How McNabb's 'clutchness' stacks up
From Week 11 to Week 17, the Eagles three times came up with victories after being tied or trailing in the fourth quarter.
How McNabb's 'clutchness' stacks up
Sheil Kapadia, Philly.com
From Week 11 to Week 17, the Eagles three times came up with victories after being tied or trailing in the fourth quarter.
All three instances would qualify as "comebacks" by Nicholas Higgins of Football Outsiders.
Higgins takes an interesting look at the "comeback ability" of quarterbacks over the past decade. He defines a comeback as a situation "where the game is tied or the team is behind 1-8 points in the fourth quarter or overtime."
He also adjusts his rankings for several key factors: starting field position, time remaining, deficit and outcome. Only quarterbacks who have had at least 30 qualifying drives (playoffs included) from 1998-2009 were included.
So the obvious question is: Where did Donovan McNabb rank?
And the answer: 39th.
For the McNabb defenders, you can surely point out that the two guys sandwiching McNabb are (current or future) Hall of Famers Brett Favre, who ranks 38th, and Dan Marino, who ranks 40th.
But for the critics, who often point out that McNabb isn't clutch, well, there's plenty of support in this study for you.
Per Higgins' numbers, McNabb has had 129 opportunities to bring the Eagles back and has come through 38 times for a percentage of 29.5. His Adjusted Comeback Efficiency (ACE), which takes into account the factors I mentioned above is 0.94. The league average is exactly 1.00.
The analysis also took into account quarterback rating and how a QB performed overall, as compared to how he performed in these comeback situations. For example, McNabb's 86.5 overall QB rating from 1998-2009 ranks 15th. But he was 39th in terms of comeback efficiency, a drop-off of 24 spots.
The only two players who experienced a worse drop-off were Steve Beurlein (32 spots) and Jason Campbell (28 spots). Per the analysis, McNabb had the highest overall QB rating of the 30 worst players in terms of comeback efficiency.
Some other notes from the analysis:
* Guess who ranked first in terms of ACE? Eli Manning. He's had 66 opportunities and brought the Giants back 28 times, 42.4 percent. He had the second-biggest jump in terms of overall QB rating vs. ACE, leaping 31 spots. Jake Plummer had the biggest jump, up 37 spots.
* Of the top five ACE quarterbacks, three have Super Bowl rings: Manning, Ben Roethlisberger and Peyton Manning. Philip Rivers and Aaron Rodgers are the other two.
* Tony Romo is ninth on the list. Tom Brady 14th. And Kurt Warner 27th. Higgins points out that Brady had a disastrous 2009, coming through on just one of 10 comeback opportunities.
* Higgins provides many more details and an explanation of what all the numbers mean. Definitely worth a read.
The name of the game in football is momentum. Comebacks are all based on reversing momentum, especially in those crucial final moments of the game. Oftentimes, it comes down to the team that "believes" they can do it. This belief is fostered and developed thru a season, a career of your QB and if he can't prove to his team that he can do it, then they won't believe. These stats are meaningful, they are not a waste of time as you McNubb people here want to believe. #5 hasn't done it wayyyy more times than he has. There's no confidence there, no belief. Sure, his teammates will say all the right things most of the time, but do they really believe???? No.— Mark1npt- If this is for 30 drives that met the comeback qualifications between 1998-2009, how is Dan Marino even on the list? He played his last game in January of 2000, and I don't see him being faced with 30 such situations in just two seasons.— Raggamonkey
Scary to think of Donnie and clutch in the same sentence.— ZOSO- There is one common thread among "clutch" QB's of any era from "Slingin Sammy" to now and that is COMPLETIONS.For all McNabb's stats he has been UNclutchable due to his inaccuracy.It is amazing to me that in 10 years he hasn't improved in this area. That is why Eli who at times looks so inept,is a better comeback QB than you know who.
- I hate this numbers stuff. We all know he is not clutch enough to win a championship. However, there appears to be one VERY glaring error unless I am missing something. That is the level of the competition. It is one thing to come back against the Redskins; it is another against a quality opponent. Let's see him recalculate the package when playing teams with an overall .500+ record. We know where McNabb would stand (or fall).— rwolffd12
Comment removed.- It's amazing what people substitute for brains here. 1) As for Eli (#1 on this list), I think that McNabb's team has beaten Eli's the last 4 meetings, 3 of them at the Meadowlands - one a playoff game last year, and the other (this year) which had playoff implications for both teams. 2) As big a fan as I am of McNabb, I would not be trumpeting if he were way higher on this list. I just don't put a whole lot into this newly created stat. I guess that the first 3 quarters of games are unimportant, and that protecting a 1-7 point lead is unimportant as well. 3) I guess when you've won the division title in more than half of your seasons, gotten into 5 NFC championship games in (more or less) 8 healthy seasons as starter, gone 9-7 in the playoffs, and won countless big games to get there, that McNabb can not win the big game. I guess losing a SB by 3 points to the team of the decade - who had a better all-around team - is conclusive proof of that as well. And, I also surmise that winning two playoff games on the road last year and leading them to one competent defensive series of a great comeback and SB berth also proves this. 4) If McNabb is so inaccurate, then he must be a great leader to get so much out of so little, right? He only has one of the greatest winning percentages of any qb - ever - and pretty good playoff success as well. 5)Again, how do you explain an "inaccurate" qb who "chokes int he clutch", with "no leadership skills" and I think we can all agree, a mediocre to average offensive cast the great majority of his years having HOF-level success as a winning qb? As always, when I present a reasonable argument - and I've presented plenty of facts on these boards - I get very little rebuttal. So, I would welcome intelligent agreement or disagreement to any of my points. It would be refreshing.— MG44
- Alright MG44 - I can appreciate Mcnabb's role in helping bring this franchise out of the abyss from the time he got here. But as far as continuing to call him an elite qb and a Hall of Famer and that he should stay because the team had crappy quarterbacks before him, etc. is ridiculous. Frankly, he peaked in '04, which was around the time he stopped trying to scramble for first downs. His last five seasons have been marred by injury and general ineffectiveness in clutch situations. His season-high for passing TDs in the last five years is 23 -- cite his supporting cast or injuries or whatever you want, for a team with a penchant for passing on almost every down, that number is not high enough, plain and simple. In '05 Mcnabb got hurt halfway through the year, they went 6-10 and missed the playoffs. In '06 Mcnabb got hurt again, and Garcia came in and led them to the playoffs with a 5-1 record (after Mcnabb started the year 5-5). In '07, Mcnabb missed some more games, the team finished 8-8 and missed the playoffs. In '08, the year of 'the benching,' they rallied to make the playoffs thanks to a couple of unthinkable upsets in the final week, but ultimately fell short. This year they fell short again and Mcnabb did nothing over the final two weeks to prove his supposed elite status. Statistically speaking, with all of the weapons he had at his disposal this season, his qb rating was the 3rd highest in his 11-year career. To put that in perspective, 11 other QBs had higher ratings this year. To me, even without this article, that's enough to prove he's no longer good enough to back the perception that he remains an elite qb. But it seems his most ardent supporters want to forget the last 5 seasons and think 2004 was last year (which was also the last, and only season, he made the Pro Bowl on his own merits). Time to stop living in the past
- and to your other point, that Mcnabb somehow proved he can win clutch games by winning to road games to get to the NFC Championship game last season, a friendly reminder that the defense let up 14 and 11 points in the first two rounds, during which Mcnabb had two TDs, three INTs and a fumble lost. Yeah, he carried them there
- Figures lie and Liars figure. NFL stats such as these are trivial at best, I guess only the QB can decide if an 11 person offensive unit succeeds in "being clutch" or if the defensive unit can hold a lead. The QB conversation is at best, fourth on the list of "items that need to be addressed". Defensive Line (pass rush from the interior of the line), Linebacker (someone who can cover the TE) and Secondary (someone to play opposite Mikell) would be 1-3. Fix those, and then let's discuss what to do with our 3 QB's.— The Reddgie
- You can't argue that McNabb is clutch, that's just not his strength. Then again I wonder how many times the offense as taken back the lead only to watch it be squandered by the defense. I personally now that Eli and Romo have done it to us. I'm not saying McNabb is Peyton Manning but I'm very scared to let him go and roll the dice with Kolb. Then again if we get a first rounder from the Vikes or the Cards and there is a great Safety or LB available then, I expect them to trade 5.— bobf876
- Redggie - don't you suppose that laundry list of areas to fix would be better addressed if they can trade Mcnabb for draft picks and get a $10 mil or so discount on what they're paying the quarterback? If he stays, I just don't see any way the front office forks over the kind of coin to make meaningful upgrades at those positions. Their history of spending speaks for itself. To me, the discussion would START with the guy who is playing on the final year of his contract and is eating up payroll that could be better applied elsewhere
- Comment removed.
- stikola, In your first "rebuttal" post, you attribute things to me that I did not even bring up (i.e. - the crappy qbs that came before McNabb, what the team shouls do now, etc.) . The guy, by almost any measure that I define success by, has had great success, with very few dropoffs, over the years. How else would one more typical season lace him in the top 10 or 11 of all-time winningest starting qb's, and with a W-L percentage very high up on the list. He's changed his style over the years - a combination of age, injuries and philosophy - but he still remains highly effective. Can you honestly tell me that getting this year's team - with all the new faces, injuries and inadequacies - to an 11-5 record was not a very good to great job? If so, we just see the games very differently. When I first repsonded to this blog post, I was mostly commenting on the futility of reading too much into the new stat presented. Predictably enough, just the name "McNabb" attached to any article/column is enough to bring out the usual army of detractors (and I guess, a supporter or two like me), but my main point is that this stat is hardly the end-all and be-all of showing who has performed well in the clutch. To me, 'clutch' would include, by definition, any playoff game (all 4 quarters, whether leading or trailing in the 4th), along with games that have clear playoff implications. If you want to say that this stat measures 4th quarter comebacks, by percentage of drives that the qb led the team on a scoring drive (in fact, I don't even know if it allows for how many times the team won the game, how do they factor in Fg drives, etc.)...it's just a faulty stat. I look at McNabb's full body of work over the years, and for whatever reason, we see it differently.— MG44
- you idiots that attack Kolb, or any other option other than Mcnabb, because you dont trust a young QB, look at other teams like the Jets, Ravens, falcons, even steve young when he started and many many others.... the eagles will not become the lions without Mcnabb. More likely, they will get better with better leadership. Trade Mcnabb now for a song if you can. Give Kolb a shot.— Wise_Owl
Follow
Sheil on Twitter. And become
a fan of Moving the Chains on Facebook.
Download our NEW iPhone/Android app for even more Birds
coverage, including app-exclusive videos and analysis. Download it here.
