McNabb a franchise QB?
Any time we write about Donovan McNabb here at MTC, it usually results in the comments section being flooded with insults, name-calling and personal attacks.
McNabb a franchise QB?
Sheil Kapadia, Philly.com
Any time we write about Donovan McNabb here at MTC, it usually results in the comments section being flooded with insults, name-calling and personal attacks.
But we're going ahead with this post anyway.
Matt Bowen of the National Football Post writes about a topic that Eagles fans have argued about in this city for years: Is McNabb a franchise quarterback?
Here is Bowen's definition of the term:
In my definition, a franchise quarterback can walk into any huddle in the NFL, pick up a football and have immediate success. By saying that, these guys aren’t defined by the system they play in because you don’t have to build a system around them to make them effective. They do it because they can make any throw, run any offense and succeed with any coach and with any type of offensive personnel around them.
Bowen lists five guys he considers franchise quarterbacks: Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Carson Palmer and Philip Rivers.
So where does McNabb rank? In the next group of guys "on the fence" behind Ben Roethlisberger. Here's Bowen's justification:
McNabb is great because he plays in the west coast system in Philly. However, I don’t see him having the success — or the ability to make all the throws — in another offensive system. His accuracy is always a concern, and I question if he could thrive in a vertical attack.
Other guys in the 'On the Fence' group: Kurt Warner, Tony Romo, Eli Manning, Matt Hasselbeck and Jay Cutler.
I would argue that McNabb belongs among the franchise quarterbacks. Before I get to the reasoning, let's take a look at the other guys on Bowen's list.
There's no question that Tom Brady and P. Manning belong in a class of their own. Any team in the league would swap QBs with the Patriots or Colts and immediately improve. That's just a fact.
I'm a big Brees guy, and he certainly has an edge over McNabb when it comes to accuracy. But Brees also throws a lot more interceptions. He and McNabb belong in the same category.
I don't think Palmer has a place among the upper tier at this point in his career. He played in four games last season and threw 20 interceptions the year before. While Bowen excludes winning from his criteria, it's tough to ignore the fact that Palmer has never won a playoff game. Maybe the 2005-06 version of Palmer would be up there, but not the 2009 version.
There are a lot of things to like about Rivers. He takes care of the football. He makes plays without a great receiver (although he has good weapons at RB and TE). And he had a monster 2008 season. But if you put him on the Eagles right now, would you confidently say they'd have a better chance to win in 2009 than they do now? I'm not so sure. And that's what Bowen's definition of a franchise quarterback would indicate.
As for his evaluation of McNabb, I think we can all agree that he'll never be among the most accurate quarterbacks in the league. Bowen argues that McNabb might struggle in a vertical attack, which I disagree with. The Eagles ask McNabb to make plays down the field every week. He completed 52 passes of 20 yards or more last season. That was the third-best mark in the league. McNabb has success stretching the field, when he has the weapons. It's the short slants and screens that give him problems.
The first part of Bowen's definition says the QB should be able to walk into any NFL huddle and have immediate success. I think you could say that about McNabb, which is why the rumors of him playing elsewhere seem to emerge every offseason. If the Birds decided to cut ties with him, several other teams would be interested.
So, based on Bowen's definition listed above, what do you think? Is McNabb a franchise quarterback?
The bottom line is who wins and who loses in the biggest games. Excuses are for losers. McNabb has won some early playoff games. This puts him in the above average area. He must step up in the championship games to be called a franchise QB. Right now he has played poorly in the biggest games. There is no denying the facts. All you McNabb supporters know this is true.— fred13- When has P Manning ever come up big in a big game? Look at his stats in the playoffs. The year the Colts won the SB, the defense carried that team. How many times have the Colts lost in the 1st round? Give me 5 over P Manning any day.— marley66
- mcnabb is the eagles franchise without him there is no face to the team— bdawkisgod
- "McNabb is great because he plays in the west coast system in Philly. However, I don’t see him having the success — or the ability to make all the throws — in another offensive system. His accuracy is always a concern, and I question if he could thrive in a vertical attack." --Has this guy ever watched an Eagles game. If he did he would realize that the west coast offense is the worst possible offense for him. McNabb's accuracy is horrible when throwing short but he is very good at throwing the deep ball. A vertical offense would be perfect for McNabb.— woogie
- McNabb has been overall a good to very good QB with very obvious flaws. I disagree with Bowen when he says he wouldn't thrive in a vertical offense. If there is one thing he does well it is throw the deep ball. He is very misplaced in a west coast offense...it plays up all of his greatest weaknesses and doesn't call into play any of his strengths with regularity. The west coast offense calls for touch passes thrown with accuracy and great timing. McNabb has never been good at any of those with anything resembling consistency. When you bring into the discussion the fact that a QB has to bring your team down the field at the end of the game in a pressure setting, you then truly have to drop him a notch or two. His QB rating and td/int ratios are HORRIBLE in championship games. In the NFC Championship and the Super Bowl you saw two quarterbacks do that when the games were on the line. That is the definition of a winner. Needless to say, McNabb wasn't one of them QB's this year, never has been one, and at this point of his career it's hard to envision him becoming one. This is not to say he will never be on a Super Bowl winning team, just that he will most probably not be the one who will deserve the most credit.
- of course mcnabb is a franchise qb and about the fourth best in the league. no doubt top five. tom brady has got to be number one followed by payton. the next three are about equal except for age. rivers, mcnabb and brees. mcnabb can also vomit better than any of them publicly and in the biggest games.— JACK V
Comment removed.- If Andy will diversify the offense, Donavan will do well. Passing 80 percent of the time is BS.— jimmyc29
Tpizza - Do you ever watch an NFL game objectively? Reading your posts over the last few months shows you do not. Just as a rabid McNabb apologist. "P Manning couldn't have stood the pounding that Donovan has thoughout his career". You're kidding, right? Your boy has had a VERY GOOD offensive line throughout his entire career. The biggest difference between the two is that one is consistently accurate and one consistently throws worm balls. You are the definition of an apologist.— wokmaster- Tpizza - Do you ever watch an NFL game objectively? Reading your posts over the last few months shows you do not. Just as a rabid McNabb apologist. "P Manning couldn't have stood the pounding that Donovan has thoughout his career". You're kidding, right? Your boy has had a VERY GOOD offensive line throughout his entire career. The biggest difference between the two is that one is consistently accurate and one consistently throws worm balls. You are the definition of an apologist.— wokmaster
- Apologist/hater whatever. To all the embarrasment of Eagles fans who'd rather have Eli or...gulp...Kevin Kolb: I won't do it for you because I think you are wrong and stupid but I'll simply tell you what to do before spewing your typical b*llsh*t about puking or Campbells Soup commercials. Are you ready? I don't know if your feeble minds can handle this but I'll give it a shot....here we go....LOOK AT HIS STATS!!!!!! Holy sh*t what an easy argument against them! Go Eagles, Go McNabb, you are the man here in philly sports, period.— elektrika
- Comment removed.
- LOOK AT HIS STATS! In the championship games he has been very bad and in the 1 Super Bowl he was even worse!— fred13
- First off, McNabb is probably in a system that doesn't go best with his talent levels. Short rhythm throws are not his forte. When Bowen mentions him having trouble in a vert attack puzzles me becuase I think he is a great vertical passer. Also, since when can Philip Rivers make all the throws. He is a great player, but everyone knows that his arm strength is subpar. In my mind based on his criteria it wouild go; Brady, Manning, McNabb, Brees, Palmer, Roethlisberger, Rivers, Warner, Cutler, Manning, Romo, Hasselback— Flip37
- sort of a non topic..since P.Manning, Brady, and Mcnabb have all had their careers with one franchise. Romo and the younger Manning are not at the level of these three yet. Breeze and Rothsenberger play for teams that run the ball quite a bit. So, you gotta lump the first three together, then break them down on individual skills. With Peyton and Brady ahead of DM in that category just by a little.— merlinknghts
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.
