phanan said:
I'd take your arguments more seriously if they made sense.
Sure, good way to blow me off, not. I make as much sense as you do, you just keep oicking on me because you don't want to hear it.
Last edited:
phanan said:
I'd take your arguments more seriously if they made sense.
U2Kitten said:
Sure, good way to blow me off, not. I make as much sense as you do, you just keep oicking on me because you don't want to hear it.
U2Kitten said:
Sure, good way to blow me off, not. I make as much sense as you do, you just keep oicking on me because you don't want to hear it.
Headache in a Suitcase said:but last i checked, the last clutch situation he was placed in... without charlie w... this season, at pittsburgh... he went 12 for 12 in the 4th quarter and brought his team back from behind to win the game.
That free "bogus" 51 seconds was "awarded" very early in the 4th quarter. Without it, the Steelers and Big Ben would have been under more pressure to try and tie the game in less time and things might have played out differently and the Pats wouldn't have even needed to drive to win the game. Its not a relevant argument to what Brady did in the game. He was still perfect in the 4th quarter regardless of what the Steelers' timekeeper (Fred Cowher by the way) did to try to give his team extra time to catch up.U2Kitten said:
Thanks to that free, bogus, extra 51 seconds they were awarded.
U2Kitten said:
Thanks to that free, bogus, extra 51 seconds they were awarded.
Headache in a Suitcase said:
if the extra 51 seconds were added late in the 4th quarter, then you have a point.
the clock screw up happened early in the 4th quarter, neither team noticed it, and both teams played out the end of the game accordingly. both teams benefited from the extra 51 seconds, and both teams would have played the game differently if that 51 seconds was not still on the clock.
U2Kitten said:
No matter when they were added, it gave them time to 'come back' that they wouldn't have had. Think of how many teams in NFL history could have 'come back' if only they'd had one more minute.
U2Kitten said:Let's see you 'get over it' if it happens to the Giants in the championship game. It's still unfair.
U2Kitten said:Let's see you 'get over it' if it happens to the Giants in the championship game. It's still unfair.
randhail said:Also, with you passion for this clock issue, the 1972 Soviet Union USA gold medal basketball game must really get you fired up.
Headache in a Suitcase said:
if you were a steelers fan, perhaps you might have a minor reason to bitch.
and i emphasize minor.
Theisman, Williams, Rypien.U2Kitten said:And you guys have yet to address my question about the 3 Super Bowls with 3 different QB's won by the Redskins in the 80s. This is proof that if the system, coaching and defense and offensive line are good, you could put just about anybody back there at QB and win. Not just anybody, certainly not me or you or Bono, but I mean the QB doesn't have to be anything all that special. Can you even name the 3 different QB's without looking it up online?
U2Kitten said:And you guys have yet to address my question about the 3 Super Bowls with 3 different QB's won by the Redskins in the 80s. This is proof that if the system, coaching and defense and offensive line are good, you could put just about anybody back there at QB and win. Not just anybody, certainly not me or you or Bono, but I mean the QB doesn't have to be anything all that special. Can you even name the 3 different QB's without looking it up online?
Headache in a Suitcase said:so by this theory, that it's baisicly just the "system" when multiple QB's win for the same team...
perhaps then you could explain Hall of Famers Joe Montana and Steve Young... both of whom played in the same system and san francisco and won super bowls.
are they over-rated?
U2Kitten said:I don't believe they would have been as successful without the team and coaches surrounding them.
U2Kitten said:
No, Montana and Young were truly great. I admit Aikman was too though I despise him. I don't think Brady, Theismann, Williams or Rypien suck, just that they are not great. Kind of like the great vs. mediocrity thing in "Amadeus." I don't believe they would have been as successful without the team and coaches surrounding them.
phanan said:
This is where your argument is flawed. Someone like Aikman was truly in a specific system that worked, but he executed it perfectly (with the effective results of 3 Super Bowl rings) and that's why he is considered great. Brady is the same way, and he's probably been in more clutch situations than Aikman was. To say Brady is mediocre because of the great system he's in, while saying Aikman is great for the same reasons, doesn't work.
OK so Steve Young was great for winning 1 Super Bowl, taking over a system (you wanted to discuss systems remember) that dominated the league for over a decade and having the greatest wide receiver to ever play the game (I don't think anyone will argue that point) among his arsenal of weapons.U2Kitten said:
Don't mean to take anything away from Steve, he did it, many others would not have been able to do what he did.
Hewson said:So basically what we are to infer is that any QB could thus have thrown 49 TD passes last season plaing in a dome for more than half his games with Marvin Harrison, Brandon Stokely and Reggie Wayne to throw to, and a system that emphasized the pass, including throwing the ball deep in the 4th quarter of games when leading by 20+ points.
Peyton's basically already written a ticket to Canton, his numbers will get him there regardless. But if he never wins, he'll be regarded like Marino, "Best QB to never win" or whatever label people like to use, whereas Montana is just regarded by many as the best because along with great regular season play he delivered championships. Now Peyton has several years left and may well win a title or 2, he's got a good team around him and his window of opportunity is clearly now, but until he does, its a stigma that could stick.U2Kitten said:
Peyton may very well be great too, I think he is, but time will tell. He does need titles, and he knows it, he's working on it.
Hewson said:
The QB's playing right now, here's my assessment on hall of fame potential:
Has the promise but way way too early to tell: Eli Manning
My fingers cramped up as soon as I hit E-l, but I pressed on.Headache in a Suitcase said:
if you understood the pain it took hewson to make this statement, you would certainly not argue with him any longer.