@tour2ma said:

Your truth... not the truth...

Another reason to repeat the SOS over and over... you're fresh out of thoughts.

I'm beginning to think it's a personal vendetta against Hoyer. There is no other way to explain the tunnel vision.

@stocktonshorts said:

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

Your truth... not the truth...

Another reason to repeat the SOS over and over... you're fresh out of thoughts.

@miktoxic said:

if you have a RB that fumbles the ball and you turn the ball over more THAN your opponent, THEN you're not going to win.

To paraphrase Eddy Izzard, "Do you have a card?"

you could have brady or manning playing QB but if the opposing team's pass rushers are in the backfield within 3 steps of the QB's 3 step drop then you're not going to win. if you can't open a hole for a RB to get through then you're not going to win. if you can't get to the QB and he has all day to sit back in the pocket and wait for a receiver to come back to him then you're not going to win. if you can't stop the opposing team's running game then you're not going to win. if your corners or safeties continually blow coverage then you're not going to win.

if you have a RB that fumbles the ball and you turn the ball over more THAN your opponent, THEN you're not going to win.

There have been several running backs that worked through fumbling issues and good coaching will correct Crowell's mechanics. I watched this kid the last pre season game when he exploded out of nowhere for over 100yards. He's the guy. We need a number one to bear the brunt especially when the snow starts flying. It's going to be fun to watch. Hoyer, Crowell, the Oline and the defense must step up and I believe they will.

The ace in the hole is Josh Gordon so there's good reason to be optimistic even with the injuries.

@the-gipper said:

or my first girlfriend..

@winstonlegthigh said:

Or a tortilla.

@the-gipper said:

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

That would be like a crepe then, right?

@winstonlegthigh said:

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

@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

@stocktonshorts said:

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

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

@stocktonshorts said:

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

@ibleedbrown said:

Oh boy.

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

@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 said:

And, on that note.....

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

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

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

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

@the-gipper said:

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

@stocktonshorts said:

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

@bbedward said:

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

@winstonlegthigh 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"

@walterwhite said:

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 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"

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.

@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