ignore this sure doesn't make sense. The job of quarterback is to manage the team on offense to do everything possible to win. Right now, he is not a HOF QB, unless the HOF is for the very good. Give him another 2 pro-bowls, 1 all pro season, or one Superbowl and I'd agree with the HOF. Let's face it, right now, McNabb has about 5 years where he has been one of the top 6 QBs in the league. That makes him "very good". There needs to be something more than this.[/quote][quote=anonymous][quote=iceco1d]Looking at Superbowls is stupid. It’s a team sport. QB can’t make it happen alone. If McNabb finishes his career with any type of form, he should have a shot @ the Hall.
I agree that he needs to have a strong finish to his career to have a shot.
BUT, winning the Superbowl isn't that indicative of how great a TEAM is, let alone an INDIVIDUAL.
Does anyone think the Arizona Cardinals were the 2nd best team in the league last year? I don't.
The idea that "any team can win, on any given Sunday, regardless of opponent" is completely true.
For example - I personally believe that the 18-1 Patriots team from 2 years ago, is BY FAR the best complete football team to ever take the field. Did they drop the ball in the Superbowl? You betcha. Probably overconfidence, or playing too conservative for "the big game." I dunno. But just because they didn't win it all, I still think you could line them up with the 2000 Ravens, or the 08 Steelers, or the 85 Bears, 100 times, and they are going to win 75/100 games.
I think an analysis of their whole career is a much better indicator than just # of Superbowls.
PS - I'm not a fan of any of the teams mentioned in this post.
[/quote] Couldn't agree more. The Pats of 07 were the best team ever and they lost that one game. McNabb is much better than McNair was. He isn't Marino or Montana, but I think he is on that 2nd level. He needs a few more good years to get in. Obviously, one Super Bowl would put him in also. Roethlisberger is not a great QB, but he has been in great situations. He is good, like Aikman, but not great. McNabb has always worked with less than those two. Marino also never worked with anything. Elway never won until Terrell Davis fell from the sky. Kelly was good not great and his teams were loaded with Hall of Famers. McNabb has never played with a single HOF player and that needs to be considered.
It's a team sport and the great quarterbacks seem to find a way to make their teams play better. If we were talking about baseball and world series wins, I would agree with you. A QB doesn't have to have a Superbowl win, but to ignore this sure doesn't make sense. The job of quarterback is to manage the team on offense to do everything possible to win. Right now, he is not a HOF QB, unless the HOF is for the very good. Give him another 2 pro-bowls, 1 all pro season, or one Superbowl and I'd agree with the HOF. Let's face it, right now, McNabb has about 5 years where he has been one of the top 6 QBs in the league. That makes him "very good". There needs to be something more than this.[/quote][quote=iceco1d] [quote=anonymous][quote=iceco1d]Looking at Superbowls is stupid. It’s a team sport. QB can’t make it happen alone. If McNabb finishes his career with any type of form, he should have a shot @ the Hall.
I agree that he needs to have a strong finish to his career to have a shot.
BUT, winning the Superbowl isn't that indicative of how great a TEAM is, let alone an INDIVIDUAL.
Does anyone think the Arizona Cardinals were the 2nd best team in the league last year? I don't.
The idea that "any team can win, on any given Sunday, regardless of opponent" is completely true.
For example - I personally believe that the 18-1 Patriots team from 2 years ago, is BY FAR the best complete football team to ever take the field. Did they drop the ball in the Superbowl? You betcha. Probably overconfidence, or playing too conservative for "the big game." I dunno. But just because they didn't win it all, I still think you could line them up with the 2000 Ravens, or the 08 Steelers, or the 85 Bears, 100 times, and they are going to win 75/100 games.
I think an analysis of their whole career is a much better indicator than just # of Superbowls.
PS - I'm not a fan of any of the teams mentioned in this post.
[/quote] Couldn't agree more. The Pats of 07 were the best team ever and they lost that one game. McNabb is much better than McNair was. He isn't Marino or Montana, but I think he is on that 2nd level. He needs a few more good years to get in. Obviously, one Super Bowl would put him in also. Roethlisberger is not a great QB, but he has been in great situations. He is good, like Aikman, but not great. McNabb has always worked with less than those two. Marino also never worked with anything. Elway never won until Terrell Davis fell from the sky. Kelly was good not great and his teams were loaded with Hall of Famers. McNabb has never played with a single HOF player and that needs to be considered. Owens? JOKE[/quote]
Not only is Owens a HOF player, but he’s a first ballot guy. He’s been All-pro 5 times. Is it coincidental that McNabb has had 1 monster year and it was the only year that he had TO on the field for the first time? Michael Irvin, Aikman’s favorite target, was only All-pro once.
No its not coincidental and that is the entire point. If you have Hall of Famers around you like Michael Irvin, Jerry Rice, Terrell Owens you will have a better career and better numbers. McNabb had 1 year with him, other guys have played along side HOF help their entire careers.Not only is Owens a HOF player, but he’s a first ballot guy. He’s been All-pro 5 times. Is it coincidental that McNabb has had 1 monster year and it was the only year that he had TO on the field for the first time? Michael Irvin, Aikman’s favorite target, was only All-pro once.
Having better numbers doesn't make you a better player. TO had better years from 2000-2003 with Jeff Garcia as his QB and 2006-2007 with Tony Romo as his quarterback. Based upon that, McNabb held TO back and hurt his production and he's not as good as Garcia or Romo. (I'm not trying to make that argument.) How does a QB put up big numbers? Throw a lot. How does one make it to the hall of fame? Win and be all-pro.
If you look at the HOF, it appears for most players, regardless of position, it takes the following to get in: 1) 2 years making all-pro or 2) a bunch of Pro-bowls with a superbowl win. How many players are in the HOF who have never make all-pro and don't have a superbowl ring? My guess is less than 10. Are there any quarterbacks in the HOF who have never made All-pro and have never won a superbowl? I don't think so. Maybe I'm wrong here, but if a player never is the best at his position and never helps to lead his team to a championship, he is merely very, very good at best and the HOF is about greatness.And there are guys who are in that have no business being there because the postseason can become overvalued. Bob Griese, Michael Irvin, Lynn Swann ? Look at their career numbers and tell me they are HOF.
For the record, if McNabb retires today I don’t think he deserves to get in. He needs more on the resume and I don’t think he gets there.
Lets try some others, Kurt Warner ? Curtis Martin ? Terrell Davis ? I say yes, no, no
[quote=Ron 14]
And there are guys who are in that have no business being there because the postseason can become overvalued. Bob Griese, Michael Irvin, Lynn Swann ? Look at their career numbers and tell me they are HOF.
[/quote] I think that you are looking at the wrong numbers. A reciever for a team that throws the ball a lot will put up big numbers. However when someone is the number 1 reciever on a team with 2 HOF receivers and the team relies on running and defense, there simply isn't a chance to put up numbers. Swann came up big everytime that he was needed. Swann is in the HOF based upon great performances in big games along with 4 Super Bowl wins and 3 Pro-Bowls and 1 All-pro selection. Irvin had 3 Superbowls, 5 Pro-Bowls, and 1 All-pro. Griese was in 8 Pro-Bowls, and was All-Pro twice and was one of the QBs in the only perfect season. Stats don't tell us enough. Griese was All-pro with what looks like very modest stats. However, All-pro isn't a popularity contest. One only becomes All-Pro by being the best QB in the conference. These guys all had at least one year of greatness, several years of very goodness, and won the big one. It's that combination that leads to the HOF. Football greatness, unlike baseball greatness isn't measured by stats. Since football is very much a team sport, it makes sense that it is about winning and losing. Good players make those around them better. Think of it this way. An offense would rather get more yards than less. However, I wouldn't be surprised if teams have losing records in which their team passed for 350 yards. Until things changed with Manning/Brady, teams with winning records would primarily shut down their passing attack with the lead. How would Griese/Swann/Irvin have big numbers if they aren't throwing the ball? When Griese was named All-Pro for the first time, he only threw for 19 touchdowns and barely 2000 yards. Heck, looking at stats, you might come to the conclusion that Brian Griese was better. At some point, all of these guys were the best in the league in comparison to their colleagues. That seems to be something that almost all HOF players have in common.He's in if he retires today. 3 Superbowls, 1 All Pro, 4 Pro bowls, best statistical season ever, best w-l record ever (?)BTW, Tom Brady All Pro 1 Time
Warner is in. 2 All-pros, 4 pro-bowls, 1 superbowl win
Martin is in. 1 all-pro, 5 pro-bowls, top couple career rusher Davis is in. 3 all-pro, 3 pro-bowls, 2 superbowl wins What sets all of the other guys apart from McNabb? Superbowls and All-pro.[quote=iceco1d]
At some point, all of these guys were the best in the league in comparison to their colleagues. That seems to be something that almost all HOF players have in common.I think that the year the Eagles went to the Superbowl, McNabb was the best in the league compared to his colleagues.
[/quote] Peyton Manning was All-pro that year and not McNabb.
Brady is clearly in. He has been a top 3 QB for 6/7 yrs and only 1 All Pro. I am not going to make my decisions based on All Pro numbers.
Brian Urlacher has a Super Bowl appearance, 3 All Pros, 1 Defensive Player of Year and 5+ Pro bowls. I am a Bears fan and this guy has no business even walking through the doors of the HOF as a visitor.
In my opinion everything has to be looked at: situation, stats, pro bowls, playoffs, all pros etc. There is no clear cut definition. I think the pro bowls and all pros are the least valuable because the moronic media is making those picks.You can't use "All-Pro" and "only" in the same sentence. Becoming "All-Pro" one time is a major accomplishment. My guess is that every single player who has become All-pro once with a bunch of Pro-bowls is in the HOF. The All-Pro quarterback is the very best quarterback in the world for that one season. To get to the top of one's profession even one time is a major accomplishment.Brady is clearly in. He has been a top 3 QB for 6/7 yrs and only 1 All Pro. I am not going to make my decisions based on All Pro numbers.