Len "Pasta Belly" Pasquarelli: Focus is on passing with more efficiency

1. McNabb
2. Brunell
3. Manning
4. Carter
































10000000- Kurt Warner (horrible QB)

Hogskin may have inadvertently brought up an interesting point. He says that Brady has "a very strong offensive supporting cast" On paper I'd have to disagree. Look at their top 3 receivers Deion Branch (2nd round pick), Troy Brown (8th round pick), David Patten (UDFA).Then you have the Eagles Freddie Mitchell (1st round), Todd Pinkston (early 2nd), and James Thrash (high profile free agent signing)

So do we blame the Eagles front office for these draft picks or should we, while recognizing that McNabb is indeed a very good quarterback, say that maybe some one else could have done a better job with those receivers?
Brady would be in my top 5, perhaps top 3. What he's done in the postseason so early in his career is amazing.

Well, I would definitely rate McNabb ahead of Green (benefitting from an awesome OL and running game), Brooks (inconsistent, not a winner), and Brady (also with a very strong offensive supporting cast). McNabb has had the worst set of WR's in the league and a so-so running game and OL the last couple years. A lot of people recognize the amazing job he has done in spite of that, and that is why he is recognized in ratings and PRO BOWL selections. And now that he has ONE quality WR on the team, even Football Guys, historically the most accurate fantasy rating site out there, projects him as the #5 scoring QB in 2004. I wonder where they would rate him if he had the Colts or Rams WR's? Since we've got to get past the Eagles to win the division, I am sure glad that their "D" is poised to implode this year without either of their key cornerbacks.

On the other side of the coin, you can argue that the other 4 really DO belong up there, and that Vick should be added.

almost a fifth of his tds have been on the ground, thats why his scoring projection is so high. and I think the worst wr set in the league has been chicago the past few years. plus other great qbs in the past have had no name wr groups and turned them into winners with their arms alone. He is a good qb, especailly against us, but if I were to have my selection of our starting qb, he wouldn't be in the top 10 on my list.

Well, I was not referring to "name" recognition or where they were drafted. I was basing it on their talent. Smack, you posed an interesting perspective on whether to attribute success or lack of it to the QB or WR's. One way to get some perspective is to see what the receivers do when they move to another team. Thrash was #1 at Philly. He will be struggling to to make #3 here. And as far as Chicago, THAT is a situation where the total lack of a decent QB made the receivers look much worse than they were. Booker is MUCH better than any WR on the Iggles the last couple years. He actually had 249 catches for 2969 yards over the past 3 years (and was out part of last year). I'd say that is pretty good, especially with the sorry QB talent there. At least he could get open regularly. McNabb almost never had open guys to throw to the past 2 years.

We can kick this one around 'til the cows come home, but this season will be the proof. I will meet you here after week 4, and eat crow if McNabb is not extremely successful in his passing game by then. I hope all of you will do the same if he IS...

Chicago has had Marty Booker, and Dez White also, they arent the best group because David Terrell has been horribly underachieving, but they certainly arent the worst. Id say the worst has been the Packers, having no proven guys since Freeman left, and Glenn was only there one year.

lets not get ahead of ourselves. there is noway that aaron brooks is better than McNabb. In no particular order the 6 best qb's in the league are Peyton Manning, Favre, Brady, culpepper, pennington and mcnair

Chicago has had Marty Booker, and Dez White also, they arent the best group because David Terrell has been horribly underachieving, but they certainly arent the worst. Id say the worst has been the Packers, having no proven guys since Freeman left, and Glenn was only there one year.

walker and fergueson of green bay are actually pretty darn good young wrs who have come into their own the past couple years and I forgot about booker being in chicago. after those 2 I don't know any of their other wrs, but green bays passing offense has a high usage of its te's and rb's. I do think phili has had one of the worst wr groups, but lets also not forget that it'd be hard for anyone to catch some of the passes mcnabb makes which sometimes look as if he threw it under pressure when there really wasn't anyone near enough to startle him. plus his early troubles last year were both because of his thumb and he was obviously playing more in the pocket and trying to prove his critics wrong that he has the talent to be a pocket passer, which he obviously didn't do.

Fergueson has 60 CAREER receptions...sounds like hes been coming into his own, hes had 3 seasons now. Booker had something like 1200 recieving yards year before last, gotta be kiddin me. There hasnt been a go to reciever in GB since Freeman, Walker or Fergueson may step up this year, but they havent yet

fergueson has pretty much only played 2 years( his first year he only played in one game and didn't get any receptions) which is the same amount of years played that Mccants for us, but fergueson has better stats than mccants. (fergueson=60 rec/813 yards[13.6 ypc]/7TDs versus mccants=48rec/616 yards[12.8]/8TDs) If we believe mccants is a young player (2 years older than fergeuson) on the rise, then how come the same can't be said, if not more so, for fergueson?

driver, fergueson, and walker are a young, talented wr nucleus that rank no where near the bottom of the list, but without booker the bears wr unit is empty of talent.

plus I can't believe I forgot about how crappy the baltimore wr group has been the past few years since the collective of Ismail, Sharpe, Taylor, and Heap. cuz without heap the past 2 years, they'd pretty much just have jack shit and jack left town. so I'd have to change my vote for worst wr groups from chicago to baltimore(which I think will change a little bit with the addition of kj), but chicago is a close 2nd.

fergueson has pretty much only played 2 years( his first year he only played in one game and didn't get any receptions) which is the same amount of years played that Mccants for us, but fergueson has better stats than mccants. (fergueson=60 rec/813 yards[13.6 ypc]/7TDs versus mccants=48rec/616 yards[12.8]/8TDs) If we believe mccants is a young player (2 years older than fergeuson) on the rise, then how come the same can't be said, if not more so, for fergueson?

I tried to add in that even though Ferguson has started 11 more games than Mccants, Ferguson played in each game except the finale last year after severely twisting his knee and ankle in the season opener.

plus you don't always need a go-to reciever. just look at the patriots.