OT: McNabb "I am a HOF'er"

[FirstTimer]

And that's exactly the point being made by many (including myself) about Cousins. He doesn't show any "greatness" at the right times despite his "great" statistics. I certainly wasn't evaluating Cousins to any kind of HOF comparison, but rather more what the raw stats say versus the "eyeball" test. I used the Aikman comparison much like you used the Rodgers comparison (about the "clutch gene"), merely as a similarity. I imagined you weren't comparing Cousins to a sure-fire future HOFer in those regards.

I guess, but I watched Cousins a lot last year and I think recency bias is setting in quite a bit. The end of the year was bad but he had great games against great teams last year as well(LAR for example) but the Bears game is the one most stuck in people's memories. We obviously have the full scope of Aikman's career here to evaluate and Rodger's is already one of the GOAT's. I just think the two conversations have different levels or points. One conversation is if Cousins is good enough of an NFL QB to help the Vikings win the NFCN. I think that's obvious that he is. The other is "was Aikman really a HOF'er?". Yes.

 

[Les Grossman]

I guess, but I watched Cousins a lot last year and I think recency bias is setting in quite a bit. The end of the year was bad but he had great games against great teams last year as well(LAR for example) but the Bears game is the one most stuck in people's memories. We obviously have the full scope of Aikman's career here to evaluate and Rodger's is already one of the GOAT's. I just think the two conversations have different levels or points. One conversation is if Cousins is good enough of an NFL QB to help the Vikings win the NFCN. I think that's obvious that he is. The other is "was Aikman really a HOF'er?". Yes.

I can get on board with that.

 

[FirstTimer]

I can get on board with that.

This comment likely belongs in the Cousins thread but my point re: Cousins is also that while we snicker the at the Vikings getting him and paying what they did I'd more than happily take what he has provided production wise and roll the dice on the production coming at certain times than keep my fingers crossed on Trubz.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

This capsulizes it:

So you've rationalized the Colts fall from 4th to 28th without Manning...but no mention of the Eagles improving from 5th to 3rd without McNabb? Seems like par for the course.

 

[gallagher]

So you've rationalized the Colts fall from 4th to 28th without Manning...but no mention of the Eagles improving from 5th to 3rd without McNabb? Seems like par for the course.

You're equivocating Curtis Painter's failures to be any type of QB in an offense that was more Manning's creation than any of his coaches, with Michael Vick making a comeback in an Andy Reid offense.

I mean come on, this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Vick retained a better arm through a prison stint and was a rare athletic talent. Painter had the legs of Kyle Orton, the accuracy of Time Tebow, and the decision making skills if Johnathan Quinn.

 

[run and shoot]

So you've rationalized the Colts fall from 4th to 28th without Manning...but no mention of the Eagles improving from 5th to 3rd without McNabb? Seems like par for the course.

The Eagles finally got some decent wr's (between 09 and 10, they still weren't on par with T.O.)....unfortunately, McNabb ( he was injured aroud this time as well) was gone by that time. When McNabb left, they started getting better "O" talent.

5th to 3rd without McNabb? ....yes but still they lost in playoffs both yrs.

 

[run and shoot]

Rory Sparrow said:

So you've rationalized the Colts fall from 4th to 28th without Manning...but no mention of the Eagles improving from 5th to 3rd without McNabb? Seems like par for the course.

You're equivocating Curtis Painter's failures to be any type of QB in an offense that was more Manning's creation than any of his coaches, with Michael Vick making a comeback in an Andy Reid offense.

I mean come on, this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Vick retained a better arm through a prison stint and was a rare athletic talent. Painter had the legs of Kyle Orton, the accuracy of Time Tebow, and the decision making skills if Johnathan Quinn.

LOL....You're being to complimentary of Painter.
But seriously, all jokes aside, you bring up some good points

 

[Rory Sparrow]

You're equivocating Curtis Painter's failures to be any type of QB in an offense that was more Manning's creation than any of his coaches, with Michael Vick making a comeback in an Andy Reid offense.

What on earth are you talking about? It would be impossible to NOT equivocate Painter's failure and Vick's success, because those things ACTUALLY HAPPENED. I can't rewrite history like you and run and shoot. The Colts offense took a severe downturn with Manning's absence, the Eagles offense got better without McNabb. Empirically, "unequivocally".

 

[Rory Sparrow]

5th to 3rd without McNabb? ....yes but still they lost in playoffs both yrs.

Quite simply, this sucks. There is no point.

I think its funny that the year after McNabb leaves, Mike Vick has the same coach and same offensive talent that McNabb had, and goes on to have a career year. Vick had been the starter with the Falcons for 5 seasons, and his 100.2 rating was 20 POINTS HIGHER than his best season in Atlanta.

Which brings us to the obvious logical point...McNabb didn't have the worst offensive teammates in NFL history with the Eagles...Mike Vick had the worst offensive teammates in NFL history with Falcons, because when he played with McNabb's teammates, his QB rating jumped by 20 POINTS!!!!

 

[gallagher]

What on earth are you talking about? It would be impossible to NOT equivocate Painter's failure and Vick's success, because those things ACTUALLY HAPPENED. I can't rewrite history like you and run and shoot. The Colts offense took a severe downturn with Manning's absence, the Eagles offense got better without McNabb. Empirically, "unequivocally".

That's not equivocation, that's comparison. You can compare them because they happened. You are intentionally obscuring the circumstances so as to evade an honest comparison. That's equivocation.

Towards the end of Peyton Manning's tenure with Indy, he was field directing everything on that offense and was putting together legendary performances. Without Manning -midseason- you're pretty much back to the days drawing plays in the dirt with a stick. Curtis Painter was objectively horrid as a QB prospect, hence why he was a 6th round draft pick.

McNabb had a great enough supporting cast in his last year with Philly that he led them to 5th overall offense, a team directed by Andy Reid (who people considered then and now as a good offensive mind). When McNabb goes down, he is replaced by a reformed Michael Vick who had committed to a more studious and patient QB as he reformed his public image. Vick was a former 1st-overall talent, and the only non-RB I remember him having was Algie Crumpler.

Upon comparison, I do not think that Painter replacing Manning and Vick replacing McNabb are equal situations, which is why there were starkly different outcomes.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

That's not equivocation, that's comparison. You can compare them because they happened. You are intentionally obscuring the circumstances so as to evade an honest comparison. That's equivocation.

The opposite. Not intentionally obscuring the circumstances, I'm stating fact. You are the one adding subjective intangibles. Also, you are the one comparing Painter to Vick, as you made the comparison in your response to my posting. I made no mention of either QB in my posting. Again, you said I was "equivocating" with my comparison of Manning and McNabb's situations by implying (I think?) that Manning's replacement was Painter while McNabb's replacement was Vick...and my response was I can't help that because its what actually happened.

Towards the end of Peyton Manning's tenure with Indy, he was field directing everything on that offense and was putting together legendary performances.

Seems like Manning was (Hochuli voice) "by rule" carrying the franchise then, no?

Without Manning -midseason- you're pretty much back to the days drawing plays in the dirt with a stick. Curtis Painter was objectively horrid as a QB prospect, hence why he was a 6th round draft pick.

First, Manning wasn't hurt midseason. Second, Painter only started half the games. Orlovsky and Kerry Collins (1st round pick! SB QB! HOF numbers!) started the other 8 games, with Collins somehow posting even worse numbers than Painter. So pretty much everything about your comment is wrong. I assume if Painter was such a bad prospect, he wouldn't have been drafted. He ended up with more passing yards than the 7 other QBs selected outside the first round in his draft class.

Upon comparison, I do not think that Painter replacing Manning and Vick replacing McNabb are equal situations, which is why there were starkly different outcomes.

Not sure why/how it could have been an equal situation (has that ever happened in NFL history?), but I'm also not sure why you are comparing Painter to Vick. The comparison, obviously, is Manning to Painter/Collins/Orlovsky and McNabb to Vick. The results show that the Colts offense fell from 4th to 28th without Manning, while the Eagles offense rose from 5th to 3rd without McNabb.

You can say its "equivocation" (again, how could it NOT be?), but, again, in the context of the outlandishness of the article which was Manning=best teammates and McNabb=worst teammates...don't you think that, GIVING FULL RECOGNITION TO EQUIVOCATION, that the Colts offense should not have taken a historic nosedive and the Eagles offense should not have gotten better without McNabb?

 

[Bearly]

Even if you think there's a false equivalency, Vicks passer rating was still 8 points higher than the guy being argued for the HOF, in the same O. Passing, not overall play. He also ran for 56 yds per game and more season yards in 12 games than McNabb did in 16 of any year.

In fact, McNabb only beat that passer rating once in his career with a team that included Owens, Brian Mitchell, Westbrook, 2 good TEs and a top 10 D that along with Mitchell helps with field position, scoring and passer rating with more trips into the red zone. The Vick year in question had a bottom 3rd ranked D.

 

[gallagher]

The opposite. Not intentionally obscuring the circumstances, I'm stating fact. You are the one adding subjective intangibles. Also, you are the one comparing Painter to Vick, as you made the comparison in your response to my posting. I made no mention of either QB in my posting. Again, you said I was "equivocating" with my comparison of Manning and McNabb's situations by implying (I think?) that Manning's replacement was Painter while McNabb's replacement was Vick...and my response was I can't help that because its what actually happened.




Seems like Manning was (Hochuli voice) "by rule" carrying the franchise then, no?



First, Manning wasn't hurt midseason. Second, Painter only started half the games. Orlovsky and Kerry Collins (1st round pick! SB QB! HOF numbers!) started the other 8 games, with Collins somehow posting even worse numbers than Painter. So pretty much everything about your comment is wrong. I assume if Painter was such a bad prospect, he wouldn't have been drafted. He ended up with more passing yards than the 7 other QBs selected outside the first round in his draft class.



Not sure why/how it could have been an equal situation (has that ever happened in NFL history?), but I'm also not sure why you are comparing Painter to Vick. The comparison, obviously, is Manning to Painter/Collins/Orlovsky and McNabb to Vick. The results show that the Colts offense fell from 4th to 28th without Manning, while the Eagles offense rose from 5th to 3rd without McNabb.

You can say its "equivocation" (again, how could it NOT be?), but, again, in the context of the outlandishness of the article which was Manning=best teammates and McNabb=worst teammates...don't you think that, GIVING FULL RECOGNITION TO EQUIVOCATION, that the Colts offense should not have taken a historic nosedive and the Eagles offense should not have gotten better without McNabb?

Ok I didn't go all the way back in my first read-through to the article you refer to, but instead reacted yesterday with the Curtis Painter reference as if you were the first to bring up the colts with-and-without Manning. That's on me. I'll also point out that my use of midseason was intended for "after the season started" because I had incorrectly recalled that Manning was ruled out for season during the preseason. I had posted thinking that the Colts were preparing to play with Manning before a preseason injury.

My comparison was based off of the incorrect assumption that you had originally brought in the Manning comparison to highlight why McNabb was undeserving of recognition, as the team got better (by offensive statistics) with Vick in.

I went to this great length because (a) I'm not really gonna get into an argument where we only disagree on one or two points, because from what I can tell this was just a communication breakdown and (b) this isn't policing words just to be an ass. I went down this track because you're still not using "equivocate" properly in a meaningful way (or at least as far as I can interpret your meaning). It does NOT mean equal or giving equal weight or anything dignified. It's closer to "forcing things to seem equal" with some bad intention thrown in. Equivocation is a fallacy as you strip appropriate context to hide the truth. Comparison is fine and we do it all the time. Equivocation is saying apples are equal in quality to oranges, comparison is highlighting the ways apples are different to oranges.

So I think this is cleared up now? Manning > both Vick and McNabb > Painter, and we only disagree as to what degree of recognition McNabb's career deserves?

 

[gallagher]

I'm saying any comparison could be interpreted as "equivocation", because I did not choose Curtis Painter to be Manning's backup and Mike Vick to be McNabb's backup. It's what happened in reality. I'm not sure how stating the truth is hiding the truth. You said I was "equivocating" with my choice of comparison, but I'm not sure what else I am supposed to compare. I agreed that comparing Painter to Vick was not apples-to-apples, but, obviously, I cannot "choose" which QBs to compare and, again, its hard to proactively find a non-equivocal QB comparison, much less randomly chance into one regarding backup QBs.

I thought you were the one who chose the term "equivocate"?

Yup, I did choose the word, and I stated that I mistook what you were saying because I didn't see the article, and that's on me. I have no problem owning up my dude.

Everything after that became a confused jumble because correcting your use of the word (I'm sure you meant equivalent) was central to my point (based off not seeing the article you referenced yesterday), because the meaning of my point absolutely changes if you misinterpret equivocate for equivalent.

It's no big deal, once the issue of language is solved we really aren't saying totally different things.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

TBH, I was more upset with run and shoot liking your post than anything you said.

 

[gallagher]

Aww man, run and shoot! Look dude I need likes so I can win CCS poster of the year but you can't be dragging my good name through the dirt!

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Aww man, run and shoot! Look dude I need likes so I can win CCS poster of the year but you can't be dragging my good name through the dirt!

 

[run and shoot]

Quite simply, this sucks. There is no point.

I think its funny that the year after McNabb leaves, Mike Vick has the same coach and same offensive talent that McNabb had, and goes on to have a career year. Vick had been the starter with the Falcons for 5 seasons, and his 100.2 rating was 20 POINTS HIGHER than his best season in Atlanta.

Which brings us to the obvious logical point...McNabb didn't have the worst offensive teammates in NFL history with the Eagles...Mike Vick had the worst offensive teammates in NFL history with Falcons, because when he played with McNabb's teammates, his QB rating jumped by 20 POINTS!!!!

From post>>#106

The Eagles finally got some decent wr's (between 09 and 10, they still weren't on par with T.O.)....unfortunately, McNabb ( he was injured around this time as well) was gone by that time. When McNabb left, they started getting better "O" talent.

I will add Desean Jackson and Jeremy Macklin do not = T.O. Yet McNabb once again, went to playoffs. Two points here:
1) Ok the "O" went up 2 slots. With the both McNabb and Vick
the playoff results were the same.
2)The Eagles overall, went into somewhat of an upswing after 2009-2010. They started getting better "O" players.

Which brings us to the obvious logical point...McNabb didn't have the worst offensive teammates in NFL history with the Eagles...

LOL....you're doing it again......stop "sensationalizing" and making erroneous statements just to bolster your negative McNabb proposition. You're indirectly referring to my linked article.
Here's the correct title of the article below .
Peyton Manning Had the Best Offensive Teammates Among Top Quarterbacks in 2000's; Donovan McNabb Had the Worst

The articles covers the 2000's not just 2009-2010.

 

[run and shoot]

Aww man, run and shoot! Look dude I need likes so I can win CCS poster of the year but you can't be dragging my good name through the dirt!

lol.....don't get caught in the Rory spider-web of divide & conquer.

 

[run and shoot]

Top 15 Worst Receivers Donovan McNabb Has Ever Had | TheSportster
?