Fuck you, Bert Favor

[Monsters_of_Rock]

[P.P.S. Favre was not on the way to winning the MVP. His media jock washers were spunking up their Depends about him doing allright somewhere other than GB and it just happened to be in media central.

As far as this "hurt in the 11th game" nonsense, Favre worshipers seem to forget the guy had thrown 13 picks in 11 games before "getting hurt". There's nothing MVPish about giving the ball away 1.2 times per game.
[/color][/size]

13 picks in 11 games may not be very good when you only have 7 TD passes to go along with those 13 picks, but when you have 20 TDs...

Well, if you don't get it that's your problem.

[thejuggernaut]

The most epically comedic part about this all is that he doesn't seem to realize that when people call a QB a gunslinger, it's a backhanded compliment.

Exactly. Down here, we hear the "gunslinger" thing with Jake Delhomme. I always take it to mean a QB who tries to make throws he shouldn't.

A gunslinger is a QB who isn't afraid to stretch the field, to play the vertical game. The term goes back to the days of the old AFL and Oakland Raider legend Daryle Lamonica.

No, a gunslinger is someone who wants to throw no matter the situation.

There are plenty of QBs who like to show off their deep arms; the gunslingers are the ones who think they can fit it through a 1 foot opening, falling back off their back foot, 30 yards away.

Lamonica was known as "The Mad Bomber". You know, because of his deep bombs.

[thejuggernaut]

This argument is so silly.

NFL Quarterbacks like NBA players (especially centers) are defined by championships. Period. That's why Marino is not as recognized as Brady/Montana.

Favre has one. Not quite Karl Malone/Jim Kelly, but not close to being Joe Montana/Michael Jordan.

So Brad Johnson is better than Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, and Dan Fouts combined?

No, TEAMS are defined by championships. QBs are defined by passing yards, completion percentage, and touchdown passes.

Did I say Brad Johnson is better than Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, and Dan Fouts combined ?

Here, I'll ask you another very easy question and let's see if you can answer this (you will avoid it, like always, but might as well ask) -

We'll skip Delhomme's meltdown last season and go all the way back to January, 1996. Steelers vs Cowboys in the SB.

Remember Neil O'Donnell's throws right into the arms of Larry Brown ? 1 TD and 3 picks that game, that ultimately cost them. 2 of those picks were horrible.

Can you honestly, in all seriousness, tell all of us here that the Steelers' loss to Dallas was defined by the team, and NOT the performance of one bonehead ?

[thejuggernaut]

[P.P.S. Favre was not on the way to winning the MVP. His media jock washers were spunking up their Depends about him doing allright somewhere other than GB and it just happened to be in media central.

As far as this "hurt in the 11th game" nonsense, Favre worshipers seem to forget the guy had thrown 13 picks in 11 games before "getting hurt". There's nothing MVPish about giving the ball away 1.2 times per game.
[/color][/size]

13 picks in 11 games may not be very good when you only have 7 TD passes to go along with those 13 picks, but when you have 20 TDs...

Well, if you don't get it that's your problem.

Over a pick a game is NEVER good. EVER.

The QB's job is to control the game for his team and score more points than the other guy. Giving the other team a bonus possession is never good, under ANY circumstance.

I bet you think Paul Coffey was a great defenseman, don't you ?

[thejuggernaut]

This argument is so silly.

NFL Quarterbacks like NBA players (especially centers) are defined by championships. Period. That's why Marino is not as recognized as Brady/Montana.

Favre has one. Not quite Karl Malone/Jim Kelly, but not close to being Joe Montana/Michael Jordan.

So Brad Johnson is better than Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, and Dan Fouts combined?

No, TEAMS are defined by championships. QBs are defined by passing yards, completion percentage, and touchdown passes.

Don't be an idiot. Its why when you discuss the great quarterbacks, Marino is not on par with Elway and Montana. If you don't think quarterbacks are defined by championships, you've never had an intelligent conversation about them.

Its why the entire perception towards John Elway changed when he won.

That, and why he walked away after back to back titles.

Don't you find it hilarious that the QBs and players themselves measures greatness by championships, yet some 40 year manchild thinks they're all wrong ?

[Monsters_of_Rock]

Don't be an idiot. Its why when you discuss the great quarterbacks, Marino is not on par with Elway and Montana. If you don't think quarterbacks are defined by championships, you've never had an intelligent conversation about them.

Its why the entire perception towards John Elway changed when he won.

It's a flawed perception, one that only foolish people buy into. QBs don't win championships, teams do. John Elway was already one of the greatest QBs of all-time even before his Broncos won those two Super Bowls in his last two seasons. In terms of wins and losses, a QB can only be as good as the team around him.

Ask yourself this question... Did the 49ers win four Super Bowls in the 80's becausethey had Joe Montana, or did Montana win four Super Bowls because he played for the 49ers? Granted, he was an important part of that team. But at the same time, that team was so good they probably would have had similar results with any of the top 10 to 15 QBs in the league during that era.

Montana was selected by the 49ers in the 3rd round of the 1979 draft. He was the 82nd overall pick. What if the Rams had selected him with the 81st pick? Do you think the Rams would have won four Super Bowls in the 80's? Hell no!!! And that is why I think it's idiotic to define QBs by championships. I know that your typical rube thinks that way, but I think more in depth than your average rube. I look at the individual performance and take into consideration that some QBs are given a better set of circumstances to work with than others.

Was Franco Harris (4 Super Bowl rings) a better RB than Barry Sanders (0 Super Bowl rings)? Absolutely not, and by the same token Joe Montana was not a better QB than Dan Marino. A QB, like a RB, is merely one man on the roster. He can be an important piece of the puzzle, but he can't win a championshipall by himself.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

Did I say Brad Johnson is better than Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, and Dan Fouts combined ?

Here, I'll ask you another very easy question and let's see if you can answer this (you will avoid it, like always, but might as well ask) -

We'll skip Delhomme's meltdown last season and go all the way back to January, 1996. Steelers vs Cowboys in the SB.

Remember Neil O'Donnell's throws right into the arms of Larry Brown ? 1 TD and 3 picks that game, that ultimately cost them. 2 of those picks were horrible.

Can you honestly, in all seriousness, tell all of us here that the Steelers' loss to Dallas was defined by the team, and NOT the performance of one bonehead ?

The Steelers lost that game as a team. A game is made up of four 15 minute quarters. Those weren't the only two plays in the game. They were obviously key plays, but the Steelers had plenty of other opportunities within the game. It is possible that they still could have won the game in spite of those two plays, but they fell short in a valiant effort. The Cowboys were the better team on that day.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

[P.P.S. Favre was not on the way to winning the MVP. His media jock washers were spunking up their Depends about him doing allright somewhere other than GB and it just happened to be in media central.

As far as this "hurt in the 11th game" nonsense, Favre worshipers seem to forget the guy had thrown 13 picks in 11 games before "getting hurt". There's nothing MVPish about giving the ball away 1.2 times per game.
[/color][/size]

13 picks in 11 games may not be very good when you only have 7 TD passes to go along with those 13 picks, but when you have 20 TDs...

Well, if you don't get it that's your problem.

Over a pick a game is NEVER good. EVER.

The QB's job is to control the game for his team and score more points than the other guy. Giving the other team a bonus possession is never good, under ANY circumstance.

I bet you think Paul Coffey was a great defenseman, don't you ?

Okay, so tell me...

Would you rather have, in a 16 game season, a QB who throws for 14 TDs and 10 INTs or a QB who throws for 33 TDs and 19 INTs?

Of course Paul Coffey was a great defenseman, but what does that have to do with QBs?

[UtahRatt]

I swear to fucking Christ if I read another one of MOR's posts I'm going to strangle the retard door greeter at walmart just for being in the same class of stupid.

[thejuggernaut]

Don't be an idiot. Its why when you discuss the great quarterbacks, Marino is not on par with Elway and Montana. If you don't think quarterbacks are defined by championships, you've never had an intelligent conversation about them.

Its why the entire perception towards John Elway changed when he won.

It's a flawed perception, one that only foolish people buy into. QBs don't win championships, teams do. John Elway was already one of the greatest QBs of all-time even before his Broncos won those two Super Bowls in his last two seasons. In terms of wins and losses, a QB can only be as good as the team around him.

Ask yourself this question... Did the 49ers win four Super Bowls in the 80's becausethey had Joe Montana, or did Montana win four Super Bowls because he played for the 49ers? Granted, he was an important part of that team. But at the same time, that team was so good they probably would have had similar results with any of the top 10 to 15 QBs in the league during that era.

Montana was selected by the 49ers in the 3rd round of the 1979 draft. He was the 82nd overall pick. What if the Rams had selected him with the 81st pick? Do you think the Rams would have won four Super Bowls in the 80's? Hell no!!! And that is why I think it's idiotic to define QBs by championships. I know that your typical rube thinks that way, but I think more in depth than your average rube. I look at the individual performance and take into consideration that some QBs are given a better set of circumstances to work with than others.

Was Franco Harris (4 Super Bowl rings) a better RB than Barry Sanders (0 Super Bowl rings)? Absolutely not, and by the same token Joe Montana was not a better QB than Dan Marino. A QB, like a RB, is merely one man on the roster. He can be an important piece of the puzzle, but he can't win a championshipall by himself.

Weird how Denver fell to 6-10 the season after Elway retired after back to back titles. For a team that being mentioned as a 3-peat possibility before his retirement, that's a hell for a drop for such an insignificant player. After all, the team was 14-2 the year prior. Surely a team that strong can't be 8 games worse without such an insignificant player like Elway.

"And that is why I think it's idiotic to define QBs by championships. I know that your typical rube thinks that way, but I think more in depth than your average rube. I look at the individual performance and take into consideration that some QBs are given a better set of circumstances to work with than others."

Isn't it weird how the players themselves plus GMs disagree with you on that ? But hey, what do they know compared to a 40 year old manchild, right ?

[thejuggernaut]

Over a pick a game is NEVER good. EVER.

The QB's job is to control the game for his team and score more points than the other guy. Giving the other team a bonus possession is never good, under ANY circumstance.

I bet you think Paul Coffey was a great defenseman, don't you ?

Okay, so tell me...

Would you rather have, in a 16 game season, a QB who throws for 14 TDs and 10 INTs or a QB who throws for 33 TDs and 19 INTs?

Of course Paul Coffey was a great defenseman, but what does that have to do with QBs?

1. I'd rather the guy who turns it over less, as would any other NFL executive not named Al Davis.

2. Regarding the Paul Coffey question, I was curious to see if your nonsense was universal or just for Favre worship. You have more or less confirmed that your "knowledge" of sports comes from boxscores and/or video games. Hell, you are probably only a few posts away from talking about how well a player did for your fantasy team as an argument for why the player is good.

[thejuggernaut]

Did I say Brad Johnson is better than Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, and Dan Fouts combined ?

Here, I'll ask you another very easy question and let's see if you can answer this (you will avoid it, like always, but might as well ask) -

We'll skip Delhomme's meltdown last season and go all the way back to January, 1996. Steelers vs Cowboys in the SB.

Remember Neil O'Donnell's throws right into the arms of Larry Brown ? 1 TD and 3 picks that game, that ultimately cost them. 2 of those picks were horrible.

Can you honestly, in all seriousness, tell all of us here that the Steelers' loss to Dallas was defined by the team, and NOT the performance of one bonehead ?

The Steelers lost that game as a team. A game is made up of four 15 minute quarters. Those weren't the only two plays in the game. They were obviously key plays, but the Steelers had plenty of other opportunities within the game. It is possible that they still could have won the game in spite of those two plays, but they fell short in a valiant effort. The Cowboys were the better team on that day.

You're right.

The Cowboys outplayed them in every facet and the turnovers were irrelevant.

Team Stats
PIT DAL
First downs 25 15
Rush-yards-TDs 31-103-1 25-56-2
Comp-Att-Yd-TD-INT 28-49-239-1-3 15-23-209-1-0
Sacked-yards 4-32 2-11
Net pass yards 207 198
Total yards 310 254
Fumbles-lost 2-0 0-0
Turnovers 3 0
Penalties-yards 2-15 5-25

Def Interceptions Fumbles Kick Returns Punt Returns
Tm Int Yds Lng
Larry Brown DAL 2 77 44

Have you ever sat in awe of how fucking dumb you are, or are you so far gone you don't realize it ?

[Monsters_of_Rock]

Weird how Denver fell to 6-10 the season after Elway retired after back to back titles. For a team that being mentioned as a 3-peat possibility before his retirement, that's a hell for a drop for such an insignificant player. After all, the team was 14-2 the year prior. Surely a team that strong can't be 8 games worse without such an insignificant player like Elway.

"And that is why I think it's idiotic to define QBs by championships. I know that your typical rube thinks that way, but I think more in depth than your average rube. I look at the individual performance and take into consideration that some QBs are given a better set of circumstances to work with than others."

Isn't it weird how the players themselves plus GMs disagree with you on that ? But hey, what do they know compared to a 40 year old manchild, right ?

Have you ever heard of Terrell Davis? He got injured early in 1999 and was out for the rest of the season. That had just as much to do with their 6-10 record as did Elway's retirement.

Now, to call your bluff, show me where "the players themselves and GMs disagree with me". I'd like to see you post a link that validates that bogus claim.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

Over a pick a game is NEVER good. EVER.

The QB's job is to control the game for his team and score more points than the other guy. Giving the other team a bonus possession is never good, under ANY circumstance.

I bet you think Paul Coffey was a great defenseman, don't you ?

Okay, so tell me...

Would you rather have, in a 16 game season, a QB who throws for 14 TDs and 10 INTs or a QB who throws for 33 TDs and 19 INTs?

Of course Paul Coffey was a great defenseman, but what does that have to do with QBs?

1. I'd rather the guy who turns it over less, as would any other NFL executive not named Al Davis.

2. Regarding the Paul Coffey question, I was curious to see if your nonsense was universal or just for Favre worship. You have more or less confirmed that your "knowledge" of sports comes from boxscores and/or video games. Hell, you are probably only a few posts away from talking about how well a player did for your fantasy team as an argument for why the player is good.

1. You're wrong. Anybody who knows anything about football will take a QB with a +14 TD to INT ratio over a QB with a +4 TD to INT ratio. The fact that you chose the low risk/low reward guy shows your ignorance.

2. Now you're saying that you don't think Paul Coffey was a great defenseman? Wow, you're an even bigger idiot than I already suspected. I'm done wasting my time with you. You're beyond help.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

By that same token, Joe Piscarcik would not have won shit in San Fransisco. And if you think the 49's would have won all those super bowls without Joe Montana, you're crazy.

Its about the rings, not the stats, when it comes to judging QB's. Oh, and if you ever see Brett, thank him for that last play he executed as a Packer.

The 49ers would not have won all those Super Bowls with Joe Pisarcik, but Joe Montana would not have won all those Super Bowls without the 49ers either. That's why it's a flawed logic to judge an individual player based on the accomplishments of the team he plays for.

Here's an extreme example, but one that drives the point home. Terry Bradshaw and Archie Manning were among the best QBs in the 70's but Bradshaw won 4 Super Bowls in Pittsburgh while Manning never even made the playoffs in New Orleans. Put Manning in Pittsburgh and the Steelers still win 4 Super Bowls, put Bradshaw in New Orleans and they still don't make the playoffs for the entire decade.

In terms of wins and losses, a QB is only as good as the team he plays for. In terms of individual statistics, it is more based on his own talents and ability regardless if he's lucky enough to be on a great team or stuck on a bad team.

[thejuggernaut]

Weird how Denver fell to 6-10 the season after Elway retired after back to back titles. For a team that being mentioned as a 3-peat possibility before his retirement, that's a hell for a drop for such an insignificant player. After all, the team was 14-2 the year prior. Surely a team that strong can't be 8 games worse without such an insignificant player like Elway.

"And that is why I think it's idiotic to define QBs by championships. I know that your typical rube thinks that way, but I think more in depth than your average rube. I look at the individual performance and take into consideration that some QBs are given a better set of circumstances to work with than others."

Isn't it weird how the players themselves plus GMs disagree with you on that ? But hey, what do they know compared to a 40 year old manchild, right ?

Have you ever heard of Terrell Davis? He got injured early in 1999 and was out for the rest of the season. That had just as much to do with their 6-10 record as did Elway's retirement.

Now, to call your bluff, show me where "the players themselves and GMs disagree with me". I'd like to see you post a link that validates that bogus claim.

Ever heard of Olandis Gary ? The Denver running machine churned out back after back.

Their dropoff had much more to do with Elway than it did TD.

I don't need a link - all we need to do is stick with the Denver Broncos. They hired the 49ers ace OC (Shanahan) not so Elway could put up numbers, but so they could win a SB.

Now, you show US a link where any QB or GM is on the record as saying they are more concerned with aerial fireworks than they are with a SB trophy.

[thejuggernaut]

1. You're wrong. Anybody who knows anything about football will take a QB with a +14 TD to INT ratio over a QB with a +4 TD to INT ratio. The fact that you chose the low risk/low reward guy shows your ignorance.

2. Now you're saying that you don't think Paul Coffey was a great defenseman? Wow, you're an even bigger idiot than I already suspected. I'm done wasting my time with you. You're beyond help.

1. We're not talking about a +14 TD to INT ratio. We're talking about a QB who turns the ball more than once per game. Favre averages 1.13 turnovers per game. I am sure Jimmy Johnson, Bill Belichick, Bill Cowher, Bill Walsh, George Siefert think about gunslingers all day while they polish their rings. Football is about ball control. The fact that you don't know that shows YOUR ignorance. You come off like someone whose football knowledge comes from playing Madden.

2. Paul Coffey was NOT a great defensman. He was a 4th forward who played the backline. The man was a defensive liability. He started as a left winger. All the teams that acquired Paul Coffey, you know they acquired him for his offensive prowess and power play skills, not his defensive abilities, right ? Of course you didn't - you're a hopelessly ignorant manchild who thinks the game is played in box scores.

[thejuggernaut]

By that same token, Joe Piscarcik would not have won shit in San Fransisco. And if you think the 49's would have won all those super bowls without Joe Montana, you're crazy.

Its about the rings, not the stats, when it comes to judging QB's. Oh, and if you ever see Brett, thank him for that last play he executed as a Packer.

The 49ers would not have won all those Super Bowls with Joe Pisarcik, but Joe Montana would not have won all those Super Bowls without the 49ers either. That's why it's a flawed logic to judge an individual player based on the accomplishments of the team he plays for.

Seems to me we're not judging based strictly on team accomplishments.

The overriding theme for myself (and itjogs, so far as I can tell) is we are valuing performance AND accomplishments over mere performance.

Nobody is saying Doug Williams or Trent Dilfer was better than Marino. But we are saying Montana was.

Here's one - Favre is better than Marino because he had the numbers AND a title.

Get it now ?

[NeverSurrender]

Why do people hate this guy? It's not like he incited a riot at a strip club, ran a dogfighting ring, was an accomplice to murder in Atlanta the night before the Super Bowl, brought an unlicensed loaded weapon into a night club, or ran down a meter maid with his car. There are so many other players in the NFL that are worthy of being hated, so why waste your hate on a down to earth blue-collar type guy with no criminal record? I don't get it.

Just because people have done worse than him, doesn't mean he's not a douche. Other people here are worse than you, and you're still a douche.

That being said, I will be cheering for ol' Bert as long as he plays for my team. I like his confidence under center.

[DarkHalo]

Like I said before, there are some QBs that were in Favre's caliber. Those QBs are Elway, Marino, Manning, and Young. Brady and Montana, however, are not in that caliber. They're in Troy Aikman's caliber, good QBs who were lucky enough to play for great teams. Elway, Marino, Manning, Young, and Favre are great QBs who played for good teams.

Monday, Oct. 17, 1994. Kansas City Chiefs vs. Denver Broncos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5kCmOx2 ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OlHRJV_5Sw

[TawnyVonJagger]

Weird how Denver fell to 6-10 the season after Elway retired after back to back titles. For a team that being mentioned as a 3-peat possibility before his retirement, that's a hell for a drop for such an insignificant player. After all, the team was 14-2 the year prior. Surely a team that strong can't be 8 games worse without such an insignificant player like Elway.

"And that is why I think it's idiotic to define QBs by championships. I know that your typical rube thinks that way, but I think more in depth than your average rube. I look at the individual performance and take into consideration that some QBs are given a better set of circumstances to work with than others."

Isn't it weird how the players themselves plus GMs disagree with you on that ? But hey, what do they know compared to a 40 year old manchild, right ?

Have you ever heard of Terrell Davis? He got injured early in 1999 and was out for the rest of the season. That had just as much to do with their 6-10 record as did Elway's retirement.

Now, to call your bluff, show me where "the players themselves and GMs disagree with me". I'd like to see you post a link that validates that bogus claim.

Ever heard of Olandis Gary ? The Denver running machine churned out back after back.

Their dropoff had much more to do with Elway than it did TD.

I don't need a link - all we need to do is stick with the Denver Broncos. They hired the 49ers ace OC (Shanahan) not so Elway could put up numbers, but so they could win a SB.

Now, you show US a link where any QB or GM is on the record as saying they are more concerned with aerial fireworks than they are with a SB trophy.

We didn't just lose TD and Elway. We (ok, the Broncos), lost a SHIT TON of players to injury or free agency. The team resembled NOTHING to the team of the previous year. We (Denver) had 3rd stringers in there on a regular basis. Funny thing was, we (Denver) were in most of those games, and we (Denver) lost in the last minute. Those fuckers had a ton of heart.
Just thought I'd throw that in...continue with the bitchfest.

[TheMightyMaiden]

If you think those are valid reasons to hate an athlete, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you don't believe that he's already proven himself and no longer needs to... well, I won't even comment on that one.

I say he's down to earth because he'd rather wear jeans and a t-shirt when most pro athletes want to dress up like pimps.

I'm a big fan of Brett Favre. So much so that I'm going to cheer for the Vikings this year even though I have never liked them. I'm sorry if you don't like him.

I didn't say hate. I said dislike.

How exactly has he proven himself ? Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he signed with the Vikings on August 18 which was AFTER the pre season had already begun.

So, I'd like to see you explain to all of us how he had already proven himself to his new team. Especially after he waffled on them as well, telling them he didn't have it in him on July 28.

So, how had he proven himself to his new team ?

He's proven himself based on the track record of his entire career. The Vikings have Green Bay's old offensive coordinator, so it's not like he has to learn a new playbook. At his age, if he wants to skip training camp he should be entitled to that. The Vikings can have him on his terms or not at all, and they chose to take him on his terms. When you're that good at what you do, you earn the right to play by your own rules.

So... Cassell helped the New England Patriots have the greatest single season offense of all time just like Brady did right? Cassell threw more than half less touchdowns than Brady. Please man just stop posting.

[thejuggernaut]

Another fine example in what my buddy's old man said - "Fah, you got a lotta haht, and a great ahm. You're just not that smaht"


The Vikings open the season on Sunday at Cleveland, and Favre said earlier this week that he is ready to lead them.

"Chemistry is so important. I don't care how good of a player I may be [or] the next guy may be," he said. "In this game of football, it takes 11. Being on the same page, the unit that plays more as one than as opposed to a bunch of individuals is the one that succeeds."

Favre signed with the Vikings on Aug. 18 and has been working ever since to get up to speed with his teammates on the field and earn their trust in the locker room. He addressed the team on Monday, saying he felt the need to let them know personally that he ended his second retirement for the right reasons.

When he joined the Vikings just after they broke training camp, there was some speculation that his teammates would not look favorably upon someone coming in so late to the game. There was also talk that Favre was coming back just to get revenge on the Green Bay Packers for choosing to move forward with Aaron Rodgers, or that he was doing it for the $12 million check.

So Favre asked coach Brad Childress to speak to the team and delivered a 10-minute speech to try to allay those fears.

"You can't coach chemistry. You can't fake it. It has to happen," Favre said. "You have to believe in one another and that is ongoing. This is a good group of guys; it really is. As I told them, I am honored to be a part of this team."

[NeverSurrender]

Grey will soon have to eat his words about Adrian Peterson.

[UtahRatt]

Grey will soon have to eat his words about Adrian Peterson.

Still wont do much for your stock as a pole smoker.

[thejuggernaut]

Now, to call your bluff, show me where "the players themselves and GMs disagree with me". I'd like to see you post a link that validates that bogus claim.

Oops, look, another.

We've all made a big deal about the other two quarterbacks in his draft class -- Ben Roethlisberger and Eli Manning -- winning three Super Bowls between them while Rivers has won none. That's fair, and championships might be more important than touchdowns in measuring quarterbacks historically. But with each player maybe 40 percent into his career, it's not smart to rush to judgment on them.

Player Age Pct. Yds/Game Ratio Rating Reg. Season Playoffs
Rivers 27 62.4 223.4 +42 92.7 34-15 2-3
Roeth 27 62.7 213.0 +31 89.4 52-20 8-2
Eli 28 56.0 206.7 +24 76.3 43-29 4-3

Roethlisberger and Manning have the hardware. Rivers, who has the numbers, sounded driven to add a Lombardi when we spoke.

"You're never satisfied 'til you win a championship,'' he said. "I'm pleased with how my game has improved each season and how we've improved, but I won't feel I've done what I was brought here to do 'til we win a title.''

In 15 days starting Sunday, we should start to get a good idea whether the Chargers can handle the kind of adversity championship teams handle (a green Scott Mruczkowski likely fills in for the mauling Hardwick). I like the Chargers, narrowly, but I expect this game to go down to the two-minute warning like so many Charger games do.

Don't let that stop you from thinking players and GMs play only for stats. Moron.

[Monsters_of_Rock]

Now, to call your bluff, show me where "the players themselves and GMs disagree with me". I'd like to see you post a link that validates that bogus claim.

Oops, look, another.

We've all made a big deal about the other two quarterbacks in his draft class -- Ben Roethlisberger and Eli Manning -- winning three Super Bowls between them while Rivers has won none. That's fair, and championships might be more important than touchdowns in measuring quarterbacks historically. But with each player maybe 40 percent into his career, it's not smart to rush to judgment on them.

Player Age Pct. Yds/Game Ratio Rating Reg. Season Playoffs
Rivers 27 62.4 223.4 +42 92.7 34-15 2-3
Roeth 27 62.7 213.0 +31 89.4 52-20 8-2
Eli 28 56.0 206.7 +24 76.3 43-29 4-3

Roethlisberger and Manning have the hardware. Rivers, who has the numbers, sounded driven to add a Lombardi when we spoke.

"You're never satisfied 'til you win a championship,'' he said. "I'm pleased with how my game has improved each season and how we've improved, but I won't feel I've done what I was brought here to do 'til we win a title.''

In 15 days starting Sunday, we should start to get a good idea whether the Chargers can handle the kind of adversity championship teams handle (a green Scott Mruczkowski likely fills in for the mauling Hardwick). I like the Chargers, narrowly, but I expect this game to go down to the two-minute warning like so many Charger games do.

Don't let that stop you from thinking players and GMs play only for stats. Moron.

So based on your absurd logic, I guess that means Franco Harris (4 Super Bowl rings) was better than Walter Payton (1 Super Bowl ring).

[thejuggernaut]

Oops, look, another.

We've all made a big deal about the other two quarterbacks in his draft class -- Ben Roethlisberger and Eli Manning -- winning three Super Bowls between them while Rivers has won none. That's fair, and championships might be more important than touchdowns in measuring quarterbacks historically. But with each player maybe 40 percent into his career, it's not smart to rush to judgment on them.

Player Age Pct. Yds/Game Ratio Rating Reg. Season Playoffs
Rivers 27 62.4 223.4 +42 92.7 34-15 2-3
Roeth 27 62.7 213.0 +31 89.4 52-20 8-2
Eli 28 56.0 206.7 +24 76.3 43-29 4-3

Roethlisberger and Manning have the hardware. Rivers, who has the numbers, sounded driven to add a Lombardi when we spoke.

"You're never satisfied 'til you win a championship,'' he said. "I'm pleased with how my game has improved each season and how we've improved, but I won't feel I've done what I was brought here to do 'til we win a title.''

In 15 days starting Sunday, we should start to get a good idea whether the Chargers can handle the kind of adversity championship teams handle (a green Scott Mruczkowski likely fills in for the mauling Hardwick). I like the Chargers, narrowly, but I expect this game to go down to the two-minute warning like so many Charger games do.

Don't let that stop you from thinking players and GMs play only for stats. Moron.

So based on your absurd logic, I guess that means Franco Harris (4 Super Bowl rings) was better than Walter Payton (1 Super Bowl ring).

Based on YOUR absurd logic, the Bears got Payton not in an attempt to win a SB, but to help him pile up stats, and were quite content with only one SB because Payton was able to set a record ?

The hilarity is that you are so stupid you can't even sidestep your own stupidity.

If you could ask Chuck Noll, I am sure he'd tell you he would rather have Harris.

If you could ask Ditka (since he was coach when the Bears won the SB) I am sure he'd say Payton.

If you could ask Payton, I can guarantee you he'd say he'd love to have 3 more rings.

Now, we'll continue to skip the fact that we have already established the fact that titles are more important than stats, and get right to the part you seemed to ignore >

By that same token, Joe Piscarcik would not have won shit in San Fransisco. And if you think the 49's would have won all those super bowls without Joe Montana, you're crazy.

Its about the rings, not the stats, when it comes to judging QB's. Oh, and if you ever see Brett, thank him for that last play he executed as a Packer.

The 49ers would not have won all those Super Bowls with Joe Pisarcik, but Joe Montana would not have won all those Super Bowls without the 49ers either. That's why it's a flawed logic to judge an individual player based on the accomplishments of the team he plays for.

Seems to me we're not judging based strictly on team accomplishments.

The overriding theme for myself (and itjogs, so far as I can tell) is we are valuing performance AND accomplishments over mere performance.

Nobody is saying Doug Williams or Trent Dilfer was better than Marino. But we are saying Montana was.

Here's one - Favre is better than Marino because he had the numbers AND a title.

Get it now ?

[thejuggernaut]

Okay, so tell me...

Would you rather have, in a 16 game season, a QB who throws for 14 TDs and 10 INTs or a QB who throws for 33 TDs and 19 INTs?

It must bug the shit out of you that Minnesota is 1-0 with Favre going 14-21, 110, TD.

I just bet Childress is sitting at home saying "it sure was good to win the game, but damn it would have been nice if Favre had turned the ball over and given the Browns an extra chance"

LOL

You fucking dummy.

[thejuggernaut]

So based on your absurd logic, I guess that means Franco Harris (4 Super Bowl rings) was better than Walter Payton (1 Super Bowl ring).

Meanwhile, somewhere in Pennsylvania, the the Rooney family, communicating with Art thanks to a Ouija board, have often been heard uttering "you know, those 4 Super Bowls in the 70s sure were nice, but it would have been much better to have the all time leading rusher and/or passer. Our teams have done well in the 00's and that Big Ben fella seems like a nice enough kid, but it sure would be nice to have the older Manning boy or that Cutler kid."

In parts unknown, Ed Debartolo Jr was seen admiring his 5 SB trophies and was overheard saying "you know, those 5 titles sure were nice. That Montana kid was nice enough, and so was that mormon kid who replaced him. But damn, I'd trade it all in in a heartbeat if I could have had that Marino kid"

Rumor has it, Jimmy Johnson and Jerry Jones were heard uttering how they'd trade in their 3 SB titles if it meant they could have had Barry Sanders instead of Emmit Smith.

Moron.