There are 142 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Who is the worse QB?

Who is the worse QB?

McNabb is a stud. He's very underrated, IMO. Smith couldn't hold his jockstrap at this point.
  • crzy
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 39,284
Originally posted by darkknight49:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by blizzuntz:
McNabb is HOF

lol no way in hell.

Never had a 4000 yard passing season. Only one season of 30+ TD's and that was because of TO. And hasn't won a championship or MVP.

dunno bout needing 4000 yards for a HOF qualification. Championships, yes. Aikman hardly ever threw for more than 3000 yards a season, but he has 3 rings.

One or the other

You gotta either have ridiculous stats or have many rings.

McNabb has neither.
Originally posted by strickac:
McNabb is a stud. He's very underrated, IMO. Smith couldn't hold his jockstrap at this point.

thank you

mcnabb is currently one of the most underrated qb's ever imo
Originally posted by Icelandic49er:
I said before the game that Carson Palmer would have bad game against the Jets but i did expect McNabb to step up and play like a man. Id rather have Alex Smith than those two at this point.

Youre out of your mind. Smith is a joke of a QB compared to either of those 2. Id rather have those 2 than Smith any day and only a complete homer would even try to compare Smith to those QBs. Please try to stay within the realms of reality when comparing QBs and involving Alex Smith. Say instead of using McNabb and Palmer you might want to use Pat White n JP Losman. Id rather have Smith than those 2 QBs.
McNabb is past his prime, and has never been on the short list of elite QBs in the league.

Palmer has not been the same since he tore up his knee in the playoffs a couple years back. Even before the injury, he wouldn't be an elite list guy either.

This points out how short the list of truly good QBs there are in the league. Once you get past the top 7 or 8, you get down to guys who rise or fall with their team but are not capable of putting the team on their back and carrying it for more than a few quarters or a game here and there.

All of this is due to the ultra high salaries QBs now have. An owner spends $10MILLION or more on a young player and doesn't want him sitting on the bench. The result is he gets rushed onto the field before he is ready. Good case comparison is to compare where Jason Campbell and Alex Smith are right now, both of whom were put on the field early for teams that are the epitome of teams in flux, as opposed to Aaron Rodgers.

In a very real way, if there were to be a rookie salary cap, it would work to the advantage of young QBs who would more likely be able to sit and learn the system while watching a more established QB play. Steve Young is a good example of the latter method at work.

Just my thoughts...
Originally posted by dj43:
McNabb is past his prime, and has never been on the short list of elite QBs in the league.

Palmer has not been the same since he tore up his knee in the playoffs a couple years back. Even before the injury, he wouldn't be an elite list guy either.

This points out how short the list of truly good QBs there are in the league. Once you get past the top 7 or 8, you get down to guys who rise or fall with their team but are not capable of putting the team on their back and carrying it for more than a few quarters or a game here and there.

All of this is due to the ultra high salaries QBs now have. An owner spends $10MILLION or more on a young player and doesn't want him sitting on the bench. The result is he gets rushed onto the field before he is ready. Good case comparison is to compare where Jason Campbell and Alex Smith are right now, both of whom were put on the field early for teams that are the epitome of teams in flux, as opposed to Aaron Rodgers.

In a very real way, if there were to be a rookie salary cap, it would work to the advantage of young QBs who would more likely be able to sit and learn the system while watching a more established QB play. Steve Young is a good example of the latter method at work.

Just my thoughts...

I kind of agree. I do agree that at any time there really is only about half a dozen truly elite QB's. But I think that is timeless. I don't think the whole start day1 vs. sitting really makes that much of a difference.

I happen to really like both Palmer and McNabb....but I never thought of either one as a top tier QB. EVER.

In fact, I said that the best QB to come out of USC would be Mark Sanchez; who btw seems to be off to a fine start under the start day 1 method.
Originally posted by danimal:
Originally posted by dj43:
McNabb is past his prime, and has never been on the short list of elite QBs in the league.

Palmer has not been the same since he tore up his knee in the playoffs a couple years back. Even before the injury, he wouldn't be an elite list guy either.

This points out how short the list of truly good QBs there are in the league. Once you get past the top 7 or 8, you get down to guys who rise or fall with their team but are not capable of putting the team on their back and carrying it for more than a few quarters or a game here and there.

All of this is due to the ultra high salaries QBs now have. An owner spends $10MILLION or more on a young player and doesn't want him sitting on the bench. The result is he gets rushed onto the field before he is ready. Good case comparison is to compare where Jason Campbell and Alex Smith are right now, both of whom were put on the field early for teams that are the epitome of teams in flux, as opposed to Aaron Rodgers.

In a very real way, if there were to be a rookie salary cap, it would work to the advantage of young QBs who would more likely be able to sit and learn the system while watching a more established QB play. Steve Young is a good example of the latter method at work.

Just my thoughts...

I kind of agree. I do agree that at any time there really is only about half a dozen truly elite QB's. But I think that is timeless. I don't think the whole start day1 vs. sitting really makes that much of a difference.

I happen to really like both Palmer and McNabb....but I never thought of either one as a top tier QB. EVER.

In fact, I said that the best QB to come out of USC would be Mark Sanchez; who btw seems to be off to a fine start under the start day 1 method.


The Jets are winning because of their Defense and Running game not because of Mark Sanchez.

12 Tds and 20 INTs
Originally posted by valrod33:
Originally posted by danimal:
Originally posted by dj43:
McNabb is past his prime, and has never been on the short list of elite QBs in the league.

Palmer has not been the same since he tore up his knee in the playoffs a couple years back. Even before the injury, he wouldn't be an elite list guy either.

This points out how short the list of truly good QBs there are in the league. Once you get past the top 7 or 8, you get down to guys who rise or fall with their team but are not capable of putting the team on their back and carrying it for more than a few quarters or a game here and there.

All of this is due to the ultra high salaries QBs now have. An owner spends $10MILLION or more on a young player and doesn't want him sitting on the bench. The result is he gets rushed onto the field before he is ready. Good case comparison is to compare where Jason Campbell and Alex Smith are right now, both of whom were put on the field early for teams that are the epitome of teams in flux, as opposed to Aaron Rodgers.

In a very real way, if there were to be a rookie salary cap, it would work to the advantage of young QBs who would more likely be able to sit and learn the system while watching a more established QB play. Steve Young is a good example of the latter method at work.

Just my thoughts...

I kind of agree. I do agree that at any time there really is only about half a dozen truly elite QB's. But I think that is timeless. I don't think the whole start day1 vs. sitting really makes that much of a difference.

I happen to really like both Palmer and McNabb....but I never thought of either one as a top tier QB. EVER.

In fact, I said that the best QB to come out of USC would be Mark Sanchez; who btw seems to be off to a fine start under the start day 1 method.


The Jets are winning because of their Defense and Running game not because of Mark Sanchez.

12 Tds and 20 INTs

I never said the Jets were winning because of Mark Sanchez. I said he is having a fine rookie season.
Originally posted by danimal:
Originally posted by dj43:
McNabb is past his prime, and has never been on the short list of elite QBs in the league.

Palmer has not been the same since he tore up his knee in the playoffs a couple years back. Even before the injury, he wouldn't be an elite list guy either.

This points out how short the list of truly good QBs there are in the league. Once you get past the top 7 or 8, you get down to guys who rise or fall with their team but are not capable of putting the team on their back and carrying it for more than a few quarters or a game here and there.

All of this is due to the ultra high salaries QBs now have. An owner spends $10MILLION or more on a young player and doesn't want him sitting on the bench. The result is he gets rushed onto the field before he is ready. Good case comparison is to compare where Jason Campbell and Alex Smith are right now, both of whom were put on the field early for teams that are the epitome of teams in flux, as opposed to Aaron Rodgers.

In a very real way, if there were to be a rookie salary cap, it would work to the advantage of young QBs who would more likely be able to sit and learn the system while watching a more established QB play. Steve Young is a good example of the latter method at work.

Just my thoughts...

I kind of agree. I do agree that at any time there really is only about half a dozen truly elite QB's. But I think that is timeless. I don't think the whole start day1 vs. sitting really makes that much of a difference.

I happen to really like both Palmer and McNabb....but I never thought of either one as a top tier QB. EVER.

In fact, I said that the best QB to come out of USC would be Mark Sanchez; who btw seems to be off to a fine start under the start day 1 method.

Drawing the line between elite and very good/efficient has always been relatively easy. Where it big difference is, IMO, is between now and the time up until the late '80s/early '90s. Prior to that time, there were quite good number of very good/efficient QBs. Guys that did more than just "not lose" the game.

A good example is the '85 Bears. Their killer defense got all the publicity but Jim McMahon was far from a Trent Dilfer as a QB. McMahon could BEAT you with his ball-handling, his poise, his arm, and his guts.

In the early '80s, David Garrard couldn't start for more then 2 or 3 teams. Now he is mid-pack. Pick any of the QBs on current teams from the late teens on down and they would be 2nd string 20 years ago. That is due in large part to the fact they have not had the proper tutelege to play well at this level.

Another reason for the drop-off is the current infatuation with the spread offense in college. 80% of the bowl games this year featured QBs who were in the shotgun all the time. In the pro game, the speed of LBs and DEs are such that you just can't do that all the time. So these kids like Alex and others that have come from spread offenses have another reason why they should be on the bench more so they can learn to play from the I-formation.
  • TX9R
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,191
Originally posted by dj43:
Originally posted by danimal:
Originally posted by dj43:
McNabb is past his prime, and has never been on the short list of elite QBs in the league.

Palmer has not been the same since he tore up his knee in the playoffs a couple years back. Even before the injury, he wouldn't be an elite list guy either.

This points out how short the list of truly good QBs there are in the league. Once you get past the top 7 or 8, you get down to guys who rise or fall with their team but are not capable of putting the team on their back and carrying it for more than a few quarters or a game here and there.

All of this is due to the ultra high salaries QBs now have. An owner spends $10MILLION or more on a young player and doesn't want him sitting on the bench. The result is he gets rushed onto the field before he is ready. Good case comparison is to compare where Jason Campbell and Alex Smith are right now, both of whom were put on the field early for teams that are the epitome of teams in flux, as opposed to Aaron Rodgers.

In a very real way, if there were to be a rookie salary cap, it would work to the advantage of young QBs who would more likely be able to sit and learn the system while watching a more established QB play. Steve Young is a good example of the latter method at work.

Just my thoughts...

I kind of agree. I do agree that at any time there really is only about half a dozen truly elite QB's. But I think that is timeless. I don't think the whole start day1 vs. sitting really makes that much of a difference.

I happen to really like both Palmer and McNabb....but I never thought of either one as a top tier QB. EVER.

In fact, I said that the best QB to come out of USC would be Mark Sanchez; who btw seems to be off to a fine start under the start day 1 method.

Drawing the line between elite and very good/efficient has always been relatively easy. Where it big difference is, IMO, is between now and the time up until the late '80s/early '90s. Prior to that time, there were quite good number of very good/efficient QBs. Guys that did more than just "not lose" the game.

A good example is the '85 Bears. Their killer defense got all the publicity but Jim McMahon was far from a Trent Dilfer as a QB. McMahon could BEAT you with his ball-handling, his poise, his arm, and his guts.

In the early '80s, David Garrard couldn't start for more then 2 or 3 teams. Now he is mid-pack. Pick any of the QBs on current teams from the late teens on down and they would be 2nd string 20 years ago. That is due in large part to the fact they have not had the proper tutelege to play well at this level.

Another reason for the drop-off is the current infatuation with the spread offense in college. 80% of the bowl games this year featured QBs who were in the shotgun all the time. In the pro game, the speed of LBs and DEs are such that you just can't do that all the time. So these kids like Alex and others that have come from spread offenses have another reason why they should be on the bench more so they can learn to play from the I-formation.

You're crazy. There a more quality QBs playing right now than in any other era. QBs throwing for more than 4,000 yards: 1999 (five); 2009 (10).
• QBs throwing 26-plus TDs: 1999 (three); 2009 (11).
• QBs completing 335-plus passes: 1999 (two); 2009 (11).
• QBs with a 95-plus passer rating: 1999 (two); 2009 (nine). (Seven of the top 53 QB ratings all-time were posted this season.)
• QBs with 21-plus TDs who were at least plus-9 for TDs versus INTs: 1999 (six); 2009 (14)
• According to Peter King, there were 866 pass plays of 25-plus yards (third-highest since 1992).
I agree about the tutelage and learning part, but this is the golden age of QBs, and the rules have set this up.
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by darkknight49:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by blizzuntz:
McNabb is HOF

lol no way in hell.

Never had a 4000 yard passing season. Only one season of 30+ TD's and that was because of TO. And hasn't won a championship or MVP.

dunno bout needing 4000 yards for a HOF qualification. Championships, yes. Aikman hardly ever threw for more than 3000 yards a season, but he has 3 rings.

One or the other

You gotta either have ridiculous stats or have many rings.

McNabb has neither.

If McNabb had at least one good receiver throughout his career, he would've been a lock for sure. He's been stuck with #2's and slot receivers like freddie mitchell, reggie brown, antonio freeman (waaay past his prime), hank baskett, jason avant, etc..
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by dj43:
Originally posted by danimal:
Originally posted by dj43:
McNabb is past his prime, and has never been on the short list of elite QBs in the league.

Palmer has not been the same since he tore up his knee in the playoffs a couple years back. Even before the injury, he wouldn't be an elite list guy either.

This points out how short the list of truly good QBs there are in the league. Once you get past the top 7 or 8, you get down to guys who rise or fall with their team but are not capable of putting the team on their back and carrying it for more than a few quarters or a game here and there.

All of this is due to the ultra high salaries QBs now have. An owner spends $10MILLION or more on a young player and doesn't want him sitting on the bench. The result is he gets rushed onto the field before he is ready. Good case comparison is to compare where Jason Campbell and Alex Smith are right now, both of whom were put on the field early for teams that are the epitome of teams in flux, as opposed to Aaron Rodgers.

In a very real way, if there were to be a rookie salary cap, it would work to the advantage of young QBs who would more likely be able to sit and learn the system while watching a more established QB play. Steve Young is a good example of the latter method at work.

Just my thoughts...

I kind of agree. I do agree that at any time there really is only about half a dozen truly elite QB's. But I think that is timeless. I don't think the whole start day1 vs. sitting really makes that much of a difference.

I happen to really like both Palmer and McNabb....but I never thought of either one as a top tier QB. EVER.

In fact, I said that the best QB to come out of USC would be Mark Sanchez; who btw seems to be off to a fine start under the start day 1 method.

Drawing the line between elite and very good/efficient has always been relatively easy. Where it big difference is, IMO, is between now and the time up until the late '80s/early '90s. Prior to that time, there were quite good number of very good/efficient QBs. Guys that did more than just "not lose" the game.

A good example is the '85 Bears. Their killer defense got all the publicity but Jim McMahon was far from a Trent Dilfer as a QB. McMahon could BEAT you with his ball-handling, his poise, his arm, and his guts.

In the early '80s, David Garrard couldn't start for more then 2 or 3 teams. Now he is mid-pack. Pick any of the QBs on current teams from the late teens on down and they would be 2nd string 20 years ago. That is due in large part to the fact they have not had the proper tutelege to play well at this level.

Another reason for the drop-off is the current infatuation with the spread offense in college. 80% of the bowl games this year featured QBs who were in the shotgun all the time. In the pro game, the speed of LBs and DEs are such that you just can't do that all the time. So these kids like Alex and others that have come from spread offenses have another reason why they should be on the bench more so they can learn to play from the I-formation.

You're crazy. There a more quality QBs playing right now than in any other era. QBs throwing for more than 4,000 yards: 1999 (five); 2009 (10).
• QBs throwing 26-plus TDs: 1999 (three); 2009 (11).
• QBs completing 335-plus passes: 1999 (two); 2009 (11).
• QBs with a 95-plus passer rating: 1999 (two); 2009 (nine). (Seven of the top 53 QB ratings all-time were posted this season.)
• QBs with 21-plus TDs who were at least plus-9 for TDs versus INTs: 1999 (six); 2009 (14)
• According to Peter King, there were 866 pass plays of 25-plus yards (third-highest since 1992).
I agree about the tutelage and learning part, but this is the golden age of QBs, and the rules have set this up.
Your last sentence showed why the stats up so high compared to 20 years ago: the rules have DRASTICALLY changed to favor the passing game. DBs just cannot play today the way they played 15 years ago. Contact is SO limited now compared to when Deion played that QBs and receivers are now on a picnic. I have even heard Sanders say it would be much tougher now than when he played.

League officials watch TV viewership and notice that more people watch teams that pass a lot and less that run - so they change to rules to gain viewers which translates to more ad revenue.

Good job on the stats but the stats only prove that the league has been successful in changing the game from what is was in 1992.
Originally posted by dj43:
Originally posted by danimal:
Originally posted by dj43:
McNabb is past his prime, and has never been on the short list of elite QBs in the league.

Palmer has not been the same since he tore up his knee in the playoffs a couple years back. Even before the injury, he wouldn't be an elite list guy either.

This points out how short the list of truly good QBs there are in the league. Once you get past the top 7 or 8, you get down to guys who rise or fall with their team but are not capable of putting the team on their back and carrying it for more than a few quarters or a game here and there.

All of this is due to the ultra high salaries QBs now have. An owner spends $10MILLION or more on a young player and doesn't want him sitting on the bench. The result is he gets rushed onto the field before he is ready. Good case comparison is to compare where Jason Campbell and Alex Smith are right now, both of whom were put on the field early for teams that are the epitome of teams in flux, as opposed to Aaron Rodgers.

In a very real way, if there were to be a rookie salary cap, it would work to the advantage of young QBs who would more likely be able to sit and learn the system while watching a more established QB play. Steve Young is a good example of the latter method at work.

Just my thoughts...

I kind of agree. I do agree that at any time there really is only about half a dozen truly elite QB's. But I think that is timeless. I don't think the whole start day1 vs. sitting really makes that much of a difference.

I happen to really like both Palmer and McNabb....but I never thought of either one as a top tier QB. EVER.

In fact, I said that the best QB to come out of USC would be Mark Sanchez; who btw seems to be off to a fine start under the start day 1 method.

Drawing the line between elite and very good/efficient has always been relatively easy. Where it big difference is, IMO, is between now and the time up until the late '80s/early '90s. Prior to that time, there were quite good number of very good/efficient QBs. Guys that did more than just "not lose" the game.

A good example is the '85 Bears. Their killer defense got all the publicity but Jim McMahon was far from a Trent Dilfer as a QB. McMahon could BEAT you with his ball-handling, his poise, his arm, and his guts.

In the early '80s, David Garrard couldn't start for more then 2 or 3 teams. Now he is mid-pack. Pick any of the QBs on current teams from the late teens on down and they would be 2nd string 20 years ago. That is due in large part to the fact they have not had the proper tutelege to play well at this level.

Another reason for the drop-off is the current infatuation with the spread offense in college. 80% of the bowl games this year featured QBs who were in the shotgun all the time. In the pro game, the speed of LBs and DEs are such that you just can't do that all the time. So these kids like Alex and others that have come from spread offenses have another reason why they should be on the bench more so they can learn to play from the I-formation.

pretty convincing points