McNabb Would Be Costly For Raiders

I’ve received plenty of criticism for my opinion that McNabb would not be a good move for the Raiders.
The things the Raiders have to consider are the cost to obtain and retain McNabb.
It will take a second or third round pick and player to obtain McNabb and a three-year or four-year contract extension with a big chunk of cash in guarantees to retain him.
If you can get him for a third round pick and sign him for three years it might be worth it. Anything more may be too high of a cost.
Would McNabb be better than any quarterback on the Raiders roster? Absolutely? Perhaps the numbers need to be examined.
For this, we will take McNabb’s career numbers and do some averaging. Taking 10 years of history should give us a pretty good idea of the kind of quarterback McNabb is. We will also take Gradkowski’s numbers, but his numbers in a Raiders uniform.
This is the closest estimation we can possible attain, in regards to the idea of projecting based on known factors.
Are these cherry-picked stats? Could I pick stats to highlight McNabb’s best seasons and use Gradkowski’s 13 games in Tampa Bay?
I could. I just don’t think that is the most accurate way to approach the stats. McNabb’s 10 seasons gives him a solid track record for which to predict his numbers. He is most likely to settle around his career averages and not have a career year changing systems for the first time. Gradkowski’s numbers are a small sample size I know, but give them a chance.
McNabb is 34. He has at least a few good years left. If over the next three seasons he was as good as his career averages this would be his typical season.
14 games
437 attempts
257 completions
2975 yards
20 TDs
9 INTs
Gradkowski by comparison using production from starts in 2009 (including the one he didn’t complete because he was injured)
Age: 27
14 games (used for comparison sake)
420 attempts
228 completions
2959 yards
21 TDs
11 INTs
So ask yourself. Would McNabb be so much better than Gradkowski in the Raiders system?
McNabb may have the proven track record, but he is also older, would cost a high draft pick to obtain, and cost a big chunk of cash to retain.
Gradkowski’s production is a small sample size, so maybe you can expect some drop-off, but how much drop off? Is that worth a 2nd round draft pick and more?
If the Raiders could add another offensive weapon or stud cornerback using the draft pick that would otherwise be traded to obtain McNabb, could that not potentially more than make up for the difference?
Add to that the likelihood the Raiders would have a 23 or 24 year-old player instead of a 34 year-old.
Perhaps I am disregarding wins and pure talent. Perhaps I am disregarding the benefit of the known commodity over the unknown.
I don’t think this is the case.
If talent meant so much, JaMarcus would be better than he is. Wins are a team thing, not matter how driven the league is by a quarterback.
That last one could be what causes my argument crumble like a house of cards.
McNabb is known and that can be valuable. Just have to ask yourself: Is that aspect alone worth all that the Raiders would have to give up?
The Eagles front office is willing to roll with the less proven Kevin Kolb, so we know what they think, and they drafted McNabb and made him their starter for a decade.

Tagged with:
Posted in Uncategorized


  • @DarrenPage15 No, the Raiders are a couple arcs and half circles zooming around inside the Large Hadron Collider.
    about 58 mins ago
  • New post by @ChrisHansenNFL: Stop Complaining About the 2014 Schedule #2014Schedule
    about 1 hour ago
  • RT @AaronNagler: Sounds familiar. RT @TomPelissero: Scot McCloughan is no longer with #Seahawks, as @JasonLaCanfora said. He's dealing with…
    about 2 hours ago
  • RT @957thegame: Coming up NEXT: @ChrisHansenNFL joins Troy to break down the recently released NFL schedules for the AFC West
    about 2 hours ago
  • Here's a challange for #Raiders fans...try to make the most favorable schedule possible using 2014 opponents+London.
    about 2 hours ago