McNabb, Warner, and the Hall of Fame

[44ever]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

So with you there. Both should be pretty much locks. Warner has had great supporting casts and McNabb has done a lot with a little.

The ONLY knock for me on McNabb is that Reid does get a little pass-happy and that makes his stats improve a lot. Not only that, think of how many three yard pass plays Westbrook turned into eighty yard TDs... After saying all that, he's definitely played well with his arm and his feet to be deserving (and I ABSOLUTELY HATE HIM WITH A PASSION AND THAT GOOFY ASS SMILE).

Ha ha ha. You're so right about the Goofy smile as well

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Aikman's numbers don't tell the whole story. He could have been a gunslinger in an offense that wasn't so run heavy. And at the end of the day 3 rings gets him in easily.

The numbers also suggest he would have been a really, really bad gunslinger in an offense that wasn't so run heavy. Possibly an NFL bust, but more likely what we think of Jay Cutler today.

[GTripp0012]

I agree with dmek that on merit of his ability alone, Aikman is no where near a Hall of Famer. Of course, by the same criteria, Elway and Bradshaw are pretty borderline.

I'm okay with the Hall of Fame including lesser players whose teams accomplished so much under their leadership, as long as we don't make them out to be some sort of Manning/Marino type martyr.

[44ever]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Marino got in without a ring because he was an amazing, incredible and sometimes jaw-dropping passer.

Warner has somewhat rejuvinated his career and shown that he was not just a fluke of the Rams offense but, rather, an integral and necessary part of it. A prolific passer who will always make the yards. I kind of see him as a Warren Moon, Jim Kelly, Dan Fouts type but with a ring.

McNabb has shown himself to be a decent passer with good numbers whose main attribute is that he is a good qb on a consistently winning team (due in part to his ability) comparable to an Aikman, Bradshaw or Len Dawson type but without the ring.

I am not sure either of them gets in b/c I they both strike me as candidates for the Hall of Very Good. But if I had to choose one, I'd go with the ring.

Not sure why I'm being quoted here??

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by dmek25

going back to gtripps post, i also think that people would be shocked to see Aikman's career stats. to me, no way he should be in the hall. captain of a juggernaut of a football team. yes, he was a darn good qback. hall worthy? i dont think so

Good point. Aikman's numbers are not HOF worthy IMO. But the bottom line is he was the QB of 3 SB winning teams. But if Aikman was put in a passing offense he had the ability to put up insane numbers. I don't think Bradshaw has great numbers either. He just played great on the biggest stage and that will get you in.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Aikman's numbers don't tell the whole story. He could have been a gunslinger in an offense that wasn't so run heavy. And at the end of the day 3 rings gets him in easily.

I agree 100%. If he would've been in a passing offense his numbers would've been insane. Quick release, powerful accurate arm, good field vision.... he had all the tools to be right up there with the best.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Dblock804

For whatever reason I have enjoyed watching DM play and still dislike the eagles. Yes to both.

In some strange kind of way I'm rooting for McNabb this year. He is getting it done with some very marginal NFL wr's. Pretty impressive.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The numbers also suggest he would have been a really, really bad gunslinger in an offense that wasn't so run heavy. Possibly an NFL bust, but more likely what we think of Jay Cutler today.

I saw enough of Aikman to tell me he was a damn good QB and much better than his numbers indicated. A bust? I really doubt that.

[44ever]

so who get HOF? Do you have to be equal or better than Marino???
Does P. Manning get in? Is he better than Marino?

[44ever]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I saw enough of Aikman to tell me he was a damn good QB and much better than his numbers indicated. A bust? I really doubt that.

Nobody should be suprised of a HOF Aikman. One of the best IMO

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I saw enough of Aikman to tell me he was a damn good QB and much better than his numbers indicated. A bust? I really doubt that.

Fair enough, but his numbers were really, really, really bad in the years where the Cowboys weren't the greatest 21 player roster ever assembled.

I mentioned this above, but his career completion percentage is 61.5, which is very, very good for his era. But, that's obviously a misleading figure because he never, ever once got within 2 points of that on either side.

Without the greatest Cowboys line ever, and having Irvin in his prime, and Smith in his, Aikman is something like a 56% passer. It's totally not fair to Aikman to take away his prime years and grade him, obviously, but it's clear on a lesser team that not only is he not in the hall of fame, but he likely fails to make the pro bowl.

I don't actually know how bad the Cowboys were from 1997-1999 or from 1988-1989. I suspect they weren't good at all, but whether they were horrible, or just not playoff caliber, it probably would make a big difference in how we (I) perceive Aikman today.

[firstdown]

Come on people McNabb PUKED on his center in the biggest game in sports and that by itself excludes him.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 44ever

so who get HOF? Do you have to be equal or better than Marino???
Does P. Manning get in? Is he better than Marino?

No, of course not. Being one of the very best players of your era at your postion is the criteria I always use.

Compared to Young, and later Favre, Aikman doesn't really hold up in the production category. But the three Super Bowl are automatic.

I just wish they would put the whole TEAM into the hall of fame. Why exclude some players who played on a three time super bowl champion? They all won it together, why aren't they all recognized together?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Fair enough, but his numbers were really, really, really bad in the years where the Cowboys weren't the greatest 21 player roster ever assembled.

I mentioned this above, but his career completion percentage is 61.5, which is very, very good for his era. But, that's obviously a misleading figure because he never, ever once got within 2 points of that on either side.

Without the greatest Cowboys line ever, and having Irvin in his prime, and Smith in his, Aikman is something like a 56% passer. It's totally not fair to Aikman to take away his prime years and grade him, obviously, but it's clear on a lesser team that not only is he not in the hall of fame, but he likely fails to make the pro bowl.

I don't actually know how bad the Cowboys were from 1997-1999 or from 1988-1989. I suspect they weren't good at all, but whether they were horrible, or just not playoff caliber, it probably would make a big difference in how we (I) perceive Aikman today.

Well if we took away the Hogs the Skins would probably have never won a SB so that point is pretty usless.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well if we took away the Hogs the Skins would probably have never won a SB so that point is pretty usless.

Well, we also never put Joe Theismann/Doug Williams/Mark Rypien into the hall of fame.

Which is sort of the whole point.