Donovan McNabb ?

[LittleRoman 0]

Why is he ranked so high ?? Does anyone remember his season before TO arrived in Philly ? I had him and he was horrible. I can't see taking McNabb so high ? FFtoday has him ranked # 2. I just don't see it. Do others agree or disagree with me here ?

[Erb047 0]

I don't believe he'll finish as the #2 QB, but I definitely don't think he'll be "horrible"...

 

I think Manning and Brady are 1 and 2 respectively, and McNabb could finish 3rd but I think realistically he'll be closer to 7th or 8th.

[LittleRoman 0]

I agree with Brady as #2. Ahead of Hasselbeck. McNabb, how will he even be #7 if he has no one to throw too ? My top 5 QB's are:

 

Manning

Brady

Palmer

Bulger

Hasselbeck

[Erb047 0]

I agree with Brady as #2. Ahead of Hasselbeck. McNabb, how will he even be #7 if he has no one to throw too ? My top 5 QB's are:

 

Manning

Brady

Palmer

Bulger

Hasselbeck

 

 

I agree with that list, but I have my doubts about Bulger staying healthy this year.

 

McNabb has receivers to throw too. Reggie Brown, Greg Lewis, and Pinkston will be back this year, and Westy out of the backfield...They aren't great per se but McNabb will get the ball to them...

[akaoni 0]

McNabb has receivers to throw too. Reggie Brown, Greg Lewis, and Pinkston will be back this year, and Westy out of the backfield...They aren't great per se but McNabb will get the ball to them...

 

Let's not forget about L.J. Smith, who was having a career year before his back and McNabb's hernia derailed his season. Even with the drops, I think he could have a big season, as McNabb targets him consistently

[LittleRoman 0]

Reggie Brown, Greg Lewis, and Pinkston

 

This is what scares me. None of these guys will even be drafted on a FF team. They are horrible.

LJ and Westy are his best receivers which is NOT GOOD.

[Erb047 0]

Reggie Brown will be drafted.

 

I think youre worrying way too much about them. They will be OK for DMac. Pinkston is a pretty good deep threat but he's inconsistent and was out last year, so he could be a decent sleeper. Lewis is a speedy slot WR who is underrated IMO, and with TO out he should step up.

[Tobex 0]

I didn't look at his stats for prior years, but he didn't have anyone to throw to before TO got there did he? But he still go to the NFC championship game 3 times in a row...I would think that meant he did ok.

 

Maybe I'm wrong...does anyone have his stats pre-TO?

[duaneok66 0]

I didn't look at his stats for prior years, but he didn't have anyone to throw to before TO got there did he? But he still go to the NFC championship game 3 times in a row...I would think that meant he did ok.

 

Maybe I'm wrong...does anyone have his stats pre-TO?

 

 

2003: 3200 yds; 16TDS, 11INT, 354 rushing yards and 3 rush TDs . . .

[LittleRoman 0]

Look at his 2002 Stats:

 

2,289yds 17TD's

 

How can everyone be so high on the guy ???????

 

Only thing going on over there is that he might be on a mission to prove he didn't need TO., but still look at his pre TO #'s. Horrible

[duaneok66 0]

Look at his 2002 Stats:

 

2,289yds 17TD's

 

How can everyone be so high on the guy ???????

 

Only thing going on over there is that he might be on a mission to prove he didn't need TO., but still look at his pre TO #'s. Horrible

 

 

I see you conveniently skipped over the 2003 numbers . . . it IS possible that he improved from 2002 to 2003 . . .

[Raj 0]

Look at his 2002 Stats:

 

2,289yds 17TD's

 

Biased much? Did you fail to read that he only played in 10 games that year and that he also had 460 rushing yards and 6 rushing TDs? Or do you just have some kind of silly point you're trying to get across?

 

Extrapolate those numbers out to a 16 game season and he would had 3662 passing yards, 27 passing TDs, 9 INTs and 736 rushing yards, 9 rushing TDS.

 

4398 total yards, 36 total TDs and 9 INTs.....I wonder why people are so high on him .

 

Who were his WRs in 2002? Pinkston, Thrash, and Freeman. So if you don't think a guy in the prime of his career with more weapons than he's ever had (minus 2004) will have a great year, you should rethink your position.

[LittleRoman 0]

I didn't post his 03 #'s because you had already done it. I think his 03 #'s suck too. 16 passing TD's and your going to say that's good ? 3200 yards. A # 2 Qb with those #'s are you kidding me.

[Raj 0]

I see you conveniently skipped over the 2003 numbers . . . it IS possible that he improved from 2002 to 2003 . . .

 

He conveniently left out McNabb's rushing stats (460 yards and 6 TDs) and the fact that McNabb only played 10 games in 2002 as well.

 

Posting correct stats before trying to making a point makes you more credible. Try it sometime.

[LittleRoman 0]

Add those to his 02 totals and he still had no where near a top 10 year.

 

Point is without TO he is mediocre at best in 02 and 03 and thanks to you guys, you helped me prove it.

[Raj 0]

Add those to his 02 totals and he still had no where near a top 10 year.

 

 

Is it even worth discussing something with you if you can't read. HE PLAYED 10 GAMES in 2002. HIS STATS ARE ONLY FOR 10 GAMES. What's so hard to understand?

[duaneok66 0]

Add those to his 02 totals and he still had no where near a top 10 year.

 

Point is without TO he is mediocre at best in 02 and 03 and thanks to you guys, you helped me prove it.

 

 

this is a fantasy football forum . . . the guy was a top 5 fantasy QB in those years . . . what more do you want???

 

Is it even worth discussing something with you if you can't read. HE PLAYED 10 GAMES in 2002. HIS STATS ARE ONLY FOR 10 GAMES. What's so hard to understand?

 

he can't accept the fact that he's wrong . . .

[Raj 0]

Add those to his 02 totals and he still had no where near a top 10 year.

 

Point is without TO he is mediocre at best in 02 and 03 and thanks to you guys, you helped me prove it.

 

 

And we proved you're a D-O-U-C-H-E-B-A-G. Thanks.

[veebs4 2]

Look at his 2002 Stats:

 

2,289yds 17TD's

 

How can everyone be so high on the guy ???????

 

Only thing going on over there is that he might be on a mission to prove he didn't need TO., but still look at his pre TO #'s. Horrible

 

 

You are clearly biased especially by looking at his injury year (2002). You are welcome to your opinion, but I personally like evaluating facts and stats. His anomoly year, in terms of Fantasy PPG was actually 2003. Let's look at him compared to Peyton and Daunte 2000-2005, without counting each guy's 2004 (which for each of these guys was huge, and will hopefully address your argument re: TO being the only reason D-mac is worth anything in FFB). Note: Scoring based on FFToday defaults.

 

D-Mac:

'00: 351.2 pts / 16 games = 22.0 PPG

'01: 322.4 pts / 16 games = 20.2 PPG

'02: 264.9 pts / 10 games = 26.5 PPG

'03: 278.3 pts / 16 games = 17.4 PPG

'05: 200.9 pts / 9 games = 22.3 PPG

OVERALL: 1417.7 pts / 67 games = 21.2 PPG

 

Peyton

'00: 370.3 pts / 16 games = 23.1 PPG

'01: 350.3 pts / 16 games = 21.9 PPG

'02: 344.8 pts / 16 games = 21.6 PPG

'03: 332.3 pts / 16 games = 20.8 PPG

'05: 303.9 pts / 16 games = 19.0 PPG

OVERALL: 1701.6 pts / 80 games = 21.3 PPG

 

Daunte

'00: 417.9 pts / 16 games = 26.1 PPG

'01: 257.5 pts / 12 games = 21.5 PPG

'02: 385.3 pts / 16 games = 24.1 PPG

'03: 340.2 pts / 14 games = 24.3 PPG

'05: 122.3 pts / 7 games = 17.5 PPG

OVERALL: 1523.2 pts / 65 games = 23.4 PPG

 

So, I think you can see why people are "high" D-Mac.

 

HTH

[LittleRoman 0]

Raj- why the hostility ? I guess you feel brave behind a computer screen. Sad really.

 

Veebs why are 04 stats left out ?

 

 

If you guys compare his stats with TO #'s and without TO surely you can see that McNabb is not the same QB.

 

No one can debate that.

[duaneok66 0]

Raj- why the hostility ? I guess you feel brave behind a computer screen. Sad really.

 

Veebs why are 04 stats left out ?

If you guys compare his stats with TO #'s and without TO surely you can see that McNabb is not the same QB.

 

No one can debate that.

 

 

He left out the '04 stats to prove a point . . . even without TO, the guy is still a stellar fantasy option . . .

[Raj 0]

Raj- why the hostility ? I guess you feel brave behind a computer screen. Sad really.

 

Veebs why are 04 stats left out ?

If you guys compare his stats with TO #'s and without TO surely you can see that McNabb is not the same QB.

 

No one can debate that.

 

I'm not being hostile. I'm trying to ram something through your thick skull that you don't seem to understand.

 

You are trying to use one argument to spur another. No one is saying that McNabb is the same QB without TO. That wasn't YOUR point. Your point was that McNabb was mediocre in 2002. I've pointed out the statistics that say he was anything BUT mediocre. Game, set, match.

[LittleRoman 0]

Raj- This was a great debate, but you lost it and destroyed your credibility by sinking so low as to swear at someone.

 

My whole point was that DMcnabb should not be ranked as high as he is without TO.

 

So your wrong again.

 

But it's OK because your probably a kid and you've a lot a learnin' to do.

[veebs4 2]

Raj- why the hostility ? I guess you feel brave behind a computer screen. Sad really.

 

Veebs why are 04 stats left out ?

If you guys compare his stats with TO #'s and without TO surely you can see that McNabb is not the same QB.

 

No one can debate that.

 

OK, I thought you wanted a level playing field to show you his performance WITHOUT TO compared to other top FFB QBs. It's true that no one can argue that TO elevates the stats of his QB. However, it seems clear based on statistics that he is/has been a top level FF QB with and without TO. For completeness:

 

D-Mac:

'00: 351.2 pts / 16 games = 22.0 PPG

'01: 322.4 pts / 16 games = 20.2 PPG

'02: 264.9 pts / 10 games = 26.5 PPG

'03: 278.3 pts / 16 games = 17.4 PPG

'04: 357.9 pts / 14 games = 25.6 PPG

'05: 200.9 pts / 9 games = 22.3 PPG

OVERALL: 1775.6 pts / 81 games = 21.9 PPG

 

Peyton

'00: 370.3 pts / 16 games = 23.1 PPG

'01: 350.3 pts / 16 games = 21.9 PPG

'02: 344.8 pts / 16 games = 21.6 PPG

'03: 332.3 pts / 16 games = 20.8 PPG

'04: 427.7 pts / 16 games = 26.7 PPG

'05: 303.9 pts / 16 games = 19.0 PPG

OVERALL: 2129.3 pts / 96 games = 22.2 PPG

 

Daunte

'00: 417.9 pts / 16 games = 26.1 PPG

'01: 257.5 pts / 12 games = 21.5 PPG

'02: 385.3 pts / 16 games = 24.1 PPG

'03: 340.2 pts / 14 games = 24.3 PPG

'04: 444.5 pts / 16 games = 27.8 PPG

'05: 122.3 pts / 7 games = 17.5 PPG

OVERALL: 1967.7 pts / 81 games = 24.3 PPG

[Raj 0]

There's also the point of VBD to argue. McNabb is going anywhere from the the 5th-7th round. Manning is going anywhere from the late 1st to late 2nd round. The difference in points between Manning and McNabb won't be as great as a 2nd round RB and a 7th round RB.

 

Or lemme put it this way for you....

 

Would you rather have Manning and Ahman Green or Ron Dayne

 

or

 

McNabb and Caddy or McGahee or DD or any one of those late 1st, early 2nd RBs?

[Parja 0]

Raj- This was a great debate, but you lost it and destroyed your credibility by sinking so low as to swear at someone.

 

I didn't see any profanity. Or are you referring to his calling you a douchebag? I agree, that was a little uncalled for. I mean, a numb nut, sure...maybe even a focktard...but a douchebag? Not so much.

[Raj 0]

Raj- This was a great debate, but you lost it and destroyed your credibility by sinking so low as to swear at someone.

 

My whole point was that DMcnabb should not be ranked as high as he is without TO.

 

So your wrong again.

 

But it's OK because your probably a kid and you've a lot a learnin' to do.

 

 

Um, it was never a great debate since you got owned by everyone who chimed in.

 

Your argument had nothing to do with TO. No one was even arguing that to begin with.

 

Your whole point was that DMac is a mediocre FF QB. And obviously you're the only one that thinks that. Have fun in your little dreamworld where you lose every FF league you're in.

 

 

I didn't see any profanity. Or are you referring to his calling you a ######? I agree, that was a little uncalled for. I mean, a numb nut, sure...maybe even a focktard...but a ######? Not so much.

 

 

He's just trying to make himself feel better since he knows he is completely wrong. I'm sorry I didn't know you were so sensitive. Maybe you should go get your warm milk and blankey and cry while we continue to prove you wrong time after time.

[jgcrawfish 232]

Looking at the 3 yr averages in my league on scoring, it's as follows:

 

1. PManning

2. TGreen

3. TBrady

4. DCulpepper

5. BFavre

6. DMcNabb

 

What that does not take into account is 9 less games for McNabb and 11 less for Culpepper as well. While you can maybe question their durability, you cannot question their production. Additionally, I believe both have more stable receiving situations this year than they did last year.

[LittleRoman 0]

My whole point was that without TO McNabb should not be a # 2 ranked QB.

 

That was my point. And it was proved here to be correct by everyone. Read it all the way at the top. As in my original statement. It's that simple.

 

Raj- With a whole 15 posts under your belt I guess you would fail to realize that this is a friendly board and insulting people because you don't agree with them or have no intelligent retort is not to be tolerated.

[Herbivore 905]

My whole point was that without TO McNabb should not be a # 2 ranked QB.

 

That was my point. And it was proved here to be correct by everyone. Read it all the way at the top. As in my original statement. It's that simple.

 

I don't think your theory was proved correct. If anything, it was proved that McNabb was not horrible without TO. numb nut, ftard, that was funny.

[LittleRoman 0]

I don't think your theory was proved correct. If anything, it was proved that McNabb was not horrible without TO. numb nut, ftard, that was funny.

 

 

Herbivore- So your telling me that without TO DMcnabb should be ranked # 2 amongst all QB's ? LOL.

 

I wish you were in my league.

[Parja 0]

Herbivore- So your telling me that without TO DMcnabb should be ranked # 2 amongst all QB's ? LOL.

 

First off, if you're arguing the FFToday #2 ranking, maybe you should have made it the primary focus of your post instead of just sort of mentioning it at the end.

 

Second, I take it back. You are a douchebag.

[burdsheet 0]

I got screwed by McNabb last year because of TO and because of the injury. But for a month after he originally got injured (and without TO by the way .. ) McNabb still put up good numbers for a while before calling it quits. I like him as a field general and don't think the lack of a big name receiver will hurt him too much. Remember, before TO they had no one special and McNabb still put them in a position to win most weeks. And he seems like the type that feels like he's got something to prove. I'm expecting big things from him this year, but I agree, his ranking is a bit high ... he's still Top 5 in my book.

[duaneok66 0]

this is part of your FIRST post

Does anyone remember his season before TO arrived in Philly ? I had him and he was horrible.

 

 

the last statement has been proven to be false throughout this thread, so I don't know why you are still trying to defend yourself . . .

[LittleRoman 0]

First off, if you're arguing the FFToday #2 ranking, maybe you should have made it the primary focus of your post instead of just sort of mentioning it at the end.

 

Second, I take it back. You are a douchebag.

 

 

Sort of mentioning it at the end ??? Are you blind ?? It is the primary focus of my post and stated right in the beginning of the post. Here you go for you and all the keyboard warriors to see:

 

"FFtoday has him ranked # 2. I just don't see it"

[GhostofMeanMachine99 1]

Raj- why the hostility ? I guess you feel brave behind a computer screen. Sad really.

 

Veebs why are 04 stats left out ?

If you guys compare his stats with TO #'s and without TO surely you can see that McNabb is not the same QB.

 

No one can debate that.

 

Raj pointed out that you conveniently left out facts. Your response above would lead people to believe that your arguement is pretty weak.

 

No one discounts the fact that TO is someone else's headache. However, he put numbers up before TO. Most folks will readily admit that his current receiving corp is not the best, but it's alot better than the crap he had to work with before TO came to town.

 

McNabb has alot to prove, which is why he's worked even harder this offseason to make things right. He spent most of the offseason in Philly, working daily with all of his receivers. He's also shed some poundage, which should help his mobility, footwork, and endurance.

 

[listen2me 23 1,544]

I dont not have McNabb ranked in the top 5 this year.....he will not do as good without TO....his numbers were not as good without TO add in he doesn't run as much so you have a 7th-10th ranked QB this year...

 

however,

 

McNabb is not horrible and he has a possibility of being a top 5 Qb (not top 2) this year just on his skills alone...

 

and LittleRoman is in fact a d0uchebag

[Herbivore 905]

Herbivore- So your telling me that without TO DMcnabb should be ranked # 2 amongst all QB's ? LOL.

 

I said that you didn't do anything to prove your theory or win the "arguement". I haven't really ranked all the positions yet, but I think QB goes Peyton, and then a bunch who could end up second, McNabb included. Your theory that McNabb should not be ranked #2 was, I believe, that without TO he was horrible. I think duane, raj, and veebs showed that McNabb without TO was not horrible. You provided incomplete stats. And made quotes like the one below, where you say "so your wrong again". So it looks like your reasoning is - You see McNabb will not be as good without TO because I said so.

 

Raj- This was a great debate, but you lost it and destroyed your credibility by sinking so low as to swear at someone.

My whole point was that DMcnabb should not be ranked as high as he is without TO.

So your wrong again.

But it's OK because your probably a kid and you've a lot a learnin' to do.

 

and the numb nuts line was funny, read it back and think of someone else(say raj) as the butt, you'll laugh.