General Sports Discussion > NFL Board

Donovan McNabb stumping for the HOF

(1/1)

-3.1415926535897:
I know this is not the first time McNabb has tried to blow his own horn for HOF induction - and I must say I hope has campaign fails miserably because a player's achievements on the field should make the case for or against enshrinement. 

But for the fun of it, can anyone make a case for McNabb's enshrinement?  He really wasn't that good of a QB - better than average for sure, but elite no.  HOF, far short. 

 

bennyl08:
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/05/donovan-mcnabb-hall-of-fame-argument

This article sums it up pretty nicely.

At the end of the day, it depends on what you value the most. His biggest claim to fame is that he ranks #9 all time in playoff victories as a QB. 20th all time in regular season wins. He put up good numbers, consistently, for a pretty long time. He did so for most of his career with a below average supporting cast and when given better surrounding players, he maximized their talent too.

While he does have better numbers than several notable HoF's before him, we are comparing some different eras as well. In McNabb's era, he usually was not even a top 5 QB and there is more than one season he wasn't top 10.

For me, I'd certainly he say he does have a valid argument to be in the HoF, but not a strong enough one to be getting in any time soon over other players.

ErieHog:
Its not an exclusive institution.  He deserves to be in.  He's also annoying as heck, and it'll hurt his case more than help it.

EastexHawg:
It's not the Hall Of Good.  If you gave me eight hours to discuss the best quarterbacks in NFL history Donovan McNabb would never cross my mind.

McKdaddy:

--- Quote from: EastexHawg on May 29, 2019, 09:19:24 pm ---It's not the Hall Of Good.  If you gave me eight hours to discuss the best quarterbacks in NFL history Donovan McNabb would never cross my mind.

--- End quote ---


Total agreement. Unfortunately a lot of “good” players have been elected to the hof.

ErieHog:

--- Quote from: McKdaddy on May 29, 2019, 10:04:40 pm ---
Total agreement. Unfortunately a lot of “good” players have been elected to the hof.

--- End quote ---

The idea that the Hall of Fames are exclusive is at best disingenuous.    They're pretty broad-- mind, not everyone is as broad as say, Basketball, but they're inclusive usually of the top 10-15% of players in a given era.   Throw in a disposition towards skill positions,  and you'll get one in every seven or so quarterbacks that start for ten years or more, that will end up in the Hall.

McKdaddy:

--- Quote from: ErieHog on May 30, 2019, 05:11:06 am ---The idea that the Hall of Fames are exclusive is at best disingenuous.    They're pretty broad-- mind, not everyone is as broad as say, Basketball, but they're inclusive usually of the top 10-15% of players in a given era.   Throw in a disposition towards skill positions,  and you'll get one in every seven or so quarterbacks that start for ten years or more, that will end up in the Hall.

--- End quote ---


I'm disingenuous then.  Meh.  I like it, as best as possible, when the greats are the busts/plaques I"m viewing.  Define "great" as you wish....maybe its top 3% or 5% (or other measures).  It can be subjective.  My disingenuous subjectivity would skew towards great.  Some "good" would get in based on my biases, but I'd aim for "great" in the hof.  That would be my disingenuous goal.  I enjoy reading the post-diaries of nfl hof voters and the degree to which the room might be divided on a player considered by these voters as a marginal hof'er.  As the cuts get made, the voters might eventually give in to a player that were no doubted good, solid performers in their era.  Fine.  And it is understood I"m only getting the perspective of these 4 guys that provide post-diaries of the voting (they don't provide the name of those voters that provide less than optimistic support to a player's hof credentials).  But for these 4, I find it interesting when "good" players get in based on the relayed conversations in the room concerning the "good", not the the "great", and the arguments supporting & rejecting induction.  It's too simplistic to say, as some do, that if I have to think about a player's worthiness to a hof, then they aren't worthy.  There are a lot of guys I might consider for a definition of greatness, that might or might not make the cut.

-3.1415926535897:
One of the points McNabb was making - one which was and is flat out wrong - was to compare his numbers to Aikman's.

3 > 0. 

It is true that McNabb never had a supporting cast anywhere near as talented as what Aikman enjoyed in Dallas but that fact is nowhere near enough to put him in the HOF.  But regardless of where one comes down on that argument, stumping for the HOF is almost always going to be counterproductive. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

Go to full version
Mobile View