How about McNabb??

[BigJim13]

Inspired by Lyle's thread-Does McNabb get into the hall?

My personal feeling is that he has been overrated as a QB for a long time. He has been to 5 NFC Championship games and is 1-4. Not all his fault but he is the QB. I say he probably is NOT a Hall of Famer. He is however first in line for the Hall of Pretty Good.

[LyleG]

Not a chance. He hasnt done anything even close to hall worthy.

[Pa Jayhawk]

Firstly, I hate the Eagles because of where I live and my allegiance lies with Washington.

Although this is an interesting point in relation to the question on Warner. McNabb has thrown for more yards than Warner with one year less in the NFL with roughly zero supporting cast from WR's with exception to the one good year from TO.

Has gone to the Superbowl with far less of a team than what St Louis had with Warner.

I would say no, not yet. Although for the same reasons, and for my comments about Warner, the Hall of Fame is not about winning Super Bowls IMO. Although also IMO, doing it with tw different teams is just astounding in the NFL, there have been many Hall of Fame QB's that have only come close. So unless Warner does win this Super Bowl (or another), then I actually think McNabb is more deserving. Up until they got TO, I had always said that had they had any kind of receivers they would have been a Superbowl powerhouse, and I hate them. Not sure they are much better as far as recieving corps now than they were then, outside of Westbrook.

[Pa Jayhawk]

I look at modern era QB's and just don't see how either of them compare outside of Warner accomplishing the feat of winning 2 Superbowls with different teams.
Positions - Pro Football Hall of Fame

[LyleG]

Warner is also a 2 time MVP and was a strong contender this season as well. Warner is a far better football player than McNabb is.

[Bakemono36]

IMO, McNabb does get into the hall of fame. The HOF isnt about Superbowl rings, its about personal stats and McNabb is plenty good enough.

[BigJim13]

Originally Posted by Bakemono36

IMO, McNabb does get into the hall of fame. The HOF isnt about Superbowl rings, its about personal stats and McNabb is plenty good enough.

While I agree that the HOF isn't only about winning, I always thought McNabb overrated. When I watch him play, nothing about his game says Hall of FAMER. He is good, albeit somewhat inaccurate. If TO hadn't been...well TO, then maybe his numbers would look better and I could believe he should be in the HOF. I just don't see it... Montana, Elway, Marino, McNabb??? Nah...

[DaGris]

no. not even close

[slickpitt]

I wouldn't vote for him to go into the Hall... if I had a vote that is :P

[mddubya]

Just ask Rush Limbaugh if he will get in.

[chemboy2]

I don't think it is just about stats or SB wins; it's all of the above. I think it is easier with a SB win or two under the belt but ridiculous stats (eg. Marino) shows it is not a pre-requisite.

I don't watch enough of the Eagles/McNabb to know if Sunday was a typical game for him or not. I do know though that the first half of Sunday's game is a great example of the story behind the numbers and why you better have something more than just numbers if you want to get into the hall. In the first half McNabb's stats were quite good (really good overall 60%, 375yds, 3/1). He had a good completion % and good yardage but the stats were misleading as his passes were all over the damn place. On more than one occasion a wide open receiver had to drop to his knees, twist back, or hesitation step to make the catch. Sure, they're all completions and go down for X yards but ill placed passes prevented any kind of RAC and quite possibly kept points off the board. The second half was a different story though as he was leading his receivers nicely and hitting the proper shoulder etc.

So, in order to answer the question I need to know, is McNabb normally like a) 1st half McNabb, b) 2nd half McNabb or c) was that game a good representation? If the answer is either a or c then I say no way he gets in.