Ghoolie Verses Hoorta - The stage is set
-
And your examples are where?
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
@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?
The Cleveland Browns have the hardest hit players in the NFL -
@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.
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 Cleveland Browns have the hardest hit players in the NFL -
@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?
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.
-
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.
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.
-
@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.
-
See Boo Fagley...just got your ass handed to ya.
-
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?
-
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.
Research... what a concept...
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
-
@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
-
@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.
-
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 Cleveland Browns have the hardest hit players in the NFL -
@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.
-
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.
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.
Again...you are being knobbish. What Browns fans know is that the QB is the most important position.....but that there are still 22 starters on offense and defense on a football team....and that often what those other 21 players do does have some effect on the outcome of games. What we also know is that we have not had that quality QB for whom the game is all about...but have had a series of duds at that spot.
Nevertheless, see my post in another thread about where in an AFC title game Mark Sanchez had a very good game...20/33, throwing for 2 TDs no ints and like 250 yards. Ben R. in the same game was like 10/19, 133 yards, no TDs , two ints......he sucked. Yet, the Steelers won because the other 21 guys on his team did an outstanding job despite of him.
And something similar happened in the 2005 Super Bowl:
Ben R. 9/23 123 yards -0- TDs 2 Ints
Hasselback: 26/49 273 yds 1 TD 1 Int.
The Steelers won despite the poor performance of BR....in both games. Because the other 22 guys....the OL, RBs, Defense all stood up and carried him on those occasions.
Yes, many other times BR has carried the Steelers.
My point is simple....sometimes, on occasion, it is NOT ALL about the QB. The other 21 guys have some say in the outcome of the game.
Is it more frequently about the QB. Yes, for sure...but not always.
-
I hope I am allowed to chime in.
A bad OL can hurt the performance of an offense and a QB. A good OL can help an offense and a QB. But a good OL won't make a bad QB into a good QB. It might improve/help some...but it can't find receivers and make accurate throws....no matter how well they perform.
A bad OL can make a good QB mediocre. Even Tom Brady has had issues where he has had pressure right in his face. As the saying goes, you can't complete a pass from your back. Of course, good/great QBs can help overcome a bad OL. By movement, by quick throws. BR in Pitt has had some poor OLs...and has been able to overcome them fairly well by his ability to move in the pocket. His OL now is much better than it has been in some recent past years.
In Cinci...you do not have a great QB. Dalton is good...leaning to mediocre. I do not think he will overcome what portends to be a bad OL in Cinci. He is no Brady or BR. He is...OK. The running game behind him....they have a decent stable of RBs (but I say they are about on par with the Browns in RB talent...but they thought they needed help...otherwise why draft Mixon in round 2?), won't have the same opportunities behind a poor OL. Their receivers...AJ Green obviously is superior...and I don't know what else they have that you say is so new and improved. (Joe Ross maybe)? They very well may be hampered....because the QB will be hampered.
For the Browns....a superior OL won't turn Kessler or B.O....or Kizer...into BR or Brady, if they don't have that in them. It won't make a middling group of receivers...if they can't get open, any better. Though...it may give them more time to create gaps between them and the defenders.
More likely the Browns run game will be far more improved than the pass game. A better OL creates better runners. And decent/good runners as the Browns have should be able to make hay with this OL...assuming IT is as good as advertised.
I hope I am allowed to chime in.
A bad OL can hurt the performance of an offense and a QB. A good OL can help an offense and a QB. But a good OL won't make a bad QB into a good QB. It might improve/help some...but it can't find receivers and make accurate throws....no matter how well they perform. A bad OL can......
How true! As they say it always starts up front OL and DL.
Also a good offense helps your defense (not 3 and out, field position, etc.)
A good defense helps your offense.
Special teams can steal a game or two or three.
-
I hope I am allowed to chime in.
A bad OL can hurt the performance of an offense and a QB. A good OL can help an offense and a QB. But a good OL won't make a bad QB into a good QB. It might improve/help some...but it can't find receivers and make accurate throws....no matter how well they perform. A bad OL can......
How true! As they say it always starts up front OL and DL.
Also a good offense helps your defense (not 3 and out, field position, etc.)
A good defense helps your offense.
Special teams can steal a game or two or three.
-
@boo-fagley said:
The Patriots were not winning shit with Drew Bledslow.
He held the ball too long and stood back there like a statue. They had David Patten and Troy Brown for WRs,The 28th ranked run game. When Bledsoe went out and Brady came in it was like a whole new team.
When the Browns get their guy at QB it will be the exact same.
OK....when is that going to be?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login