Ghoolie Verses Hoorta - The stage is set

[One Post]

@boo-fagley said:

Its a fact that Luck plays in a weak ass division.

About as weak as your reason for wanting Luck. GFY

So it was ok for Manning to put up HOF numbers in the same division but ok.

[One Post]

@boo-fagley said:

From 1998 - 2001 the Colts were in the AFC East.

Manning kept losing to Brady in the playoffs because its all about the QB.

Exactly my point thank you.

[The Gipper]

@gunz41 said:

This is one of the dumbest AND brilliant comments I have ever seen. There have been many Super Bowl teams that have had sub par QB's playing in the game (Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson are 2 that jump out), that is the dumbest part of it, but brilliant because obviously they were good enough to win because they were there. The part you are not saying is those 2 instances the defense carried them. Those QB's didn't lose them the game, but weren't on a Brady, Montana, Elway, Manning level, or even in the same neighborhood.

And before you call me a Luck fan, I think he is very overrated. Sure he is better than some of the QB's in the league, but he is not as great as some of the talk about him.

And to your gus argument, both of you are correct. Luck was bad in the game, but so was the Indy defense. I don't understand the way people think now a days, its like if one point is correct then that is the only point that can be correct.

I'll put it like this, Ghoolie can be a jerk (as well as anyone else), Ghoolie can also be very funny (as can anyone else). BOTH can be true at the same time

Ben R. in 2005 was a mediocre to below average QB...on the Dilfer/Johnson level. Like them, he played fairly steadily, but was not great. That team's defense and run game won them that title. Yes, he was young, and later became a great QB.....but for that point in time he was mediocre at best and was carried by his team.

Name me one team ever that has made the Super Bowl....win or lose, that had a bad defense. The closest that I know was those Colts who won with Peyton. Fairly bad defense through the regular, but it stepped it up in the playoffs. (of course...in the Super Bowl they went against Rex Grossman...so they didn't have to be too good.

Point is: I actually think there are more teams to play in the SB...win or lose...who had mediocre QBs than there have been teams who have had mediocre defenses and a great QB.

[Gunz41]

@boo-fagley said:

I will defer to your expertise on stupidity.

Do you even realize that youre supporting my argument?

Its about the QB. Collins was not good enough to beat the Ravens defense. Dilfer was better than Kerry Collins who was a bust. The Giants didnt keep Collins and went QB shopping for Eli Manning who now enters his 13th season for NY. Collins did not have a Baltimore defense to carry him like Dilfer. Therefore, it was all on the NY QB if the Giants were going to beat the Ravens.

Low and behold, Collins - 0 TDs - 3 INTs - 1 fumble - 112 passing yards - 38% completion rate. Remind you of anyone whose last name ends with Luck?

Dilfer was a 1 and done Game Manager with Baltimore. They too kept shopping QBs until they found Flacco who enters his 10th season. Flacco has led the Ravens to the playoffs 6 times in 9 seasons in the AFC North which is arguably the toughest AFC division. The Ravens needed a QB to be competitive in the AFCN when they got Flacco. The NY Jets tried to win like the 2000 Ravens did. Rex Ryan was on the Ravens staff. Guess what? The Jets ran into 2 HOF QBs in Ben and Manning.

That is where it all relates to the Browns. The Browns dont need the next Dilfer, Collins or Brad Johnson. Perhaps Gannon in his prime though. Isnt this whole discussion about landing the Browns QB of the future? A franchise QB like a Ben or Flacco type and not a band-aid?

The whole Brad Johnson vs Rich Gammon comparison is just another example how bad QB play drags the defense down with him. Gannon threw 5 INTs in that game and 3 were Pic 6s. Time of possession was basically 40 minutes for Tampa and 20 minutes for Oakland.

Its all about the QB.

Yes I have an expertise on stupidity, because I can spot it from a mile away when its happening. And I even said it was dumb and brilliant.

And NO, what I said does not support your argument. here is a list of EVERY starting QB in Super Bowls, you tell me that every one of them is Elite all time.

1: Bart Starr/Len Dawson

2: Bart Starr/Daryle Lamonica

3. Joe Namath/ Earl Morrall

4. Len Dawson/Joe Kapp

5. Johnny Unitas/Craig Morton

6. Roger Staubach/ Bob Griese

7. Bob Griese/ Bill Kilmer

8. Bob Griese/ Fran Tarkenton

9. Terry Bradshaw/Fran Tarkenton

10. Terry Bradshaw/ Roger Staubach

11. Ken Stabler/ Fran Tarkenton

12. Roger Staubach/ Craig Morton

13. Terry Bradshaw/ Roger Staubach

14. Terry Bradshaw/ Vince Farragamo

15. Jim Plunkett/ Ron Jaworski

16. Joe Montana/ Ken Anderson

17. Joe Theisman/ David Woodley

18. Jim Plunkett/ Joe Theisman

19. Joe Montana/ Dan Marino

20. Jim McMahon/ Tony Eason

21. Phil Simms/ John Elway

22. Doug Williams/ John Elway

23. Joe Montana/ Boomer Esiason

24. Joe Montana/ John Elway

25. Jeff Hostetler/ Jim Kelly

26. Mark Rypien/ Jim Kelly

27. Troy Aikman/ Jim Kelly

28. Troy Aikman/ Jim Kelly

29. Steve Young/ Stan Humpheries

30. Troy Aikman/ Neil O'Donnell

31. Brett Favre/ Drew Bledsoe

32. John Elway/ Brett Favre

33. John Elway/ Chris Chandler

34. Kurt Warner/ Steve McNair

35. Trent Dilfer/ Kerry Collins

36. Tom Brady/ Kurt Warner

37. Brad Johnson/ Rich Gannon

38. Tom Brady/ Jake Delhomme

39. Tom Brady/ Donovan McNabb

40. Ben Roethlisberger/ Matt Hasselbeck

41. Peyton Manning/ Rex Grossman

42. Eli Manning/ Tom Brady

43. Ben Roethlisberger/ Kurt Warner

44. Drew Brees/ Peyton Manning

45. Aaron Rodgers/ Ben Roethlisberger

46. Eli Manning/ Tom Brady

47. Joe Flacco/ Colin Kaepernick

48. Russell Wilson/ Peyton Manning

49. Tom Brady/ Russell Wilson

50. Peyton Manning/ Cam Newton

51. Tom Brady/ Matt Ryan

Bold denotes HOF, Italics denotes future HOF, some others may be HOF

So you are telling me that every single one of these men were the reason their team got to the Super Bowl. It goes back to your original comment "Look at virtually every Super Bowl. Both teams got there because they found a QB good enough to win." While technically being true, because they did get there so the "won",

some of them just were not the reason they got there. I don't understand how you can actually disagree with this. You even said in this post that Kerry Collins was a bust, so he was a bust good enough to get him to the Super Bowl.

If it were just about the QB, some of these teams would not have been in the SB. Not surprisingly, you don't understand the point yourself was trying to make. Because once someone showed you that its NOT just about the QB getting them to the Super Bowl, you try to change your argument to how a QB performed in the Super Bowl. How you play in the Super Bowl has NO bearing as to how you play in leading up to the Super Bowl.

It is all about the QB you say, well then how come the 2 best QB's in history (Tom Brady and Joe Montana) didn't make it to every Super Bowl, and how come when Brady was in the league, did guys like Flacco and Gannon even make it to the Super Bowl.

Yes I remember thinking a few weeks ago how much the NFL needed and missed Rex Grossman. Man he was a one of a kind and a GREAT QB

[The Gipper]

@boo-fagley said:

Luck will never be as good as Manning.

Overrated.

You live up to your avatar.

[The Gipper]

Not sure what you two Goobers are arguing about. I don't think any one would deny that having a competent QB is almost universally essential to winning a championship. (though BR in 2005 had the worst game of any SB QB....or at least any winning SB QB in history).

It is the rare occasion that a team wins a title without an outstanding QB.

It is also an equally rare occasion that a team wins a title without a dominant defense.

There are a few outliers, a few exceptions. So, can all this be agreed upon at least.

[The Gipper]

@boo-fagley said:

6 AFC QBs have played in 26 Super Bowls.

Approximately 50% of all Super Bowls have been dominated by just 6 AFC QBs. Average of 4.33% Super Bowls per QB.

Its not about the QB? Damn straight it is

Brady 7

Elway 5

Bradshaw 4

Kelly 4

P Manning 3

Ben 3

Well, it may be....50% of the time anyway. What about the rest? Dominated by defense?

(You forgot about Griese who also started 3 SBs...no? He was the primary QB of the Dolphins ..or started the SB the 3 straight years they went, no?)

[Tour2ma]

@boo-fagley said:

And Torn2anus is the pivot man.

Its a passing league and NE had the 17th ranked run game in 2016. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff

Orsewiller is close to parking cars for a living 2 years after his HOF season.

Me? Pivot? How long did it take you to find your "alternative stats"?

Pats... 7th in rushing yardage... 5th in rushing TDs...

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=TM&offensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&season=2016&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=false&Submit=Go

@boo-fagley said:

6 AFC QBs have played in 26 Super Bowls.

Approximately 50% of all Super Bowls have been dominated by just 6 AFC QBs. Average of 4.33% Super Bowls per QB.

Its not about the QB? Damn straight it is

Brady 7

Elway 5

Bradshaw 4

Kelly 4

P Manning 3

Ben 3

Holy fuck... HoF QB list at the head of some of the greatest teams in history. What a devastating argument... and you did not even mention Montana.

Others have shown examples of "good QBs" who have won SBs on great teams. Where are your examples of great QBs who led merely good teams or ordinary teams to SB appearances/victories? Those are the examples that would truly support your argument.

[Tour2ma]

And your examples are where?

[Gunz41]

@boo-fagley said:

Yo,Coke Bottle glasses. Look at my EXACT quote.

Its all about the QB.

Look at virtually every Super Bowl. Both teams got there because they found a QB good enough to win.

Nowhere do I state in your dream world that all Super Bowl QBs are "Elite" all time. What does " virtually" mean? The definition does not mean that 100% of all Super Bowl teams found their franchise QB. They found a QB THEY thought could win a Super Bowl. People like Kerry Collins, Trent Dilweed and Brad Johnson were the exact reasons why I used "virtually."

Furthermore, the present day NFL has changed to a passing league where the QB is the most important player on the team. Not "virtually" not "almost" the QB is the ticket to the Super Bowl. You totally miss the point dredging up every Super Bowl in history. Its ridiculous to compare today's NFL to the NFL of Bart Starr. I realize now that I have to explain everything to the nth degree.

Why doesnt Brady win every Super Bowl? Because he has good and bad games. Some teams match up better against him and others dont. None of that changes my statement at all.

You do make my point bringing up Rex Grossman. Manning is clearly the better QB.

Yes my friend, you did say virtually, but then you changed your argument as how the sub par QB's played in the Super Bowl. Nobody ever thought that you thought every QB in SB history was elite. It is the way you try to make your point.

Look, I know you love your Patriots and TB12, I think he is the greatest QB in NFL history and I am not like most non Patriot fans, I can root for them and him. But you made the point people were trying to get you to understand.

"Why doesnt Brady win every Super Bowl? Because he has good and bad games. Some teams match up better against him and others dont. None of that changes my statement at all."

So you backed yourself in a corner with that one. How could Brady have a bad game just like you said, but Luck cannot just have a bad game? Exactly what is the difference? You placed all the blame on Luck for this game, it couldn't have been anything elses fault, but I know that what I have seen is that some of the games NE have lost is not entirely Brady's fault. THAT is exactly my point, there are many factors in winning or losing a football game. Yes it helps when the franchise QB plays well, but there can be other factors.

Whether it is good or bad, I dunno, but I guess I just can't help but l cant just watch/look at any game as just a fan, the coaching in me notices other things and not just have the perception that everything is always because of a simple reason.

You seem like a good guy and I certainly don't have anything against you, others may, but I have no issue with anyone on here. I initially just replied because just like things can have 2 things be correct at the same time, your first comment did as well.

[Tour2ma]

@gunz41 said:

THAT is exactly my point, there are many factors in winning or losing a football game. Yes it helps when the franchise QB plays well, but there can be other factors.

Bingo...

[Tour2ma]

@boo-fagley said:

Its about the QB. You can build the dream team and the QB can screw it all up.

Your argument is mercurial... "All about the QB. But they don't have to be elite." Apparently now all they have to do is not screw up? That is not the same as "being all about them".

You can have a dream QB and the D or the OL or STs or a RB can "screw it up" as well.

[Ghoolie]

@boo-fagley said:

6 AFC QBs have played in 26 Super Bowls.

Approximately 50% of all Super Bowls have been dominated by just 6 AFC QBs. Average of 4.33% Super Bowls per QB.

Its not about the QB? Damn straight it is

Brady 7

Elway 5

Bradshaw 4

Kelly 4

P Manning 3

Ben 3

And BOTH the Steelers won Superbowls with WALK ON offensive linemen at the time of the playoffs.

Yeah, you know............. those fucking fatasses that are SOOOOOOOO SOOOOOOOO Important. I wonder how many walk on Quarterbcks have played in the Superbowl?

[Ghoolie]

@tour2ma said:

Your argument is mercurial... "All about the QB. But they don't have to be elite." Apparently now all they have to do is not screw up? That is not the same as "being all about them".

You can have a dream QB and the D or the OL or STs or a RB can "screw it up" as well.

YOu can have all gread D and OL and you won't win a fuckikng thing.

[The Gipper]

@ghoolie said:

And BOTH the Steelers won Superbowls with WALK ON offensive linemen at the time of the playoffs.

Yeah, you know............. those fucking fatasses that are SOOOOOOOO SOOOOOOOO Important. I wonder how many walk on Quarterbcks have played in the Superbowl?

Who were those? You talking about going way back to the 70s...or the 2005/2008 group. I remember some pretty damned high draft pick OL on both of those teams.

[The Gipper]

@ghoolie said:

YOu can have all gread D and OL and you won't win a fuckikng thing.

Ravens did.

Steelers did.

Bucs did.

Redskins did.

Giants did.

Point is: it CAN happen at times. Usually, sure, you need an elite QB.

[The Gipper]

@boo-fagley said:

A good/great QB can make an OL took like Hall of Fame material.

A great OL cant make a QB look like Hall of Fame material. The 2009 NY Jets had 4 - 1st round pick offensive lineman. Mangold is a HOF lock and Faneca and Ferguson will get mentioned for the Hall.

QB Mark Sanchez choked it all away in back to back seasons. Couldnt keep up with P Manning and couldnt measure up to Ben. You guys watched it just like I did.

Did we? Really:

January 23, 2011, AFC title game Jets vs. Steelers: Steelers won 24-19

Mark Sanchez was 20/33 for 233 yards 2 TDs -0- Ints.

Ben R was 10/19 133 yards -0- TDs 2 Ints.

Sanchez was the better QB in that game. BR basically sucked eggs....but:

The Steelers, with Rashard Mendenhall ran over the Jets defense for a total of 166 yards.

January 24th, 2010 AFC title game. Jets vs. Colts. Colts won 30-17

Mark Sanchez was 17/30 for 257 yards 2 TDs 1 Ints. Actually not a bad performance.

Peyton Manning was 26/39 377 yards 3 TDs -0- Ints.

This time it was Peyton that ran all over the Jets defense. A great performance by great QB.

Certainly no shame in "not keeping up" with this type of performance.

So, based on these figures.....neither loss was because Sanchez stunk up the joint. Quite the opposite. It was because their defense...vaunted as it may have been, was run over by the Steelers run game, then by the greatness of Peyton Manning.

Sorry if the facts get in the way of a good delusion.

[One Post]

See Boo Fagley...just got your ass handed to ya.

[The Gipper]

@one-post said:

See Boo Fagley...just got your ass handed to ya.

Not my intent. I just wanted to check to see if what he said was true.....and by some accounts....bare statistics, it does not at all seem like Sanchez stunk up the joint either time.

I do recall him stinking up the joint at other times, later in his career. But that does not appear to be the case in those two games at least.

I mean, it looked like he could become the next NYJ superstar QB.....but he went downhill from those games.

And that is a certain point. Some guys start out hot. Like him, like maybe Vince Young, like Kaepernick. Others?

And then others start out extremely slow and it is questionable as to whether they will ever become a decent NFL QB....but they do eventually...maybe even into the HOF.

I used the case of Jim Plunkett, Len Dawson...guys who went through a few teams before settling in. Any others there?

[Tour2ma]

Research... what a concept...

@ghoolie said:

YOu can have all gread D and OL and you won't win a fuckikng thing.

Yes, you can... No, not with a hack QB, but with a competent, a good one, you can.

That's where you and Phagley keep retreating... to the most extreme examples of QBs whose suckitude cannot be overcome. No one is arguing that ground