Ghoolie Verses Hoorta - The stage is set

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

Gunz41

@boo-fagley said:

I did not bring up Elite all time. You did and if you go back and read what you posted it is right there in black and white.

No argument was changed. My statement remains the same. Its all about the QB. Its all about the QB in big games. The 2000 Ravens might be the exception to that rule, but they also might not be since Kerry Collins was not good enough to beat the Ravens defense. Frauds slip in there from time to time. Collins, Grossman, maybe even Kapernick.

The Patriots have nothing to do with this board. I am also a Browns fan and have adopted the Browns as a 2nd NFL team. I have tentative plans to see the Browns vs Bears this season in Chicago. The discussion here is about the Browns QB situation. THE most important player on the team bar none.

Im in no corner at all. Luck has a bad career and would be exposed in the AFC North. He has made a living off Jacksonville, Houston and Tennessee. Luck should make a sizable donation to those cities as an expression of gratitude. Brady has more good games than bad. Luck has more bad games than good.

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

I really hate to talk bad to people, especially ones I don't know and could be a genius for all I know, but you really can't be this dense can you? If you are one of these people that just tries to start stuff then bravo, but I can't tell and you really just come off as being out in outer space. You say the discussion here is about the Brown's QB situation. WRONG. The discussion started as OL. Your FIRST post in THIS thread was as follows, " The Amish Jim Plunkett is always out of something. WRs, RBs, Defense and now its the OL. If you put a Pro Bowl squad around Lucky he could probably win something." So how exactly is that about the BROWNS QB situation?

I did use the word elite because having an elite QB does help things greatly. QB is the most important position on the field, no argument from me there, and nowhere did I say differently. BUT BUT BUT, there are teams that have won or made Super Bowls with average to below average QB's. You see, that is where Tom Brady and the Patriots come up. But better yet, lets use the 2 best QB's in the NFL today, and the 2 best QB's in history as examples. Tom Brady is 5-2 in Super Bowls, in 16 seasons so he went to the Super Bowl 44 % of the time. Joe Montana was 4-0 in Super Bowls, in 16 seasons so he went to the Super Bowl 25 % of the time. Aaron Rodgers is 1-0 in the Super Bowl in 12 seasons, so he has been to Super Bowl 9 % of the time.

Do you know what this tells everyone except you apparently, IT'S NOT JUST THE QUARTERBACK. If it were, like was said before, then these guys would be there every year. Everyone already knows what your answer is going to be, "well of course you need more, the rest of the team has to help the QB, or they had a bad game." But when you wanted to put someone down (who I don't like either), it was ALL Luck's fault "36% passer rating" even though the defense gave up 42 points, well that was Luck's fault to. So Luck isn't allowed to have bad games.

And sorry to inform you, but you did change the argument. First it was virtually all Super Bowl teams had to have QB's good enough to win to get to the Super Bowl. Well when it was shown to you these QB's that don't factor into your "virtually" then you spiraled to Dilfer won before Kerry Collins was a bust, blah blah blah. IT DOESN"T MATTER HOW SOMEONE PLAYED IN THE SUPER BOWL, you see for everyone else on planet earth, getting there means what happened BEFORE/PREVIOUSLY.

This whole dumbass thing started because I said your statement was both smart and dumb. Now it has just turned into dumb.

Now if you want to just be a fan, that is good that is what you should do, but please don't try to act like you know exactly how the game of football works and why things work the way they do, and who is important and who isn't. I will pretty much GUARANTEE you lose that argument every time. Now good day my friend

Ghoolie

@boo-fagley said:

I see what you mean about the jock sniffers in luv with building the OL.

tou2ma must be the group president.

LMAO.

Ghoolie

@tour2ma said:
And your examples are where?

Right in front of your nose. Peyton Manning retires, and his team goes to shit. Manning gets shitcanned by the COlts, and they try to win with Luck and have Shit luck. And you need only to look to your on team. The Browns were horrible under Mike Phipps....enter Brian Sipe in 1976 as the starter. Same OL, Same D, he took the same shit team to 9 wins.

It is all about the QB. It always has been and always will be. Only Browns fans believe otherwise.

The Gipper

@boo-fagley said:

What are you talking about?

Anus on the mind?

I think Boo apparently may be one of these feckless fucks who puts people on ignore because they are too sensitive to read or see something they may not agree with. Otherwise how could he have missed that post on Sanchez's fairly quality performances in those AFC title games.