Ghoolie Verses Hoorta - The stage is set

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.

The Gipper

@ghoolie said:

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.

mjp28

@the-gipper said:

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.

The Gipper

@mjp28 said:

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.

Yes....See Eric Metcalf vs. Steelers....or Josh Cribbs vs. Chiefs.

The Gipper

@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?

Tour2ma

@gunz41 said:
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.

Appreciate the effort, Gunz... as futile as it was.

@ghoolie said:

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.

Not that facts matter, but...

The Colts went 11-5 Luck's first three years losing in the playoffs, in order, the Wild Card, the Div Champ and the Conf Champ. The past two years they've gone 8-8.

The '76 Browns featured two new OGs, Adams and Jackson, and RT Darrow started all 14 games after missing half the '75 season. So factually you are wrong about the OL.

The '76 Browns' D saw:

one DL change, the return of Joe Jones to the lineup;
two LB changes, the addition of Gerald Irons at ROLB who in turn bumped Babich inside;
and then there's the 2ndary which saw a couple changes, but only one needs mentioning... the return of Thom Darden who missed the entire '75 season.

I feel safe in saying you were O-fer two...

Look, man... just quit talking out your ass... quit making shit up, and we can continue the discussion... otherwise I'm out. I have better things to do than fact check you.

Yes, Sipe was an upgrade to Phipps because as much as anything Sipe was a leader. But as Gip said above there's more to winning than just the QB. I don't look at 22 positions. I look at six facets of the game:

QB
Receiving Corps (incl TEs)
RBs
OL
D
STs

While the list overall is in no particular order, the QB is at the top for a reason. It is also the only single-occupant facet on the list. That is how important it is... but it is not everything.

Teams cannot win with bad QB play, but conversely great QB play does not guarantee success. Teams can't be bad in any facet of the game and succeed.

Gunz41

@boo-fagley said:

Relax, I dont care when the Rain Men yell names at me and want to argue.

Oh, boy, I cannot believe that I have explain all this, but here it goes. The OP, Ghoolie, in post # 1 sets up the debate QB or OL. # 9 post of the 1st page Ghoolie comments on the Cinci QB. # 18 post on the 1st page Hoorta brings in Andrew Luck. Later, Ghoolie states that "you are not winning shit without a QB" Everything is all right there for review. The whole premise of the thread has gone right over your head since you cannot fathom why this all relates to the Browns QB situation. I am not going to explain how the QB ties in with the Browns vacancy at the position.

Its just plain stupid. You gave us a list of all Super Bowl QBs. If the thread is not about QBs, then why did you dig up the list? Rodgers has played better and worse. Brady has played better and worse.

I have already produced facts on Andy Luck in this thread. Go back and read them ALL instead of being stuck on 1 game. If you do not realize that the AFC South sucks, then there is no point in bringing up Luck anymore. All 3 teams in Lucks division have been looking for a QB. Luck has been the best in the AFCS because all the other QBs have sucked. Mariota might be something.

Look Coach, Im not here for trouble. I have no desire to respond to all your other dumb BS.

If the Browns are going to be serious competitors in the AFCN they have to find a Ben like QB.

Yes the argument was OL or QB. Obviously everyone in their right mind knows that QB is the most important position, the point is that every QB (whether terrible to elite) needs a supporting cast to ultimately be successful. That is the point I was trying to make and that you were seemingly trying to ignore. If you cannot realize by now that my argument had nothing to do with how the thread started or the intent of it then I am sorry, I must not have articulated it in the right way. If you take every postional group in the sport and ask what I would want my best player to be it would be the QB. He is certainly the most important position on the field 10 fold. And I brought up the list because of the "virtually" comment that you had made, to show that championships can be won or competed for without a great or elite QB.

I despise quite a few teams in the NFL from ways players etc have acted when on those teams, also by rivalries and what some family members allegiance lies with. Half of my family are all diehard Cowgirl fans. Only Cowboy I can like is Zeke. But I hate Andrew Luck way more. It is the same reason that I dislike everyone's favorite son here Lebron James. It is all the hype before the player has done a thing. And Lebron is 100 times better than Andrew Luck will ever be.

But when you were talking about the Patriots/Colts championship game, you were throwing ALL the loss on Andrew Luck. The Colts lost because New England was a lot better. They lost by the margin because Luck was bad and the defense was bad.

So yes to sum it all up, QB IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POSITION, TEAMS CAN WIN WITHOUT A GREAT QB AT TIMES, ANDREW LUCK IS OVERRATED BUT ISN"T THE WHOLE REASON THEY HAVEN'T WON A RING, AND THE BROWNS NEED A GOOD TO ELITE QB.

Now have a great day and good luck to the Pats this year, even though they certainly don't need it

P.S.- I know Peyton Manning has been brought up in this thread and how much he had dropped off in production the last year and a half of his career and not being reason they won the Super Bowl. While Denver's defense did play a huge part in the win, PM had more to do that just stats, he was so cerebral on the football field that can't be qualified into stats. He had a lot to do with the win as well. Osweiler probably wouldn't have won the SB.

The Gipper

PM had more to do that just stats, he was so cerebral on the football field that can't be qualified into stats. He had a lot to do with the win as well. Osweiler probably wouldn't have won the SB.

Now...THERE is an interesting point. Could the Broncos have won that Super Bowl on the strength of their defense IF Peyton could not have gotten back on the field and the Broncos had to go with the Big B.O.

During the regular season the two just about split duties:

Peyton was 7-2 as starter.

B.O. was 5-2

Peyton had fewer than 300 more passing yards....2249 to 1967

Peyton had fewer TD passes: 9 vs. 10 for B.O.

Peyton had a LOT more Ints: 17 to only 6 for B.O.

Peyton had a 67.9 QB rating to 86.4 for B. O.

Peyton did take fewer sacks. 16 to 23 for B.O.

So...for the regular season, B.O. gets about as much credit for the Broncos success as Peyton.

But, when push came to shove and in the playoffs, Peyton was there. In the three games of the playoffs including the SB Peyton either outperformed or played pretty evenly with Ben R. and Tom Brady and Cam Newton.

Could B.O. have done the same in the playoffs? Questionable, certainly.

And from what I can tell....B.O. didn't even make an appearance...even in mopup in any of those playoff games. Boxscores show at least that he did not throw a single pass.