Mcnabb to Washington?

[Ruhskins]

Getting McNabb would be a huge mistake. I just hope this is just BA f'ing around with other teams. I'm still amazed at how so many fans still think we're one player away from contending. We need to rebuild (starting with the oline) and stop wasting picks on what seems like a quick fix.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Getting McNabb would be a huge mistake. I just hope this is just BA f'ing around with other teams. I'm still amazed at how so many fans still think we're one player away from contending. We need to rebuild (starting with the oline) and stop wasting picks on what seems like a quick fix.

Andy Reid is looking to find the best situation for McNabb and I can understand that since he thinks so highly of him. However, I don't think it will be here......neither do I think they're convinced he can still perform at the level they expect from him otherwise they wouldn't be interested in trading him.

McNabb is nowhere close to being the QB he was before suffering injury two years in a row. His legs were always his gratest strength, he's not the threat to run as much anymore, and he's demonstrated he's not totally effective from the pocket.

We need to stop drafting QB's and then cutting them. We would be better served drafting a position player instead of the Brennans' and Palmers who have little or no chance of ever playing.

[GTripp0012]

33-year old McNabb isn't a meaningful improvement on Campbell. No reason to be delusional on this tire-kicking. It's merely a personal preference between two middle-of-the-pack guys.

When he's on the open market, lets consider him as a veteran stopgap. Until then, let's just calm down and let these trade winds blow over.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

33-year old McNabb isn't a meaningful improvement on Campbell. No reason to be delusional on this tire-kicking. It's merely a personal preference between two middle-of-the-pack guys.

When he's on the open market, lets consider him as a veteran stopgap. Until then, let's just calm down and let these trade winds blow over.

GTripp, I know you do your homework but you are more than stretching when you lump JC and McNabb together. Now maybe you are basing your statement on statistical analysis but you haven't been qualifying your statements.

JC is a middle of the pack guy, no doubt. McNabb isn't even close. Here is the bottom line, Philly under McNabb has dominated the NFC East. It isn't even close. JC has accomplished nothing, and I mean NOTHING. He hasn't won any meaningful regular season games. He has won no divisions. He hasn't been to the playoffs, let alone win a playoff game. He has been to zero NFC Championship games and from a statistical perspective JC is way below the mean from a winning percentage as a starting QB. Do we need to bring up Pro-Bowls?

If we are talking about winning, which is why they step on the field, McNabb is a great quarterback. JC is a nobody.

So you need to be a little more specific when you lump the two together.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

GTripp, I know you do your homework but you are more than stretching when you lump JC and McNabb together. Now maybe you are basing your statement on statistical analysis but you haven't been qualifying your statements.

JC is a middle of the pack guy, no doubt. McNabb isn't even close. Here is the bottom line, Philly under McNabb has dominated the NFC East. It isn't even close. JC has accomplished nothing, and I mean NOTHING. He hasn't won any meaningful regular season games. He has won no divisions. He hasn't been to the playoffs, let alone win a playoff game. He has been to zero NFC Championship games and from a statistical perspective JC is way below the mean from a winning percentage as a starting QB. Do we need to bring up Pro-Bowls?

If we are talking about winning, which is why they step on the field, McNabb is a great quarterback. JC is a nobody.

So you need to be a little more specific when you lump the two together.

I was not aware that the wins came with McNabb as part of the trade. I consider myself corrected.

Why is it so foreign to lump McNabb in with the rest of the middle-of-the-pack NFL QBs? He's won one division since Campbell has been in the league, and Garcia started the final 5 weeks of that year. To give McNabb credit for that, we'd have to give Campbell at least the benefit of winning the WC in 2007. Playoff wins are playoff wins, McNabb has two since Campbell came into the league, and Campbell has no appearances. Advantage McNabb, but again, citing playoff wins of another team under another coaching staff that didn't have a Blache or a Zorn or a Saunders on it is exactly the personal preference I'm speaking of.

McNabb being a mid-tier QB is only one part of the story (as opposed to everything you need to know), but it's certainly true these days.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I was not aware that the wins came with McNabb as part of the trade. I consider myself corrected.

Why would you trade for him or for any QB, for better stats or wins?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

Why would you trade for him or for any QB, for better stats or wins?

Well, neither come with the trade, technically, as both are merely a record of past performance. But I'd definitely look at the production first and foremost.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I was not aware that the wins came with McNabb as part of the trade. I consider myself corrected.

Why is it so foreign to lump McNabb in with the rest of the middle-of-the-pack NFL QBs? He's won one division since Campbell has been in the league, and Garcia started the final 5 weeks of that year. To give McNabb credit for that, we'd have to give Campbell at least the benefit of winning the WC in 2007. Playoff wins are playoff wins, McNabb has two since Campbell came into the league, and Campbell has no appearances. Advantage McNabb, but again, citing playoff wins of another team under another coaching staff that didn't have a Blache or a Zorn or a Saunders on it is exactly the personal preference I'm speaking of.

McNabb being a mid-tier QB is only one part of the story (as opposed to everything you need to know), but it's certainly true these days.

The QB is the single most influential player on the field.

JC's absolute best season was 8-8. So far his ceiling is the mean and the same year that JC had his best season, McNabb was playing for the NFC championship. Following that season, McNabb won 11 games, JC lost 12.

I really don't give a damn about the YPA is or the completion percentage and all that. At this point in time, McNabb is a proven winner, JC is a proven loser.

You can prove anything you want with statistics at some point personal accountability needs to be considered.

JC has had plenty of opportunities to make the play to win us games late and he consistently falls short. I wish things were different but his history cannot be changed.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

The QB is the single most influential player on the field.

JC's absolute best season was 8-8. So far his ceiling is the mean and the same year that JC had his best season, McNabb was playing for the NFC championship. Following that season, McNabb won 11 games, JC lost 12.

I really don't give a damn about the YPA is or the completion percentage and all that. At this point in time, McNabb is a proven winner, JC is a proven loser.

You can prove anything you want with statistics at some point personal accountability needs to be considered.

JC has had plenty of opportunities to make the play to win us games late and he consistently falls short. I wish things were different but his history cannot be changed.

This boldly emphasizes my point. You can prove anything you want with wins and losses, but ultimately, you are what you are. Having a really successful run from 2001-2004 cannot make McNabb larger than life. What he has become is an aging middle-of-pack passer. This should not be construed into something it isn't.

When you manipulate the sample enough, you can produce evidence that suggests that Mark Sanchez is a proven winner, while Tom Brady is a proven loser. One guy won two playoff games this year, the other won none. Sanchez won more games overall this year as well...in fact, they've won the same number of NFL games since 2007, including playoffs. If that's the production you care about, then stay consistent. To argue that Brady is more winning than Sanchez, you would have to either cite the pre-Sanchez past, or go to the stats. But if personal accountability is the disguise for mis-analysis, you would just conclude that Sanchez is a winner and that Brady should focus on trying to improve his plight in the future.

But because you have access to a bunch of information that suggests that I'm completely out of my mind to suggest Sanchez>Brady, you would just reject the argument of personal accountability on Brady's part. Which is exactly what I'm doing with McNabb-Campbell.

[Beneil (diehard since 87)]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

Here is the bottom line, Philly under McNabb has dominated the NFC East. It isn't even close. JC has accomplished nothing, and I mean NOTHING. He hasn't won any meaningful regular season games. He has won no divisions. He hasn't been to the playoffs, let alone win a playoff game. He has been to zero NFC Championship games and from a statistical perspective JC is way below the mean from a winning percentage as a starting QB. Do we need to bring up Pro-Bowls?

Actually, the pro-bowls are the only thing that count to me. You go to a pro-bowl and about 85% of the reason is ALL YOU. If you got to the playoffs or get to /win the big one, that's a team effort thing.

A lot of people make the mistake of lumping win and lost columns into the QB's stats. Wake up guys. Tom Brady has never won a superbowl. The kicker that won each of those games has more rings than he does you know. Vinatieri made the 45 yarder to tie, and a 25 yarder to win brady's first ring. Final play in the win against the rams? Another 48 yarder from Adam. The man has 20 last minute field goal wins that too many people give Tom Brady the credit for. Stop giving QB's all the credit!

As for Donovan having done more with less, he has never HAD less!?! Seriously, Until you have a comparably bad o-line, a bad coach, a revolving door of crappy kickers, and an 80 year old veteran with less experience than you as a back-up, then you are in a better situation. McNabb is in an offense BUILT around his abilities, has always had a good to awesome o-line, and has usualy had as good or better receivers.

Also, please stop saying that jason hasn't had the big win or big this or that because Jason's play has not been the steady factor in our losses. Once again, against the Saints he completed 30 of 42 for 367 yards. The man avoided getting sacked the whole game and had a passer rating of 111.9 but his 3 touchdown passes meant NOTHING because Sellers fumbled the ball in overtime! Without Portis, our running game was, once again crap. He had to carry the team on his own, getting beaten up and thrown to the ground after every other throw. The big win was snatched away from his magical QB rating column thanks to Sellers. Yes, i can go to the interception that was fumbled and other things that happened, but i'm talking about our last posession in overtime.

I will get over it if McNabb takes the reigns, but i would rather give JC what it takes to win and watch the man go.

[44ever]

Originally Posted by Beneil (diehard since 87)

Actually, the pro-bowls are the only thing that count to me. You go to a pro-bowl and about 85% of the reason is ALL YOU. If you got to the playoffs or get to /win the big one, that's a team effort thing.

A lot of people make the mistake of lumping win and lost columns into the QB's stats. Wake up guys. Tom Brady has never won a superbowl. The kicker that won each of those games has more rings than he does you know. Vinatieri made the 45 yarder to tie, and a 25 yarder to win brady's first ring. Final play in the win against the rams? Another 48 yarder from Adam. The man has 20 last minute field goal wins that too many people give Tom Brady the credit for. Stop giving QB's all the credit!

As for Donovan having done more with less, he has never HAD less!?! Seriously, Until you have a comparably bad o-line, a bad coach, a revolving door of crappy kickers, and an 80 year old veteran with less experience than you as a back-up, then you are in a better situation. McNabb is in an offense BUILT around his abilities, has always had a good to awesome o-line, and has usualy had as good or better receivers.

Also, please stop saying that jason hasn't had the big win or big this or that because Jason's play has not been the steady factor in our losses. Once again, against the Saints he completed 30 of 42 for 367 yards. The man avoided getting sacked the whole game and had a passer rating of 111.9 but his 3 touchdown passes meant NOTHING because Sellers fumbled the ball in overtime! Without Portis, our running game was, once again crap. He had to carry the team on his own, getting beaten up and thrown to the ground after every other throw. The big win was snatched away from his magical QB rating column thanks to Sellers. Yes, i can go to the interception that was fumbled and other things that happened, but i'm talking about our last posession in overtime.

I will get over it if McNabb takes the reigns, but i would rather give JC what it takes to win and watch the man go.

I guess this had nothing to do with our "sorry ass" O line protecting him? Can't give JC all the credit if you don't give him all the fault.

Yes JC and the Skins had a VERY NICE GAME. BUT Saints had a VERY BAD GAME. or are we actually able to beat a SB team? If that is the case then a better QB would definatly make the diff.

Im not a Mcnabb fan at all. But, I'm not against him coming here.

We have given JC what he needs to win. But, he just cant win.

Can you imagine if Barry Sanders played on the sorry Lions? He would have never emerged as one of and IMO the best back ever. Oh wait he did play with the sorry Lions.

Im not comparing QB to Backs but in there respective positions talent stands out despite the team you have around you. Put JC on the Saints and they don't make the playoffs.

[Beneil (diehard since 87)]

Originally Posted by 44ever

I guess this had nothing to do with our "sorry ass" O line protecting him?

Right. it DIDN'T! Jason Campbell was punished throught the game. He threw the ball away as he got smashed a few times and when he did make completions, he ususally didn't get to see them since he was on his butt with a saint on him.

you can't say the Saints happened to have a bad game cuz Brees threw over 400 yards. You CAN say that they had better field position and our defense did their job. You CAN say that we had BAD field position and no punt returns.

As for the Barry Sanders analogy... you are retarded to use aguably the greatest runningback of all time as an analogy, but sure I'll bite. Lets give him the same win-loss column and see where he stands. lets blame HIM for them not making the playoffs. if you blame him the way you do JC, then he and Barry Sanders both fall into the "Good, but not quite enough" category.

Nice try

[SBXVII]

Compare the stats....

NFL - Head to Head Stats...

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Compare the stats....

NFL - Head to Head Stats...

I didn't feel like looking it up, does it compare wins, winning percentage, playoff wins an division wins? Since the stats are comparable, those categories are comparable, right?

[SBXVII]

I'm totally at a loss as to how someone like Campbell can look to have done better in almost each catagory or be relativily close in stats in others and have two totally different passer ratings.