Quarterback driven league

dawg2fan

@walterwhite said:

Well, all of the best QB's have won Super Bowls (minus Marino)

And Marino may have been the best QB ever. He never won a SB because he never had a really good D.

The Gipper

@dawg2fan said:
And Marino may have been the best QB ever. He never won a SB because he never had a really good D.

What did someone say about "Balance"? Perfect example.

bbedward

@dawg2fan said:
And Marino may have been the best QB ever. He never won a SB because he never had a really good D.

All he ever wanted was the D

Tour2ma

@walterwhite said:
Well, all of the best QB's have won Super Bowls (minus Marino)

Really?

When did Dan Fouts win his? Fran Tarkenton? Jim Kelly?

Bleacher says there are 50 of them... I did not bother to look.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1025782-50-greatest-quarterbacks-never-to-win-a-super-bowl

Manzier

Lets be honest, players(qb's especially) get elevated to god status as soon as they win a SB. Some deserve it and some dont.

A great quarterback certainly CANT win a Super Bowl with an average team, but an average quarterback could win one with a great TEAM.(and then he might be declared great)(or get paid like it).

But a great QB definitely improves your odds. I see QB's who "statistically" were average to below average, but they won SuperBowls and are considered GREAT!

And I see QB's who had long, successful careers and statistically were great, but they never won a SB and, therefore are considered "ok"

So, if WINNING defines great. Then you gotta give Hoyer space, because he's winning.

And if STATISTICS define great. Then you gotta say "average" qb's have won a lot of SB's.

WinstonLegthigh

@stocktonshorts said:

Todays NFL, even more so then 10 years ago

Don't let the Mensa boys see that you don't know "than" from "then"

The Gipper

@walterwhite said:

Well, all of the best QB's have won Super Bowls (minus Marino)

How do you define "best"? Of the Top 20 in career QB rating, over half of them have never won SB.

Of the Top 20 QBs in career TD passes, over half of them have never won a SB.

Of the Top 20 QBs in career completions, over half of them have never won a SB.

Of the Top 20 QBs in career passing yards, over half of them have never won a SB.

So, like I said, how do you define "best QBs" Or does you criteria sound like this:

Of all the QBs that have won Super Bowls, all of them have won Super Bowls.

Just curious.

StocktonShorts

@winstonlegthigh said:
Don't let the Mensa boys see that you don't know "than" from "then"

You use "Than" when talking options, comparing one thing to another "Stockton is smarter THAN you"

You use "Then" when talking chronologically, a period of time like "Even more so THEN 10 years ago"

bbedward

I think there's many people who know more about football that dont have a menstrual card.

StocktonShorts

@bbedward said:
I think there's many people who know more about football that dont have a menstrual card.

Well if any of those people think Brian Hoyer is a Franchise QB, then they would never be up for a Menstrual Card.

The Gipper

@stocktonshorts said:
Well if any of those people think Brian Hoyer is a Franchise QB, then they would never be up for a Menstrual Card.

You harp on the same thing over and over and over so much I swear you are driven by estrogen.

StocktonShorts

@the-gipper said:
You harp on the same thing over and over and over so much I swear you are driven by estrogen.

When you say the truth and you are met with resistance then you repeat the truth. Over and Over.

Manzier

@stocktonshorts said:

When you say the truth and you are met with resistance then you repeat the truth. Over and Over.

And, on that note.....

You harp on the same thing over and over and over so much I swear you are driven by estrogen.

Ibleedbrown

@stocktonshorts said:

You use "Than" when talking options, comparing one thing to another "Stockton is smarter THAN you"

You use "Then" when talking chronologically, a period of time like "Even more so THEN 10 years ago"

Those are both comparisons ya wingnut. You were comparing todays NFL to the NFL of 10 years ago.

And you're referring to yourself in the 3rd person now.

Tighten up there slick.

StocktonShorts

@ibleedbrown said:

Those are both comparisons ya wingnut. You were comparing todays NFL to the NFL of 10 years ago.

And you're referring to yourself in the 3rd person now.

Tighten up there slick.

Oh boy.

When talking chronologically you use THEN. Comparison of two eras is chronological. Now is better THEN the past.

Zombo

@stocktonshorts said:

Oh boy.

When talking chronologically you use THEN. Comparison of two eras is chronological. Now is better THEN the past.

That's not right. You don't use then just because you referring to time, if it is a comparison, you use "than"

"Now is better THAN the past"

"I took a shower THEN I pissed"

http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/than_then.htm

Not quite as tricky as Champagne/Champaine

Zombo

Manzier

oy ...wheeeeeeeeeeeee a grammar debate...you're wrong on this one stockton

Chronological : Now is now. Then it will be later

Comparitive(even if comparing time): Now is better than later....or..... Id rather live tomorrow, than yesterday.... Etc Etc

The Gipper

@stocktonshorts said:

When you say the truth and you are met with resistance then you repeat the truth. Over and Over.

No, its more like a chick on the rag. You just are suffering from heavy flow.

WinstonLegthigh

@stocktonshorts said:

Oh boy.

When talking chronologically you use THEN. Comparison of two eras is chronological. Now is better THEN the past.

You are wrong Mensa boy, most time references do use THEN, however since you are comparing one time to another, it is a comparison, hence you use THAN.

I'm telling Mensa

The Gipper

@winstonlegthigh said:

You are wrong Mensa boy, most time references do use THEN, however since you are comparing one time to another, it is a comparison, hence you use THAN.

I'm telling Mensa

How about this: If you guys don't STFU about this THEN I am going to hammer you flatter THAN a pancake.