Re: If you want to have that debate more broadly, then it's more interesting.
Dark Knight Send a noteboard - 13/09/2012 09:28:04 PM
Nothing has a point if you're not having fun? The point is to be passionate, to have your emotions moved.
In my experience, when it comes to namecalling there's not much point in the debate anymore. Sports are supposed to be fun and entertaining. I've been the person who gets too worked up over something like that. Not worth it.
I'm not namecalling. I think I called Joel a moron, but doesn't everybody do that?
It's Eli, not Peyton. I'm just collecting opinions. I'm curious to see how much people value team success over the individual talents of a player in a sport that is team based.
A Manning by any other name would still throw a football as gracefully? I should have known it was Eli from the age you quoted.
But the debate about individual talents versus team success is more interesting on a broader scale than the "my quarterback could beat up your quarterback" stuff. Even then, it's hard to tell a story completely with stats, though! Quality of teammates, ability to come through in high-pressure situations, quality of opponents, these are things that don't crunch down into either the stats or championship equations.
I'm trying to focus on the individual talent, not how much the teammates have to come through (football is the ultimate team sport, so judging by team success is not fair)
Take a hockey example. My favourite team is the Vancouver Canucks. They have a goaltender, Roberto Luongo. I don't know if you know hockey, but the goalie is almost as important to a hockey team as a quarterback is to a football team. Luongo has lights-out fantastic regular season stats. The Canucks have been the best regular season team in the NHL for two straight years with him in net, and a few years ago he broke a record for wins in a season. Excellent goaltender.
Sounds like high quality talent.
But four years ago, come playoff time, the Canucks lost in the second round and Luongo gave up a bunch of goals in the deciding game. Three years ago they lost again in the second round to the same team, and Luongo again gave up a bunch of goals in the deciding game. Two years ago they made it to the championship round and Luongo was brilliant in three of the seven games, posting shutouts or only allowing a goal, but in the other four games he allowed lots of goals, including the high-pressure seventh winner-takes-all game, so the Canucks lost again.
Even though he's a fantastic goaltender, the fans were not forgiving of his apparent lapses in the clutch. Some fans argued that it was the whole team's fault, some argued it was just his fault. Last year the team gave in to fan pressure and pulled Luongo in the playoffs, now he's asking for a trade, it's a whole thing, blah blah.
And hockey fans argue the hell out of it. They fill message boards with vitriol and namecalling. They go back and forth and back and forth and no one ever convinces anyone else. It's just shouting in an echo chamber. They beat the dead horse over and over. People get really worked up. Football fans aren't the only ones who do it.
I just think people should be having fun with it and trying to be half-ways civil. If your sports team or a player you like doesn't do well, that's no reflection on you. If someone else doesn't like your team or your player, so what? Discussion is cool, but all the yelling and the endless back-and-forth repeat of the same arguments over and over with the same people, Christ on a pogostick. I just really don't think you're going to get much out of this that you didn't already get in the last two posts. And if it just devolves to you and rt and Joel and Cannoli saying the same things again, will you make another post in a few days?
I dunno. Feels like some people devote way too much time and effort and anger into something not-that-important. You could at least restrict it to one argument-filled post per game played instead of three-per-game, no? :p
The goaltender comparison is not a good one. A goaltender can almost win a game by himself, given just one goal by his teammates. An apt comparison would be to a baseball pitcher, who also controls the game and just needs one run. A quarterback, however, needs a whole team to win. They throw the ball, that's all. They need receivers to catch it and to know the proper routes to run. They need an offensive line to block for them so they have time to throw it. They need the defense to hold the other team to fewer points. Really, the only way to judge QBs is by numbers, because team success has too many variables.
Clutchness is something everybody seems to bring up. How many game winning drives have they had? Well, was it Tony Romo's fault that the field goal attempt was blocked? Or his receiver dropped a touchdown? Or his offensive line failed to protect him? Too many variables, even during "clutch" situations.
Formerly Mat Bloody Cauthon on Wotmania, blessed be its name
Help me settle argument about NFL QBs
- 13/09/2012 06:20:48 PM
709 Views
Ben Roethlisberger is better than Philip Rivers as of now, regardless of stats.
- 13/09/2012 07:06:34 PM
467 Views
So if they traded QBs they would switch places in ranking?
- 13/09/2012 07:37:26 PM
564 Views
Good points, but these aren't Rivers and Roethlisberger lol *NM*
- 13/09/2012 08:08:57 PM
277 Views
argument is the same no matter who the QB is and I think I have made my opinions clear on the others *NM*
- 13/09/2012 08:33:16 PM
354 Views
Is this the third post about that same argument?
- 13/09/2012 08:12:03 PM
585 Views
I'm sorry, is this not a free country?
- 13/09/2012 08:26:21 PM
503 Views
Right, well.
- 13/09/2012 08:43:02 PM
632 Views
Re: Right, well.
- 13/09/2012 08:48:27 PM
638 Views
If you want to have that debate more broadly, then it's more interesting.
- 13/09/2012 09:17:50 PM
598 Views
Re: If you want to have that debate more broadly, then it's more interesting.
- 13/09/2012 09:28:04 PM
611 Views
Re: If you want to have that debate more broadly, then it's more interesting.
- 13/09/2012 09:53:21 PM
540 Views
Re: If you want to have that debate more broadly, then it's more interesting.
- 13/09/2012 10:14:12 PM
519 Views
Re: If you want to have that debate more broadly, then it's more interesting.
- 13/09/2012 10:40:18 PM
709 Views
Sorry, the FG attempt was not blocked: Romo bobbled the snap, then ran for 0 yards.
- 14/09/2012 01:18:08 PM
684 Views
Wrong game
- 14/09/2012 01:31:23 PM
527 Views
Ah; in that case staggering into ones own endzone and taking a knee is on the ball carrier, yes.
- 14/09/2012 09:43:51 PM
654 Views
...in the 1st qtr! They were up by 12 with 5 mins to go. So... *NM*
- 14/09/2012 10:09:27 PM
331 Views
Yeah, remember that, too, but those 5 Giants points made the difference.
- 14/09/2012 10:30:56 PM
586 Views
post something else and these three post won't seem as important
- 13/09/2012 08:36:29 PM
530 Views
For once I agree with you completely.
- 14/09/2012 01:11:20 PM
614 Views
Me too. You filty commie bastards.
- 14/09/2012 11:28:37 PM
762 Views
OK, I am starting to feel dirty now, but it was worth it to hear someone call rt a commie.
- 15/09/2012 12:13:12 AM
647 Views
- 15/09/2012 12:13:12 AM
647 Views
According to Wikipedia, you're talking about...
- 13/09/2012 09:05:26 PM
473 Views
Close
- 13/09/2012 09:21:18 PM
671 Views
Same argument - Eli >> Romo due to leadership, big games, and championships. *NM*
- 13/09/2012 10:31:12 PM
240 Views
So a game manager is a better QB than a skilled QB?
- 14/09/2012 12:08:43 AM
493 Views
No, but a 2-time Super Bowl MVP that led two game-winning drives is better.....
- 14/09/2012 01:06:18 AM
495 Views
No questions
- 14/09/2012 01:12:09 AM
505 Views
Typical jealous Cowboys fan.
- 14/09/2012 01:20:38 AM
538 Views
Typical Giants fan
- 14/09/2012 01:30:54 AM
467 Views
Romo hasn't been the same since Jessica Simpson dumped him.
- 14/09/2012 01:52:50 AM
576 Views
and Eli has been great since he threw a fit about who was drafting him *NM*
- 14/09/2012 11:31:23 AM
241 Views
If Romo was playing on the Giants last year they would have done much better than 9-7
- 14/09/2012 11:30:36 AM
557 Views
Well you got that answer right even if you missed the question *NM*
- 13/09/2012 09:36:53 PM
231 Views
*NM*
- 13/09/2012 09:36:53 PM
231 Views
*NM*
That is somewhat ironic, since Hasselbeck also has the Super Bowl appearance Romo lacks.
- 14/09/2012 01:03:06 PM
647 Views
And that is why Jim McMahon is a greater QB than Dan Moreno and Danny White
- 14/09/2012 01:39:27 PM
477 Views
The '05 Seahawks D is nothing like that of the '85 Bears, and neither is that of the '07/'11 Giants.
- 14/09/2012 09:45:34 PM
562 Views
Tony did just beat Eli.
- 13/09/2012 11:28:00 PM
549 Views
Romo does well in the first game of the season, Eli does well in the last game of the season.
- 13/09/2012 11:55:13 PM
559 Views
As a Lions fan, all I can say about the two is...
- 14/09/2012 09:00:15 PM
487 Views
Ah, yes, Detroit; they were down 27-3 to Dallas at the end of the third quarter, right?
- 14/09/2012 09:51:01 PM
617 Views
End of the half
- 14/09/2012 10:13:24 PM
552 Views
Box score says it was 20-3 at the half.
- 14/09/2012 10:22:40 PM
659 Views
Re: Box score says it was 20-3 at the half.
- 14/09/2012 11:04:56 PM
571 Views
Yeah, OK 27-3 with 10:30 left in the third; you got me to look it up after all.
- 15/09/2012 12:33:53 AM
591 Views
Based only on those numbers, I say #1 is better.
- 14/09/2012 02:21:17 PM
471 Views
Heh, I guess an Eagles fan is an unbiased, if not totally objective, arbiter.
- 14/09/2012 09:35:47 PM
506 Views
RUN!!! *NM*
QB #2.
- 17/09/2012 03:08:18 AM
580 Views
You honed in on and explained the difference perfectly.
- 17/09/2012 05:48:21 PM
576 Views