Garcia to Bears?

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Philly fans who want to trade McNabb are dumbasses. He's the fifth best quarterback in the game.

Hey, why dont you go **** yourself, ok?

I'm fully aware of McNabb's talents. Urlacher is THE best MLB in the game, however, and it is a trade of equal value that would help both teams..

[Brundlefly]

I love the way everyone piles on. This board becomes more and more provincial with each passing year..

[joncha]

Why can't everyone here just be as enlightened as you are?

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Brundlefly
I'm fully aware of McNabb's talents. Urlacher is THE best MLB in the game, however, and it is a trade of equal value that would help both teams..

I disagree about the equal value. Urlacher is the key player in a really good D - remove him, and I don't think the Bears get to the Super Bowl, even if they have better QB play. McNabb is good, but injury prone - if he's your starter, you better have a quality backup.

And I still say defense wins championships, so this trade doesn't make any sense to me, as the Bears would be worse defensively. Unless you're looking at it from a purely Eagles POV.

[SlowwHand]

I'd take Urlacher for McNabb.

[Jaguar]

A top five quarterback is worth two or three top linebackers put together.

Peyton Manning is 89-39 since 1999.
Tom Brady is 70-24 since 2001.
Drew Brees is 31-17 since 2004

Drew Brees, especially, proved that with a top five quarterback, you can literally take former 3-13 team to the conference championship.

How does McNabb compare to those guys? Well, the Eagles have never finished worse than 11-5 when he's started most of the season.

The Ravens, despite having Ray Lewis for a decade, have had some really crappy teams. The Dolphins have been crappy most years, despite having Zach Thomas. The Bears sucked for several years prior to 2005, despite having Brian Urlacher.

It would be stupid to trade a franchise quarterback for a great linebacker. It might even be stupid to trade a franchise quarterback for three of them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Drew Brees, especially, proved that with a top five quarterback, you can literally take former 3-13 team to the conference championship.

Exactly. A superstar QB is very, very hard to find and can have one Hell of a difference for a team.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Drew Brees, especially, proved that with a top five quarterback, you can literally take former 3-13 team to the conference championship.

You make some good points, but I'm not buying that this one example proves this point. The Saints were inspired by the whole Katrina situation - I don't think they have the same result without it (they'd be better, sure, but not this much). Do you have any other examples of a top five QB joining a basement team and leading them to the conf championship?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jaguar
A top five quarterback is worth two or three top linebackers put together.
Peyton Manning is 89-39 since 1999.
Tom Brady is 70-24 since 2001.
Drew Brees is 31-17 since 2004

Hmmmm...
That's a 70% winning percentage for Manning
A 74% for Brady
a 64% for Drew
Not bad stats...

But... in his career, Rex is 17 - 6 as a starter, so he comes in at 74%
Based on the way you look at it... Rex must be a top five quarterback as well...

Maybe we can trade him for two three top linebackers

[-Jrabbit]

Odd how San Diego didn't fall apart for losing a top 5 QB...
Or did they have two of them????

Also, some people seem to be conveniently forgetting that New Orleans had other significant new additions in 2006 -- a new head coach, Reggie Bush, Marques Colston...

Sean Payton turned over half the roster (27 new bodies at season's start), and cleaned house 100% on the coaching staff.

While he had a great season, methinks someone gives Mr. Brees FAR too much credit.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon

You make some good points, but I'm not buying that this one example proves this point. The Saints were inspired by the whole Katrina situation - I don't think they have the same result without it (they'd be better, sure, but not this much). Do you have any other examples of a top five QB joining a basement team and leading them to the conf championship?

Manning did it in two years. He was a fairly weak quarterback his rookie year, like most quarterbacks. The Colts went 3-13 the year before they got him, 3-13 his weak rookie year, and 13-3 the year he became good.

Patriots went 5-11 in 2000, then 11-5 the year that Brady first started.

1991 Packers with Don Majkowski and Mike Tomczak at QB: 4-12
1992 Packers with Brett Favre at QB: 9-7

Getting a great quarterback clearly can make a team much more competitive, which I don't think is really all that surprising.

Originally posted by Ming
But... in his career, Rex is 17 - 6 as a starter, so he comes in at 74%
Based on the way you look at it... Rex must be a top five quarterback as well...

I said that having a great quarterback gives your team lots of wins. I do not believe that having lots of wins necessarily means you also have a great quarterback.

If a statement is true, its converse is not necessarily true. (If Hester scores a touchdown, the Bears get seven points. If the Bears get seven points, it may or may not be because Hester scored a touchdown.) Please, sir, don't lecture me about logic.

The Bears made the Super Bowl because they have the best MLB in the league, the best weak-side linebacker in the league, the best cornerback in the NFC, the best pass-rushing tackle in the league, and three great defensive ends.

That kind of makes things pretty easy for a quarterback.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Odd how San Diego didn't fall apart for losing a top 5 QB...
Or did they have two of them????

Rivers was a top 5 pick in the draft, so he had the tools. He finished the season with a 92 QB rating, good enough for 8th in the NFL in his first season starting. I think Rivers may just be a top flight QB which is why SD didn't fall off. Unfortunately I don't think I could say the same for Garcia, even though he performed admirably after McNabb went down.

[Ming]

And that's exactly my point Jag... This is a team game. You can't just use the number of wins to prove somebody is a good QB. I'm not saying that Manning or Brady are not great... I was just kind of laughing at the stat you choose to use to prove your point.

If Manning or Brady were on crappy teams, they wouldn't have the records they do. Hell, the Bears could win with Orton as QB... so the defense can be just as important as a great QB

[SlowwHand]

1991 Packers with Don Majkowski and Mike Tomczak at QB: 4-12

What a pair to draw to.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Ming
And that's exactly my point Jag... This is a team game. You can't just use the number of wins to prove somebody is a good QB. I'm not saying that Manning or Brady are not great... I was just kind of laughing at the stat you choose to use to prove your point.

If Manning or Brady were on crappy teams, they wouldn't have the records they do. Hell, the Bears could win with Orton as QB... so the defense can be just as important as a great QB

Great quarterbacks sometimes are on crappy teams. And you know what, they go 9-7 or 10-6 or even 12-4 with them. Sometimes they even win the Super Bowl with the league's worst rushing defense.

Tom Brady has never had a losing season. Dan Marino only ever had one. Joe Montana had only one. Steve Young had only one. Brett Favre, one. Elway, two. Manning, two. Basically, if you have a Brett Favre or a Dan Marino, your team is in contention no matter how bad the rest of it is.

Ray Lewis has been on more losing teams than Brady, Marino, Montana, Young, and Favre combined. What does that tell you about the relative importance of great MLBs vs great QBs?