Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack
How about Cade McNown?
|
I think I would be justified in saying that McNown improved (from year one to two), and would have continued to improve as a QB had he been allowed to play more. Not that getting rid of him was a bad decision...
Cade McNown statistics - pro-football-reference.com
McNown did have terrible fundamentals, and being from Chicago, the first NFL game I ever went to was a battle between McNown's Bears and Ditka's Saints in 2000.
I am near 100% certain that McNown would have gotten better if given more time. But you are right Smoot, his 2nd season looks a lot like his first. If you look close, you can see a small step foward in completion %, but thats about it.
Even if I'm generous and say "All QBs not named Cade McNown will improve", I'm not sure how we could parellel that to Quinn.
I honestly don't think Cade McNown peaked at 22 though. Since he didn't play past age 23, its really an inconclusive argument at best. I always thought the Bears gave him a quick hook anyway, I mean, you invested a 1st round pick in the guy, doesn't he get more than second season to prove himself?