Donovan McNabb says if Troy Aikman is in the Hall of Fame, he should be, too

Bow to Royalty said:
That's my point. You're protecting him from comparison because he wasn't good enough to last so his "era" is short, and that's protecting him. You know why Eli gets in. Peyton came in before him, Brasy a year after and Big Ben, Rivers, and Eli easily count for their era.
Click to expand...
I should judge McNabb against in his prime vs guys that were playing after McNabb was gone?
 
Niggas bringing Tom Brady into this lol...

Yeah he did better with trash offensive talent around him because he the fuckin GOAT.

Completely unnecessary comparison. Lol
 
5th Letter said:
McNabb>>Brees in 01
McNabb>>Brees in 02
McNabb>>Brees in 03
McNabb>>Brees in 04
McNabb>>Brees in 05

Brees was better after that year.
Click to expand...

Brees was better from 05 on, and had like 20 passes as a rookie in 01. Brees was better during his time.

5th Letter said:
I should judge McNabb against in his prime vs guys that were playing after McNabb was gone?
Click to expand...

A short period of productivity is a knock on a player, not a defense for them. Brees, Manning, Brady, all came out very close to McNabb, and they get compared to these players.

The era thing is a cop out. Let's say 6 QB's are better than him from 00-04, then 4 fall off and 4 different ones step up so 6 QB's are better than him from 05-09. He wasn't a top 3 QB during the era (behind the 2 that stayed ahead of him the whole time). He was never better than 7th best QB... you're trying to call him 3rd. That's the problem.
 
Last edited:
Bow to Royalty said:
Brees was better from 05 on, and had like 20 passes as a rookie in 01. Brees was better during his time.



A short period of productivity is a knock on a player, not a defense for them. Brees, Manning, Brady, all came out very close to McNabb, and they get compared to these players.

The era thing is a cop out. Let's say 6 QB's are better than him from 00-04, then 4 fall off and 4 different ones step up so 6 QB's are better than him from 05-09. He wasn't a top 3 QB during the era (behind the 2 that stayed ahead of him the whole time). He was never better than 7th best QB... you're trying to call him 3rd. That's the problem.
Click to expand...
Regardless of attempts McNabb>>Brees in 01.

McNabb was better in 05 because he had to be productive while dealing with the shit show surrounding the team.

I’m saying that for the entirety of his run he was no worse than top 10, and had years where he was top 5. And factoring the players that were starting consistently around the same time as he (00-01) only 3 were better (Favre, Manning and Brady) others like Vick, McNair, Green, etc were not better imo. Brees didn’t get good until 2004 nor was he a consistent starter until that season, there was a reason they drafted Rivers...
 
It's pretty clear that neither of you are changing your opinion. You're just arguing in circles now.
 
5th Letter said:
Regardless of attempts McNabb>>Brees in 01.

McNabb was better in 05 because he had to be productive while dealing with the shit show surrounding the team.

I’m saying that for the entirety of his run he was no worse than top 10, and had years where he was top 5. And factoring the players that were starting consistently around the same time as he (00-01) only 3 were better (Favre, Manning and Brady) others like Vick, McNair, Green, etc were not better imo. Brees didn’t get good until 2004 nor was he a consistent starter until that season, there was a reason they drafted Rivers...
Click to expand...

Mcnabb was better because he had to put up with puking in the SB and his HOF WR not liking him? That's how we judge who's better now?

Vick is a good example of you protecting McNabb with the 00-09 era talk. Vick wasn't in the league in 00, and, missed 2 years for dog fighting. That's 3 of the 10 seasons he's not even in the league. His rookie year, he was a backup, and he was a backup when he came back from missing his 2 years. That's 5 years of the 10 year overlap. Even if Vick was an MVP the 4 seasons he played you'd say McNabb tied (5-5) because he won the years Vick wasn't playing.

They drafted Rivers because Brees caught a bad injury and they didn't know if he'd be able to really play again. It wasn't because Brees wasn't good enough.
 
Last edited:
Bow to Royalty said:
Mcnabb was better because he had to put up with puking in the SB and his HOF WR not liking him? That's how we judge who's better now?

Vick is a good example of you protecting McNabb with the 00-09 era talk. Vick wasn't in the league in 00, and, missed 2 years for dog fighting. That's 3 of the 10 seasons he's not even in the league. His rookie year, he was a backup, and he was a backup when he came back from missing his 2 years. That's 5 years of the 10 year overlap. Even if Vick was an MVP the 4 seasons he played you'd say McNabb tied (5-5) because he won the years Vick wasn't playing.

They drafted Rivers because Brees caught a bad injury and they didn't know if he'd be able to really play again. It wasn't because Brees wasn't good enough.
Click to expand...
Nope, TO and locker room was divided and he not only got along with the QB but the others didn’t like him either, it was deeper than him not liking his QB for puking in the SB.

How am I protecting McNabb? That was his era. If we’re talking about Aikman’s era, I can’t say that McNair was better since McNair wasn’t around during most of Aikman’s era. I would have to compare guys that were around during that time period in order to contrast and compare. Which leaves guys like Vick, McNair etc. can’t use Brees since he wasn’t a consistent starter until a little later. And in the time when they were both starters (02-06) McNabb was better.

They drafted Rivers because Brees was ass.
 
5th Letter said:
The middle portion of Warner’s career hurts that argument. Rich Gannon was done by 04, McNair numbers were close but McNabb was the better passer. Culpepper stat wise had one season that was better than McNabb.
Click to expand...
I clearly said a HEALTHY Kurt Warner. He wasn't healthy during the middle portion of his career. And Warner's mid career = Mcnabb's end career. An old healthy Warner>>>>>an old healthy Mcnabb. Warner took the sorry ass Cardinals to the Super Bowl and it took one of the greatest catches in NFL history on the last play of the game to beat him. What did an old healthy Mcnabb do in DC or MN???

By '04 Rich Gannon was 4x pro bowler, 2x all pro and an MVP. McNabb was never an all pro or leave MVP. Gannon>>>>>>McNabb

Warner, Gannon and McNair were all league MVPs. Mcnabb never was. So all three were better than Mcnabb. We don't know what Culpepper would have done b/c injuries ended his career. But when healthy he was definitely better than Mcnabb. Culpepper only had 5 healthy seasons but he made the pro bowl in 3.

It's ridiculous to even put Brees and McNabb in the same sentence. I dont say that to disrespect McNabb but very ppl in NFL history deserve to be in the same sentence as Brees. Brees was starting to show his greatness his last season in SD and he hit the ground running in NO. Comparing McNabb to Brees is like comparing him to Brady. There is no comparison.

McNabb was a great qb and the best qb in eagles history. He was one of the best QBs of the 2000s but not of all time. Eagles fans should respect him and be thankful they had him. He deserves to get his number retired and he should be an all time Philly legend. With all that said Donovan McNabb IS NOT A HALL OF FAMER!!!

/thread
 
Last edited:
SKPJR said:
I clearly said a HEALTHY Kurt Warner. He wasn't healthy during the middle portion of his career. And Warner's mid career = Mcnabb's end career. An old healthy Warner>>>>>an old healthy Mcnabb. Warner took the sorry ass Cardinals to the Super Bowl and it took one of the greatest catches in NFL history on the last play of the game to beat him. What did an old healthy Mcnabb do in DC or MN???

By '04 Rich Gannon was 4x pro bowler, 2x all pro and an MVP. McNabb was never an all pro or leave MVP. Gannon>>>>>>McNabb

Warner, Gannon and McNair were all league MVPs. Mcnabb never was. So all three were better than Mcnabb. We don't know what Culpepper would have done b/c injuries ended his career. But when healthy he was definitely better than Mcnabb. Culpepper only had 5 healthy seasons but he made the pro bowl in 3.

It's ridiculous to even put Brees and McNabb in the same sentence. I dont say that to disrespect McNabb but very ppl in NFL history deserve to be in the same sentence as Brees. Brees was starting to show his greatness his last season in SD and he hit the ground running in NO. Comparing McNabb to Brees is like comparing him to Brady. There is no comparison.

McNabb was a great qb and the best qb in eagles history. With all that said Donovan McNabb IS NOT A HALL OF FAMER!!!

/thread
Click to expand...

Just to fuck with these niggas these two would like to have a word about the bold
51tHrB2m0fL._SX425_.jpg
 
5th Letter said:
Nope, TO and locker room was divided and he not only got along with the QB but the others didn’t like him either, it was deeper than him not liking his QB for puking in the SB.

How am I protecting McNabb? That was his era. If we’re talking about Aikman’s era, I can’t say that McNair was better since McNair wasn’t around during most of Aikman’s era. I would have to compare guys that were around during that time period in order to contrast and compare. Which leaves guys like Vick, McNair etc. can’t use Brees since he wasn’t a consistent starter until a little later. And in the time when they were both starters (02-06) McNabb was better.

They drafted Rivers because Brees was ass.
Click to expand...

You're protecting McNabb with the era talk. His career was from 1999-2011. Brees was a starter from 2002-2011 (and beyond) but you say they can't be compared despite all that overlap? Vick and Brees were in the same draft class, and became starters the same year...but Brees can't be counted and Vick can? Vick (outside of his 2 start rookie season) has never started more games in a season than Brees has.

And you can't see that you're protecting McNabb? Ok...
 
SKPJR said:
I clearly said a HEALTHY Kurt Warner. He wasn't healthy during the middle portion of his career. And Warner's mid career = Mcnabb's end career. An old healthy Warner>>>>>an old healthy Mcnabb. Warner took the sorry ass Cardinals to the Super Bowl and it took one of the greatest catches in NFL history on the last play of the game to beat him. What did an old healthy Mcnabb do in DC or MN???

By '04 Rich Gannon was 4x pro bowler, 2x all pro and an MVP. McNabb was never an all pro or leave MVP. Gannon>>>>>>McNabb

Warner, Gannon and McNair were all league MVPs. Mcnabb never was. So all three were better than Mcnabb. We don't know what Culpepper would have done b/c injuries ended his career. But when healthy he was definitely better than Mcnabb. Culpepper only had 5 healthy seasons but he made the pro bowl in 3.

It's ridiculous to even put Brees and McNabb in the same sentence. I dont say that to disrespect McNabb but very ppl in NFL history deserve to be in the same sentence as Brees. Brees was starting to show his greatness his last season in SD and he hit the ground running in NO. Comparing McNabb to Brees is like comparing him to Brady. There is no comparison.

McNabb was a great qb and the best qb in eagles history. He was one of the best QBs of the 2000s but not of all time. Eagles fans should respect him and be thankful they had him. He deserves to get his number retired and he should be an all time Philly legend. With all that said Donovan McNabb IS NOT A HALL OF FAMER!!!

/thread
Click to expand...
Warner was healthy for the most part in 2002 what happened? Healthy in 2004 what happened? 05, 06 again what happened? I credit Warner for his late career resurgence after looking like he was done.

Gannon’s 2002 was the only I’d say was better than McNabb during the early 2000’s. McNabb was putting up close to the same numbers with average at best receivers. Gannon had more talent around him. McNabb was the better passer and more accurate, McNair the better runner although McNabb wasn’t a slouch in that department, McNabb’s numbers were better. Culpepper had 2 really good years 01 and 04 and 1 meh year 2002 and a terrible 2003. McNabb was overall more consistent during those years.

I wasn’t comparing Brees to McNabb just pointing out that in their first few years McNabb was the better quarterback.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
You're protecting McNabb with the era talk. His career was from 1999-2011. Brees was a starter from 2002-2011 (and beyond) but you say they can't be compared despite all that overlap? Vick and Brees were in the same draft class, and became starters the same year...but Brees can't be counted and Vick can? Vick (outside of his 2 start rookie season) has never started more games in a season than Brees has.

And you can't see that you're protecting McNabb? Ok...
Click to expand...
Brees didn’t get drafted until 2001, so what’s the use in comparing anything McNabb did from 99 to 00? That makes as much sense as comparing anything Brees did to McNabb after 2011. I used 2000-2009 because that was his prime years. If I’m comparing someone like Peyton I’m using his best years, why would I use his washed years? If we’re talking about overall careers then it’s not a discussion, Brees was better, but within the time frame I’m talking about, McNabb>>Brees.

I counted both Vick and Brees, what are you talking about? I just said that Brees wasn’t a consistent starter until 2004.
 
5th Letter said:
Brees didn’t get drafted until 2001, so what’s the use in comparing anything McNabb did from 99 to 00? That makes as much sense as comparing anything Brees did to McNabb after 2011. I used 2000-2009 because that was his prime years. If I’m comparing someone like Peyton I’m using his best years, why would I use his washed years? If we’re talking about overall careers then it’s not a discussion, Brees was better, but within the time frame I’m talking about, McNabb>>Brees.

I counted both Vick and Brees, what are you talking about? I just said that Brees wasn’t a consistent starter until 2004.
Click to expand...

From 2002-2009 when Brees became a full time starter.

Mcnabb - 28560 pass yards, 165 tds

Brees - 30425 pass yards, 201 tds, 1st team all pro once, 2nd team 2 more times, offensive player of the year, SB MVP & SB Champ.

How is Mcnabb better?
 
Last edited:
5th Letter said:
Brees didn’t get drafted until 2001, so what’s the use in comparing anything McNabb did from 99 to 00? That makes as much sense as comparing anything Brees did to McNabb after 2011. I used 2000-2009 because that was his prime years. If I’m comparing someone like Peyton I’m using his best years, why would I use his washed years? If we’re talking about overall careers then it’s not a discussion, Brees was better, but within the time frame I’m talking about, McNabb>>Brees.

I counted both Vick and Brees, what are you talking about? I just said that Brees wasn’t a consistent starter until 2004.
Click to expand...

You trying to sneakily dismiss Brees. From 02-03 Brees was benched for 5 games, but started 27 of their 32 games. He was a legit starter. Stop trying to duck that man.

For Brees comparisons you don't need to count 99-00, but you need to count 10-11. They were both in the league from 01-11. Brees put up better numbers and won a SB during that time.
 
Revolver Ocelot said:
From 2002-2009 when Brees became a full time starter.

Mcnabb - 28560 pass yards, 165 tds

Brees - 30425 pass yards, 201 tds, 1st team all pro once, 2 team 2 more times, offensive player of the year, SB MVP & SB Champ.

How is Mcnabb better?
Click to expand...
2002

Drew Brees- 3284 yards, 60% 17 Td’s, 16 Int’s

McNabb- 10 games, 2289 yards, 58%, 17 Td’s, 6 ints

2003

Drew Brees- 2108 yards, 57%, 11 Td’s, 15 ints

McNabb- 3216 yards, 58%, 16 Td’s, 11 ints

2004

Drew Brees- 3159 yards, 61%, 27 Td’s, 7 ints

McNabb- 3875 yards, 64%, 31 Td’s, 8 ints
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top