If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   Eli Manning humiliates DeAngelo Hall. This is not a repeat from Sunday   (espn.go.com) divider line 216
    More: Amusing, DeAngelo Hall, Eli Manning, DeAngelo Willingham, Observer-Reporter, Justin Tuck, WFAN, Redskins, Giants  
•       •       •

3860 clicks; posted to Sports » on 25 Oct 2012 at 11:21 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



216 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-25 09:38:47 AM
I wish those fake facebook conversations with all the quarterbacks were half as witty as this.
 
2012-10-25 09:55:40 AM
Eli can be sneaky-funny sometimes, in a very dry way. And he was surprisingly good hosting SNL. Apparently he's big on pranks too.
 
2012-10-25 09:55:41 AM

SlothB77: I wish those fake facebook conversations with all the quarterbacks were half as witty as this.


Well, there's no accounting for someone dumb enough to say "we gave him the game-winning TD."
 
2012-10-25 11:26:02 AM
That was an elite comeback.
 
2012-10-25 11:27:32 AM
"I feel we gave him that play. We just had one guy set his feet and one guy not do this. I could have thrown that ball and he would have scored. It wasn't something where he was a rocket scientist and he figured something out. We just played that as bad as possible."


This just in. DeAngelo Hall knows the language of the Yankees fan.
 
2012-10-25 11:29:41 AM
Eli Manning is Best Manning
 
2012-10-25 11:32:06 AM

Wyckyd Sceptre: Eli Manning is Best Manning


Wellllll alllllriiiihiiiht!
 
2012-10-25 11:36:13 AM
I don't see how the Clay comment was relateable. That playoff game was a comedy of errors by the entire team, and Hall is trying to say it came down to one play.
 
2012-10-25 11:36:26 AM

Wyckyd Sceptre: Eli Manning is Best Manning


Eli and Peytons daddy was probably better than they are but he was stuck with a very very bad saints team
 
2012-10-25 11:38:58 AM
If I had to pick what would win a race, a missile or Victor Cruz, I would always pick Cruz.
 
2012-10-25 11:39:09 AM
This is not the first time an opponent has said that it gift-wrapped a victory for the Giants. Green Bay's Clay Matthews told Yahoo! Sports earlier this summer the Packers beat themselves during their playoff loss to the Giants last season.

Minor rant: I hate, hate, HATE when people offer the excuse of "they didn't beat us, we beat ourselves." Sure, there are occasions when teams play well but lose due to, for example, avoidable penalties or rare mental errors. But about 95% of the time, this is just a rationalization and a lame way to boost one's own self-image, essentially saying "just because they beat us doesn't mean they're better than us." When you lose, you lose. Think twice before you offer this excuse because it makes you look stupid -- especially when the game in question is an all-around beatdown like the one the Giants laid on the Packers in last year's playoffs.

Today's recommended reading: How We Know What Isn't So, by Thomas Gilovich, which addresses the bias of dissecting and analyzing failures while taking successes at face value.
 
2012-10-25 11:42:49 AM
Deangelo Hall has got to be one of the dumber football players out there. Fortunately for us, he cant help but speak his mind constantly. How do you defend your loss by saying, we gave them a TD? I mean, your trying to take credit away from Manning, by saying, we sucked as a defensive unit. Great. Honestly, someone need to tape this guys mouth shut.
 
2012-10-25 11:45:01 AM
It takes balls to call it a gift when Eli has, what, 20+ 4th quarter comebacks in his career now? Including 2 Super Bowls?

Idiot.
 
2012-10-25 11:46:00 AM

Gunny Highway: That was an elite comeback.


Easy to look elite when your TD gets its own segment on Sports Center and your 4th quarter INT (your 2nd of the day) is buried.
 
2012-10-25 11:47:51 AM

Treygreen13: Gunny Highway: That was an elite comeback.

Easy to look elite when your TD gets its own segment on Sports Center and your 4th quarter INT (your 2nd of the day) is buried.


What current QBs are better than Eli? Not that it matters. Giants fans love the QB. They trust him when the game is on the line and he has been a major part of two SB championship teams.

Rings>Lables
 
2012-10-25 11:48:04 AM

Super Chronic: especially when the game in question is an all-around beatdown like the one the Giants laid on the Packers in last year's playoffs.


While I agree with you on the whole, I thought the comment was accurate and not in line with what Hall said. The Packers beat the Giants in New York then a few weeks later they can't seem to hold onto the ball or catch it. There were huge mental mistakes that game which made it into a beat down. It would have taken good effort to beat the then hot Giants, and I remember watching 3 Packer turnovers that were caused by sloppy play that I hadn't seen all year.
 
2012-10-25 11:49:52 AM

Treygreen13: Gunny Highway: That was an elite comeback.

Easy to look elite when your TD gets its own segment on Sports Center and your 4th quarter INT (your 2nd of the day) is buried.


Here comes the Cowboys Fans Butthurt Brigade.

Already making excuses for next week, are we?
 
2012-10-25 11:55:01 AM

Gunny Highway: Treygreen13: Gunny Highway: That was an elite comeback.

Easy to look elite when your TD gets its own segment on Sports Center and your 4th quarter INT (your 2nd of the day) is buried.

What current QBs are better than Eli? Not that it matters. Giants fans love the QB. They trust him when the game is on the line and he has been a major part of two SB championship teams.

Rings>Lables


I didn't say he wasn't good. I said it's easy to look good when the media highlights all your successes and completely ignores your failures.

Like throwing a ball directly to a defender on your 30 with 7 minutes left in a 1 score game.
 
2012-10-25 11:55:55 AM

mainstreet62: It takes balls to call it a gift when Eli has, what, 20+ 4th quarter comebacks in his career now? Including 2 Super Bowls?

Idiot.


27 comebacks so far. (had that penalty in the Philly game not happened, Tynes hits a chip shot and it's 28, but.....)
 
2012-10-25 11:57:12 AM

Treygreen13: Gunny Highway: That was an elite comeback.

Easy to look elite when your TD gets its own segment on Sports Center and your 4th quarter INT (your 2nd of the day) is buried.


Those interceptions only count if the Giants lose the game. Yeah they suck, and Eli still puts up a shiatty attempt or two per game, but he's also consistanly makes the big play when it counts.
 
2012-10-25 11:57:30 AM
STFU DHall you, should have played prevent D and held them to a FG and have RG3 win in OT.
Redskins would be 7-0 if they had any divsion 1 secondary
 
2012-10-25 11:57:35 AM
Eli Manning didn't embarass DeAngelo Hall, DeAngelo hall gave him that easy joke to make. It wasn't something where he was a rocket scientist and he figured something out. He just played that as bad as possible.
 
2012-10-25 12:01:43 PM

dallylamma: Treygreen13: Gunny Highway: That was an elite comeback.

Easy to look elite when your TD gets its own segment on Sports Center and your 4th quarter INT (your 2nd of the day) is buried.

Those interceptions only count if the Giants lose the game. Yeah they suck, and Eli still puts up a shiatty attempt or two per game, but he's also consistanly makes the big play when it counts.


except on third and short multiple times during the Philly loss.

/that might have been a play calling issue though.
 
2012-10-25 12:03:11 PM

mainstreet62: Treygreen13: Gunny Highway: That was an elite comeback.

Easy to look elite when your TD gets its own segment on Sports Center and your 4th quarter INT (your 2nd of the day) is buried.

Here comes the Cowboys Fans Butthurt Brigade.

Already making excuses for next week, are we?


The Cowboys are most definitely going to lose this week. With Sean Lee out they're going to have a nightmare of a matchup problem.

My problem here is with the media. Not with Eli.

Eli's favorable coverage this week is because once the media gets a story going about a characteristic of a player, they focus so intently on it that they refuse to cover the other elements of the games.

The same goes for any QB known for "clutch" play. Like Tim Tebow, or Josh Freeman. They could go 4/35 with 4 INTs and the highlight of them throwing their one good pass on their way to a 10-9 victory is all we see... and is used to further push the idea that this person is "clutch".

Whereas if a QB not touted as "clutch", he doesn't get the same benefit. They can go 25/28 for 300 and 3 TDs and the headline is "Team wins."
 
2012-10-25 12:05:21 PM

Treygreen13: The same goes for any QB known for "clutch" play. Like Tim Tebow, or Josh Freeman. They could go 4/35 with 4 INTs and the highlight of them throwing their one good pass on their way to a 10-9 victory is all we see... and is used to further push the idea that this person is "clutch".


The obvious solution is to create a closer position in football for these "clutch" players.
 
2012-10-25 12:05:42 PM

hbk72777: mainstreet62: It takes balls to call it a gift when Eli has, what, 20+ 4th quarter comebacks in his career now? Including 2 Super Bowls?

Idiot.

27 comebacks so far. (had that penalty in the Philly game not happened, Tynes hits a chip shot and it's 28, but.....)


I'm also sick of the number of comebacks stat. While "comebacks" are good, it means you were losing. Sometimes you're leading a comeback because the other team is scoring at will, and other times you're losing because you've been sucking for the previous 51 minutes.
 
2012-10-25 12:08:01 PM

Treygreen13: Gunny Highway: Treygreen13: Gunny Highway: That was an elite comeback.

Easy to look elite when your TD gets its own segment on Sports Center and your 4th quarter INT (your 2nd of the day) is buried.

What current QBs are better than Eli? Not that it matters. Giants fans love the QB. They trust him when the game is on the line and he has been a major part of two SB championship teams.

Rings>Lables

I didn't say he wasn't good. I said it's easy to look good when the media highlights all your successes and completely ignores your failures.

Like throwing a ball directly to a defender on your 30 with 7 minutes left in a 1 score game.


Is that the one where the receiver came out after the game and said he ran the wrong route? He may be covering his QB of course.

Also, stop whining about ESPN because it is stupid.
 
2012-10-25 12:09:51 PM

Gunny Highway: Is that the one where the receiver came out after the game and said he ran the wrong route? He may be covering his QB of course.


No, it looked like a quick throw due to the CB giving the WR 10 yards but the OLB was just sitting in zone and Eli didn't even look.
 
2012-10-25 12:10:58 PM
As a lifetime Falcon fan, I was so glad when Atlanta got rid of this clown. MEangelo Hall might be a stellar defensive player, but he is a clubhouse cancer who provides no shortage of idiotic, and douche-tastic comments. Fark this guy. Fark him right in his ear.
 
2012-10-25 12:11:44 PM

thecpt: Gunny Highway: Is that the one where the receiver came out after the game and said he ran the wrong route? He may be covering his QB of course.

No, it looked like a quick throw due to the CB giving the WR 10 yards but the OLB was just sitting in zone and Eli didn't even look.


Well, mistakes are made.

STOP WATCHING ESPN
 
2012-10-25 12:12:09 PM

Gunny Highway: Is that the one where the receiver came out after the game and said he ran the wrong route? He may be covering his QB of course.


Did he? Looks like the underneath defender jumped the route.

Gunny Highway: Also, stop whining about ESPN because it is stupid.


If nobody could whine about ESPN knob-slobbering coverage this tab would be cricket recaps and soccer highlights.
 
2012-10-25 12:12:26 PM

Treygreen13: Gunny Highway: Treygreen13: Gunny Highway: That was an elite comeback.

Easy to look elite when your TD gets its own segment on Sports Center and your 4th quarter INT (your 2nd of the day) is buried.

What current QBs are better than Eli? Not that it matters. Giants fans love the QB. They trust him when the game is on the line and he has been a major part of two SB championship teams.

Rings>Lables

I didn't say he wasn't good. I said it's easy to look good when the media highlights all your successes and completely ignores your failures.

Like throwing a ball directly to a defender on your 30 with 7 minutes left in a 1 score game.


Winning 2 SuperBowls gets the QB a lot of love from the media... only a rocket scientist can figure that one out right?

Look, if Romo would win one SuperBowl the media will turn around and praise Romo like they did Favre even if Favre is at the top (or near the top - I forget) in INTs thrown. As much as I love the Cowboys I really don't like the majority of the fans. Maybe because I'm on out of the area fan so I don't listen to the local sports media that is always negative when championships are delivered but based on the Cowboys fans I see posting on Fark there is a whole lot of people playing the victim.

I remember Tony Romo's game a few years ago against Buffalo where he threw 5 INTs but still won the game and I don't think that he got as much shiat as he got for the 5 INTs he throw against the Bears a few games ago.

Here's a newsflash: in sports, winning is all that matters and winning championships can hide a lot of faults from local and national media. Stop playing the victim and accept that Eli has had a more successful career so far than Romo. I still believe that Romo has more talent than Eli, he just can't be consistent enough to prove it and it hurts me as a Cowboys fan.

Now go ahead and label me a bad Cowboys fan because I don't have 100% faith in Romo and ingore the fact that he hasn't done much to earn it. And the problem doesn't start and end with Romo... it starts with Jerry Jones and continues with Garrett and the rest of the coaches but it's on the players as well especially the leader of the team Romo.
 
2012-10-25 12:12:59 PM

Treygreen13: hbk72777: mainstreet62: It takes balls to call it a gift when Eli has, what, 20+ 4th quarter comebacks in his career now? Including 2 Super Bowls?

Idiot.

27 comebacks so far. (had that penalty in the Philly game not happened, Tynes hits a chip shot and it's 28, but.....)

I'm also sick of the number of comebacks stat. While "comebacks" are good, it means you were losing. Sometimes you're leading a comeback because the other team is scoring at will, and other times you're losing because you've been sucking for the previous 51 minutes.


And sometimes, time is running out so you concentrate on winning.

Surprisingly, defenses playing #10 don't get the memo. Is it coincidence?
 
2012-10-25 12:13:14 PM

thecpt: Super Chronic: especially when the game in question is an all-around beatdown like the one the Giants laid on the Packers in last year's playoffs.

While I agree with you on the whole, I thought the comment was accurate and not in line with what Hall said. The Packers beat the Giants in New York then a few weeks later they can't seem to hold onto the ball or catch it. There were huge mental mistakes that game which made it into a beat down. It would have taken good effort to beat the then hot Giants, and I remember watching 3 Packer turnovers that were caused by sloppy play that I hadn't seen all year.


Even fumbles are a two-way street. I remember the Rodgers fumble, and it was a strip by a Giants defender. The one that the Giants returned close to the end zone was also caused by a hard hit after a long carry, IIRC. Same goes for dropped passes: very often, they're the result of "hearing footsteps," and you have to give credit to a physical defense.
 
2012-10-25 12:13:31 PM

Gunny Highway: STOP WATCHING ESPN


but I like not top 10.
 
2012-10-25 12:14:43 PM

Gunny Highway: thecpt: Gunny Highway: Is that the one where the receiver came out after the game and said he ran the wrong route? He may be covering his QB of course.

No, it looked like a quick throw due to the CB giving the WR 10 yards but the OLB was just sitting in zone and Eli didn't even look.

Well, mistakes are made.

STOP WATCHING ESPN


It's not just ESPN. The post-game show was a 15 minute love letter to Eli on a day where he threw more INTs than TDs and didn't get into the end zone for 58 minutes.
 
2012-10-25 12:16:19 PM

ddam: Here's a newsflash: in sports, winning is all that matters and winning championships can hide a lot of faults from local and national media. Stop playing the victim and accept that Eli has had a more successful career so far than Romo. I still believe that Romo has more talent than Eli, he just can't be consistent enough to prove it and it hurts me as a Cowboys fan.


This has nothing to do with Tony Romo. This is about Eli Manning. I'm not going to have another thread derailed into a discussion about Tony Romo.
 
2012-10-25 12:17:43 PM
I admit to enjoying poking a little fun at Romo here and there too, but how in the f*ck does he come up in a thread about Eli Manning responding to a dumb remark made by someone on the Redskins?
 
2012-10-25 12:18:28 PM

FreakinB: Eli can be sneaky-funny sometimes, in a very dry way. And he was surprisingly good hosting SNL. Apparently he's big on pranks too.


From one of those articles (edited for length):

Eli, sitting in the middle of the table, talked about how he hazed poor André Woodson, the rookie quarterback from Kentucky...

One day during minicamp, Eli noticed Woodson arrive at the weight room a few minutes late. Sensing a chance to mess with Woodson, Eli lit into him: "Why are you late? This isn't college anymore! You can't be late!"...

So Eli told a towel boy to clean out Woodson's locker, replacing his clothes with a note. Woodson, upon returning from lifting weights, froze. The note read: "Come see me in my office. -T.C." Woodson, thinking it came from Coughlin, looked sick. Finally, the room exploded in laughter. He'd been Eli-ed.


That's incredible.
 
2012-10-25 12:18:52 PM

Treygreen13: It's not just ESPN. The post-game show was a 15 minute love letter to Eli on a day where he threw more INTs than TDs and didn't get into the end zone for 58 minutes.


And?

How did they threat the other QBs on the same shows? Were they fair or was the coverage unfair?
 
2012-10-25 12:19:00 PM

mainstreet62: And sometimes, time is running out so you concentrate on winning.

Surprisingly, defenses playing #10 don't get the memo. Is it coincidence?


Well ideally your QB would be "concentrated on winning" for all 60 minutes of the game.
 
2012-10-25 12:22:33 PM

Treygreen13: ddam: Here's a newsflash: in sports, winning is all that matters and winning championships can hide a lot of faults from local and national media. Stop playing the victim and accept that Eli has had a more successful career so far than Romo. I still believe that Romo has more talent than Eli, he just can't be consistent enough to prove it and it hurts me as a Cowboys fan.

This has nothing to do with Tony Romo. This is about Eli Manning. I'm not going to have another thread derailed into a discussion about Tony Romo.


Let's talk about Eli than. Winning hides a lot of mistakes. He's a winning QB that has brought SuperBowls to his team. You play a professional sport to win the championship, not for stats and I'm afraid that in this Fantasy sports time that is lost on people. 

A win is a win is a win. I'll take a win from Eli (or any QB) no matter what his stats are at the end of the game even if my heart will have to go through 5 INTs thrown.
 
2012-10-25 12:22:45 PM

Gunny Highway: Treygreen13: It's not just ESPN. The post-game show was a 15 minute love letter to Eli on a day where he threw more INTs than TDs and didn't get into the end zone for 58 minutes.

And?

How did they threat the other QBs on the same shows? Were they fair or was the coverage unfair?


How did they treat the other QBs on the post-game show of the Giants/Redskins game? Well I guess that's RG3. I don't remember.
 
2012-10-25 12:23:36 PM
Rule #232: Never get in a sh*t-talking contest against a Manning.

/Best Manning
 
2012-10-25 12:23:48 PM

Treygreen13: How did they treat the other QBs on the post-game show of the Giants/Redskins game? Well I guess that's RG3. I don't remember.


They only cover one game in the post game recaps?
 
2012-10-25 12:26:15 PM

mainstreet62: Treygreen13: Gunny Highway: That was an elite comeback.

Easy to look elite when your TD gets its own segment on Sports Center and your 4th quarter INT (your 2nd of the day) is buried.

Here comes the Cowboys Fans Butthurt Brigade.

Already making excuses for next week, are we?


Treygreen? He dislikes Eli only because he wishes Romo were that good.
 
2012-10-25 12:26:20 PM

Killer Cars: I admit to enjoying poking a little fun at Romo here and there too, but how in the f*ck does he come up in a thread about Eli Manning responding to a dumb remark made by someone on the Redskins?


In response to a well known Cowgirls troll asserting Eli is nothing special.

Its like the old joke, "Let's get off moms, since I just got off yours." Only with QBs.
 
2012-10-25 12:27:08 PM

mainstreet62: It takes balls to call it a gift when Eli has, what, 20+ 4th quarter comebacks in his career now? Including 2 Super Bowls?

Idiot.


Well, DeAngelo has never been appreciated for his intelligence on a football field.
 
2012-10-25 12:27:58 PM
[awjeeznotthisshiatagain.jpg]

Look, Eli had a bad game (for him) on Sunday. He threw a couple of dumb picks, he missed an open Victor Cruz on two passes that should have been easy touchdowns (one from inside the 5, one bomb) on drives where the Giants didn't end up scoring touchdowns, and on several other plays he just looked off. But at this point I trust him more or less completely, and whether or not he hit the TD pass to Cruz that wasn't going to change.

My main takeaway from that game is that Robert Griffin is TERRIFYING and I hate that the Giants will have to face him twice a year for the foreseeable future.
 
2012-10-25 12:28:15 PM

Treygreen13: mainstreet62: And sometimes, time is running out so you concentrate on winning.

Surprisingly, defenses playing #10 don't get the memo. Is it coincidence?

Well ideally your QB would be "concentrated on winning" for all 60 minutes of the game.


Ideally WINNING after 60 minutes is all that matters.
 
2012-10-25 12:29:04 PM

Treygreen13: mainstreet62: Treygreen13: Gunny Highway: That was an elite comeback.

Easy to look elite when your TD gets its own segment on Sports Center and your 4th quarter INT (your 2nd of the day) is buried.

Here comes the Cowboys Fans Butthurt Brigade.

Already making excuses for next week, are we?

The Cowboys are most definitely going to lose this week. With Sean Lee out they're going to have a nightmare of a matchup problem.

My problem here is with the media. Not with Eli.

Eli's favorable coverage this week is because once the media gets a story going about a characteristic of a player, they focus so intently on it that they refuse to cover the other elements of the games.

The same goes for any QB known for "clutch" play. Like Tim Tebow, or Josh Freeman. They could go 4/35 with 4 INTs and the highlight of them throwing their one good pass on their way to a 10-9 victory is all we see... and is used to further push the idea that this person is "clutch".

Whereas if a QB not touted as "clutch", he doesn't get the same benefit. They can go 25/28 for 300 and 3 TDs and the headline is "Team wins."


Let's just get it out of the way:

i.qkme.me

/done here
 
2012-10-25 12:29:20 PM

Super Chronic: Even fumbles are a two-way street. I remember the Rodgers fumble, and it was a strip by a Giants defender. The one that the Giants returned close to the end zone was also caused by a hard hit after a long carry, IIRC. Same goes for dropped passes: very often, they're the result of "hearing footsteps," and you have to give credit to a physical defense.


The hail mary (they got better at defending it this year, although the scoreboard doesn't reflect it), and other ones that stick in my mind are the Jermichael drop and Ryan Grant (i think in the third quarter) just dropping the ball for a fumble.
 
2012-10-25 12:30:10 PM

thecpt: Gunny Highway: STOP WATCHING ESPN

but I like not top 10.


Let me just take time to say THANK GOD FOR THE NFL NETWORK~!
 
2012-10-25 12:30:25 PM

FreakinB: [awjeeznotthisshiatagain.jpg]

Look, Eli had a bad game (for him) on Sunday. He threw a couple of dumb picks, he missed an open Victor Cruz on two passes that should have been easy touchdowns (one from inside the 5, one bomb) on drives where the Giants didn't end up scoring touchdowns, and on several other plays he just looked off. But at this point I trust him more or less completely, and whether or not he hit the TD pass to Cruz that wasn't going to change.

My main takeaway from that game is that Robert Griffin is TERRIFYING and I hate that the Giants will have to face him twice a year for the foreseeable future.


So does the rest of the NFC East, and we beat them.

Have fun, Philly and Dallas!
 
2012-10-25 12:31:56 PM

Gunny Highway: What current QBs are better than Eli? Not that it matters. Giants fans love the QB. They trust him when the game is on the line and he has been a major part of two SB championship teams.


Just let him be, he's totally unhinged about Eli and shows up in every thread to biatch about something. I would be too if my team only had one playoff win since 1996.

By the way, have the Giants ever actually beaten anyone? Because it seems like every week there's a jackass out there saying they beat themselves and the Giants got lucky, or some variation. Oh well, I'll take the wins however they come, and the Giants thrive when people are casting doubts on how good they are.
 
2012-10-25 12:34:07 PM

Super Chronic: ***snip***
Today's recommended reading: How We Know What Isn't So, by Thomas Gilovich, which addresses the bias of dissecting and analyzing failures while taking successes at face value.


While I understand what you are saying, I am not sure that it applies to that particular game. Here is why:

Reg Season - 0.6 turnovers given per game
Postseason - 2 fumbles lost, 1 INT

Reg Season - 307 yds passing, TD% - 9.2%
Postseason - 241 yds passing, TD% - 4.3%

Reg Season - 2.4 turnovers forced per game
Postseason - 1

I am not trying to "prove" that the Packers "should" have won. I am just saying that their rates of turning over the ball, scoring TDs, and forcing turnovers were well off their season rates in that game. Now, could the skill of the Giants be the explanation for the entire variance, sure, but is it just as likely that the Packers had a seriously off game where very little seemed to go right for them, less likely, but not completely out of the realm of possibility.
 
2012-10-25 12:34:13 PM

ddam: Let's talk about Eli than. Winning hides a lot of mistakes. He's a winning QB that has brought SuperBowls to his team. You play a professional sport to win the championship, not for stats and I'm afraid that in this Fantasy sports time that is lost on people.


How he has performed in previous seasons has no bearing on this discussion.

If, say, Sam Bradford throws 2 second half INTs, one on his own 30 and one in the red zone... at least one of them gets a mention.
 
2012-10-25 12:34:33 PM

thecpt: The hail mary (they got better at defending it this year, although the scoreboard doesn't reflect it), and other ones that stick in my mind are the Jermichael drop and Ryan Grant (i think in the third quarter) just dropping the ball for a fumble.


There were roughly seven fumbles in the game (one Giants, six Packers). One wasn't a fumble and got overturned (Cobb). One was a fumble but the refs seemed to want to keep the Packers in it (Driver). The Giants recovered every single one of the seven fumbles, including the ones that didn't end up counting. That's really lucky. Especially Kuhn fumbling for the first time in his career and Rodgers fumbling for the first time all season. Throw in the drops from everyone (though honestly I expect those, since they do it EVERY game) and the completely ignoring Hakeem Nicks in the end zone on a Hail Mary...yeah, the Packers besh*tted themselves in that one. Obviously the Giants won, but they were 1-1 against every non-Atlanta team they faced in the playoffs, so it's not like they were clearly the best team.But with playoffs, you don't have to be the best team all year. You have to be the team that wins the tournament.
 
2012-10-25 12:36:42 PM

Rwa2play: Let me just take time to say THANK GOD FOR THE NFL NETWORK~!


I don't get NFL network.... :...((
 
2012-10-25 12:38:40 PM

roc6783: Now, could the skill of the Giants be the explanation for the entire variance, sure, but is it just as likely that the Packers had a seriously off game where very little seemed to go right for them, less likely, but not completely out of the realm of possibility.


And given the fact that they'd already played New York in Green Bay earlier in the season, to a close game that yes, the Giants could've won...it would be silly to suggest that the Giants were the cause. They were two teams that were pretty damn close, talent- and coaching-wise...but the Packers had a sh*t day and the Giants played better.

Such are one-and-done playoffs. You can have several bad days during the regular season, but you don't get to have any bad days in the postseason. Even though the Packers, 49ers, and Patriots all earned more wins than the Giants did last year, and had 1-1 records against the Giants, people will only remember that the Giants were the champs, and to idiots, that means they were the best team.
 
2012-10-25 12:39:50 PM

Treygreen13: ddam: Let's talk about Eli than. Winning hides a lot of mistakes. He's a winning QB that has brought SuperBowls to his team. You play a professional sport to win the championship, not for stats and I'm afraid that in this Fantasy sports time that is lost on people.

How he has performed in previous seasons has no bearing on this discussion.

If, say, Sam Bradford throws 2 second half INTs, one on his own 30 and one in the red zone... at least one of them gets a mention.


In your example does Sam Bradford leads the Lions to a win or not? That is the most important thing and you seem to keep forgetting that.

Let's try another example. Which scenario would you rather see from your QB:

1. 15/26, 180 yrds, 2TDs, 2 INTs and winning the game

or

2. 26/30, 345 yrds, 5 TDs, 1 INT and losing the game

Because if you choose scenario #2 then you are a fan of the QB, not of the team.
 
2012-10-25 12:39:59 PM

SlothB77: I wish those fake facebook conversations with all the quarterbacks were half as witty as this.


Yeah, the quotes in this article are incredibly good. Sadly, this the best writing I've seen on espn.com in a while and it's all in between double quotes.
 
2012-10-25 12:41:15 PM

Rwa2play: mainstreet62: Treygreen13: Gunny Highway: That was an elite comeback.

Easy to look elite when your TD gets its own segment on Sports Center and your 4th quarter INT (your 2nd of the day) is buried.

Here comes the Cowboys Fans Butthurt Brigade.

Already making excuses for next week, are we?

Treygreen? He dislikes Eli only because he wishes Romo were that good.


If we MUST talk about Tony Romo, if you swapped Tony's performance yesterday with Eli's performance you'd get "Cowboys escape with win despite two late Romo turnovers".

But that's just the media narrative difference between those two players.

mainstreet62: In response to a well known Cowgirls troll asserting Eli is nothing special.


I didn't say Eli isn't good. Just that he gets favorable coverage.

FreakinB: Look, Eli had a bad game (for him) on Sunday. He threw a couple of dumb picks, he missed an open Victor Cruz on two passes that should have been easy touchdowns (one from inside the 5, one bomb) on drives where the Giants didn't end up scoring touchdowns, and on several other plays he just looked off. But at this point I trust him more or less completely, and whether or not he hit the TD pass to Cruz that wasn't going to change.


I certainly appreciate hearing somebody at least admit that it wasn't a good game for him.
 
2012-10-25 12:41:40 PM
I'm confused...
-First Eli states that the play they ran succeeded because they predicted the scheme
-Hall responds by (truthfully) pointing out that the scheme was entirely appropriate to defend the play, but the DBs responsible for Cruz (neither of whom was Hall) completely blew their coverage (which they did), thereby "giving the game away"
-Eli responds with "LOL Hall gave it to me!"

I like Eli, but...he comes off looking like a dumbass here. And I don't like Hall much, but he was speaking a fact, not trash talking.
 
2012-10-25 12:42:49 PM

IAmRight: roc6783: Now, could the skill of the Giants be the explanation for the entire variance, sure, but is it just as likely that the Packers had a seriously off game where very little seemed to go right for them, less likely, but not completely out of the realm of possibility.

And given the fact that they'd already played New York in Green Bay earlier in the season, to a close game that yes, the Giants could've won...it would be silly to suggest that the Giants were the cause. They were two teams that were pretty damn close, talent- and coaching-wise...but the Packers had a sh*t day and the Giants played better.

Such are one-and-done playoffs. You can have several bad days during the regular season, but you don't get to have any bad days in the postseason. Even though the Packers, 49ers, and Patriots all earned more wins than the Giants did last year, and had 1-1 records against the Giants, people will only remember that the Giants were the champs, and to idiots, that means they were the best team.


LOL, "to idiots, they were the best team."
 
2012-10-25 12:43:10 PM

ddam: In your example does Sam Bradford leads the Lions to a win or not? That is the most important thing and you seem to keep forgetting that.


No. Because Sam Bradford doesn't play for the Detroit Lions.

ddam:
Let's try another example. Which scenario would you rather see from your QB:

1. 15/26, 180 yrds, 2TDs, 2 INTs and winning the game

or

2. 26/30, 345 yrds, 5 TDs, 1 INT and losing the game

Because if you choose scenario #2 then you are a fan of the QB, not of the team.


If my QB has thrown 5 TDs and passed for 345, why the hell did I lose and on what planet is that his fault?
 
2012-10-25 12:43:22 PM

mikaloyd: "I feel we gave him that play. We just had one guy set his feet and one guy not do this. I could have thrown that ball and he would have scored. It wasn't something where he was a rocket scientist and he figured something out. We just played that as bad as possible."


This just in. DeAngelo Hall knows the language of the Yankees fan.


Nah. Watch the play. Even high school DBs don't make the mistake that they did. It was outlandishly bad.
 
2012-10-25 12:43:26 PM

IAmRight: roc6783: Now, could the skill of the Giants be the explanation for the entire variance, sure, but is it just as likely that the Packers had a seriously off game where very little seemed to go right for them, less likely, but not completely out of the realm of possibility.

And given the fact that they'd already played New York in Green Bay earlier in the season, to a close game that yes, the Giants could've won...it would be silly to suggest that the Giants were the cause. They were two teams that were pretty damn close, talent- and coaching-wise...but the Packers had a sh*t day and the Giants played better.

Such are one-and-done playoffs. You can have several bad days during the regular season, but you don't get to have any bad days in the postseason. Even though the Packers, 49ers, and Patriots all earned more wins than the Giants did last year, and had 1-1 records against the Giants, people will only remember that the Giants were the champs, and to idiots, that means they were the best team.


Even I don't think the Giants were the no-question "best team". Don't get me wrong, they're very much in the discussion since the non-injured version of that team was beastly (and I'd imagine they wouldn't have been 9-7 with better health in the regular season). But I think there are arguments for other teams from last year.

But do I care? No. My team won the farking Super Bowl.
 
2012-10-25 12:44:46 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I like Eli, but...he comes off looking like a dumbass here. And I don't like Hall much, but he was speaking a fact, not trash talking.


All Eli said was that Hall was right, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to throw a perfect pass to a wide open receiver while he's getting slammed to the turf by a defensive lineman.

It does, however, take a top-quality NFL quarterback and receiver to read the coverage and adjust accordingly to make the play with 1:30 left, trailing by 3. But hey, if Hall wants to put all the blame on the Redskins secondary, he can feel free to do that, since they are god-awful, largely due to how terrible he is. Go back and watch the game, see how many times the Giants absolutely roasted Hall all afternoon long - he's just one liability on a defense full of them.
 
2012-10-25 12:46:56 PM

IAmRight: roc6783: ***snip***


Now just admit that the Wilson Fail Mary was an INT, and your soul will be cleansed. :)
 
2012-10-25 12:48:39 PM

ddam: Treygreen13: ddam: ***snip***
Let's try another example. Which scenario would you rather see from your QB:

1. 15/26, 180 yrds, 2TDs, 2 INTs and winning the game

or

2. 26/30, 345 yrds, 5 TDs, 1 INT and losing the game

Because if you choose scenario #2 then you are a fan of the QB, not of the team.


I would want scenario #1, but I would not try to argue that the QB was anything better than average at best.
 
2012-10-25 12:48:48 PM

Treygreen13: FreakinB: Look, Eli had a bad game (for him) on Sunday. He threw a couple of dumb picks, he missed an open Victor Cruz on two passes that should have been easy touchdowns (one from inside the 5, one bomb) on drives where the Giants didn't end up scoring touchdowns, and on several other plays he just looked off. But at this point I trust him more or less completely, and whether or not he hit the TD pass to Cruz that wasn't going to change.

I certainly appreciate hearing somebody at least admit that it wasn't a good game for him


Thanks. But with that said, you need to drop it. You do the same thing in every Eli thread and to be honest, nobody cares. You could make the same "favorable treatment" argument for a lot of QBs, and quite a few of them don't have multiple rings.
 
2012-10-25 12:52:40 PM

Yanks_RSJ: All Eli said was that Hall was right, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to throw a perfect pass to a wide open receiver while he's getting slammed to the turf by a defensive lineman.


Hell, to give Eli credit, Cruz wasn't necessarily "open" when Manning released the ball, if I recall correctly.

Manning saw Madieu Williams level off his deep zone waaaaaaay too shallow downfield with Cruz running at basically full speed into him.
 
2012-10-25 12:52:54 PM

FreakinB: Treygreen13: FreakinB: Look, Eli had a bad game (for him) on Sunday. He threw a couple of dumb picks, he missed an open Victor Cruz on two passes that should have been easy touchdowns (one from inside the 5, one bomb) on drives where the Giants didn't end up scoring touchdowns, and on several other plays he just looked off. But at this point I trust him more or less completely, and whether or not he hit the TD pass to Cruz that wasn't going to change.

I certainly appreciate hearing somebody at least admit that it wasn't a good game for him

Thanks. But with that said, you need to drop it. You do the same thing in every Eli thread and to be honest, nobody cares. You could make the same "favorable treatment" argument for a lot of QBs, and quite a few of them don't have multiple rings.


I've been very complimentary to Eli lately because he has (on average) played like a champion. I gave him a lot of credit for that 1st game where he hit his receivers in stride and they dropped the ball. Part of the reason I'm picking the Giants this week - if they catch even half those drops in the 1st game they win it.

This week I'm irritated because he played poorly and is getting a lot of good press in spite of it. I'm allowed to say both good and bad things about a player over the course of a season.
i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-25 12:57:39 PM

FreakinB: My main takeaway from that game is that Robert Griffin is TERRIFYING and I hate that the Giants will have to face him twice a year for the foreseeable future.


This; if the Redskins use their head, get good OLs and decent receivers, they could be a threat in the next 2 or 3 years.
 
2012-10-25 01:00:06 PM

Rwa2play: FreakinB: My main takeaway from that game is that Robert Griffin is TERRIFYING and I hate that the Giants will have to face him twice a year for the foreseeable future.

This; if the Redskins use their head, get good OLs and decent receivers, they could be a threat in the next 2 or 3 years.


He's going to absolutely wreck the Cowboys this season with Sean Lee out. Bruce Carter is fast enough to Spy and contain RG3 but he can't do that and play coverage.
 
2012-10-25 01:00:35 PM

Rwa2play: This; if the Redskins use their head, get good OLs, a secondary, and decent receivers, they could be a threat in the next 2 or 3 years.


FTFY
 
2012-10-25 01:02:16 PM

thecpt: Rwa2play: Let me just take time to say THANK GOD FOR THE NFL NETWORK~!

I don't get NFL network.... :...((


My deepest sympathies brah. When you get it, trust me, you'll be the same way I am.
 
2012-10-25 01:02:27 PM

FreakinB: Even I don't think the Giants were the no-question "best team". Don't get me wrong, they're very much in the discussion since the non-injured version of that team was beastly (and I'd imagine they wouldn't have been 9-7 with better health in the regular season). But I think there are arguments for other teams from last year.

But do I care? No. My team won the farking Super Bowl.


See, but you're rational. Most people think that "Super Bowl win = best team." No one does this in, say, college basketball conference tournaments; if a team like a sub-.500 Auburn squad wins the conference tourney, people don't say "that's the best team in the conference." People say "They won the SEC tournament. Good for them."

The problem I have is that people conflate "tournament champion" with "best team" and don't understand that yes, there is a difference between the two. All people should say about the Giants is that they were the tourney champions.

roc6783: Now just admit that the Wilson Fail Mary was an INT, and your soul will be cleansed. :)


I already said that I probably would've ruled it one, but there is a legitimate argument to be made that the call was correct - possession and control are subjective enough terms that it's far from a bad call. If the regular refs had made it, it wouldn't have been anything more than a footnote. I've seen announcers go as far as they can, even redefining the rules, to defend calls from "real" refs since they've been back. But those announcers went out of their way to paint it as the greatest travesty in history.

/Green Bay will still be fine
 
2012-10-25 01:02:58 PM

Yanks_RSJ: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I like Eli, but...he comes off looking like a dumbass here. And I don't like Hall much, but he was speaking a fact, not trash talking.

All Eli said was that Hall was right, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to throw a perfect pass to a wide open receiver while he's getting slammed to the turf by a defensive lineman.


No, Eli snarkily said "I appreciate [Hall] giving it to me". Hall wasn't one of the sorry bastards who got burned on the play (I don't know who they were...who the hell is on the Skins secondary other than Hall these days???).
 
2012-10-25 01:05:46 PM

ddam: Let's try another example. Which scenario would you rather see from your QB:

1. 15/26, 180 yrds, 2TDs, 2 INTs and winning the game

or

2. 26/30, 345 yrds, 5 TDs, 1 INT and losing the game

Because if you choose scenario #2 then you are a fan of the QB, not of the team.


I'd rather see No. 2 FROM MY QB, because in that case, the QB is putting them in a better position to win.

/of course, my team has a defense as such that if the offense posted 5 TDs, there's zero chance they'd lose
 
2012-10-25 01:06:25 PM

Treygreen13: ddam: In your example does Sam Bradford leads the Lions to a win or not? That is the most important thing and you seem to keep forgetting that.

No. Because Sam Bradford doesn't play for the Detroit Lions.

ddam: Let's try another example. Which scenario would you rather see from your QB:

1. 15/26, 180 yrds, 2TDs, 2 INTs and winning the game

or

2. 26/30, 345 yrds, 5 TDs, 1 INT and losing the game

Because if you choose scenario #2 then you are a fan of the QB, not of the team.

If my QB has thrown 5 TDs and passed for 345, why the hell did I lose and on what planet is that his fault?


I'm sorry, my memory isn't what it used to be... Rams then. Do the Rams win the game or not?

And it doesn't matter why the team lost. They lost and have a loss in the standings. You can look at the film and try to find the mistakes and fix them but ultimately stats don't take you to the playoffs and superbowl but wins do.

I've played sports (mainly rugby for 15 years) and I've played on great teams that have gone all the way to the championship and won it all and I've played on terrible teams and winning cures a lot of ills.

But I played at a sport that has very few stats and it's all about the win and the loss and that's the mentality I have. I don't care if the QB had a bad game and his stats aren't Fantasy league friendly. Did he lead his team to a win or not? And if he did, great. Work on the mistakes but build on that confidence that the win brings.
 
2012-10-25 01:09:02 PM

IAmRight: All people should say about the Giants is that they were the tourney champions.


Or NFL Champions, which is what most people would say. Agree that the "playoff winner = best team" crowd can be annoying, though.

With very few exceptions, it's pretty much impossible to prove who the "best team" was during any given season in a major professional sport. Particularly in the NFL where even the regular season consists of just 16 games (or fewer in the past).
 
2012-10-25 01:09:12 PM

IAmRight: I'd rather see No. 2 FROM MY QB, because in that case, the QB is putting them in a better position to win.

/of course, my team has a defense as such that if the offense posted 5 TDs, there's zero chance they'd lose


There is no such thing as "individual performances" to ddam.

To him, a QB going 30/33 for 5 TDs and 0 INTs in a loss just isn't "leadering" hard enough and just maybe if he'd scored that 6th TD they would have won, so it's his fault.
 
2012-10-25 01:09:34 PM

Harv72b: Rwa2play: This; if the Redskins use their head, get good OLs, a secondary, and decent receivers, they could be a threat in the next 2 or 3 years.

FTFY


LOL true. RGIII is where McNabb was in his rookie year IMHO; and if Snyder lets Allen and Shanahan work their magic, they'll be a handful in the future.
 
2012-10-25 01:09:44 PM

ddam: I don't care if the QB had a bad game and his stats aren't Fantasy league friendly. Did he lead his team to a win or not? And if he did, great.


So Mark Sanchez is an upper-tier QB for you.
 
2012-10-25 01:11:14 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: No, Eli snarkily said "I appreciate [Hall] giving it to me"


Because those were Hall's words to which Eli was responding.

"He made the play to beat us, but I don't feel like he made that play. I feel we gave him that play."

Your timeline is also unfair to Eli. He said they recognized the bracket coverage the Redskins were in because they used something similar before halftime, and that he and Cruz were both on the same page - which is why Cruz ran the route he did instead of something short. I'm sorry you can't comprehend the concept of a two-way, coverage-based route in which the QB and WR are on the same page.

Now, the Redskins absolutely DID blow the coverage, because they assumed from the Giants formation that Cruz (in the slot) would run one of his typical underneath routes. So the safety sat on that, and Cruz's read resulted in a relatively easy touchdown. I guess the Redskins poor read supersedes the Giants excellent one in your view. Oh well.
 
2012-10-25 01:12:02 PM

FreakinB: IAmRight: roc6783: Now, could the skill of the Giants be the explanation for the entire variance, sure, but is it just as likely that the Packers had a seriously off game where very little seemed to go right for them, less likely, but not completely out of the realm of possibility.

And given the fact that they'd already played New York in Green Bay earlier in the season, to a close game that yes, the Giants could've won...it would be silly to suggest that the Giants were the cause. They were two teams that were pretty damn close, talent- and coaching-wise...but the Packers had a sh*t day and the Giants played better.

Such are one-and-done playoffs. You can have several bad days during the regular season, but you don't get to have any bad days in the postseason. Even though the Packers, 49ers, and Patriots all earned more wins than the Giants did last year, and had 1-1 records against the Giants, people will only remember that the Giants were the champs, and to idiots, that means they were the best team.

Even I don't think the Giants were the no-question "best team". Don't get me wrong, they're very much in the discussion since the non-injured version of that team was beastly (and I'd imagine they wouldn't have been 9-7 with better health in the regular season). But I think there are arguments for other teams from last year.

But do I care? No. My team won the farking Super Bowl.


This x 1000.
 
2012-10-25 01:12:37 PM

Treygreen13: hbk72777: mainstreet62: It takes balls to call it a gift when Eli has, what, 20+ 4th quarter comebacks in his career now? Including 2 Super Bowls?

Idiot.

27 comebacks so far. (had that penalty in the Philly game not happened, Tynes hits a chip shot and it's 28, but.....)

I'm also sick of the number of comebacks stat. While "comebacks" are good, it means you were losing. Sometimes you're leading a comeback because the other team is scoring at will, and other times you're losing because you've been sucking for the previous 51 minutes.


Yeah guys, if you don't lead for the entire game you suck.
 
2012-10-25 01:13:13 PM

IAmRight: ddam: Let's try another example. Which scenario would you rather see from your QB:

1. 15/26, 180 yrds, 2TDs, 2 INTs and winning the game

or

2. 26/30, 345 yrds, 5 TDs, 1 INT and losing the game

Because if you choose scenario #2 then you are a fan of the QB, not of the team.

I'd rather see No. 2 FROM MY QB, because in that case, the QB is putting them in a better position to win.

/of course, my team has a defense as such that if the offense posted 5 TDs, there's zero chance they'd lose


Position to win doens't matter in the standings at the end of the day and people today forget that. You don't need to put up HOF stats to win games, you just have to win games and that is lost on a lot of fans.

I can't blame it all on Fantasy leagues as a lot of it started with the way HOF nods are given. Yes, there are great players that never win a championship because the rest of the team isn't up to par. But that's a discussion to be had at the end of the season or at the end of a career, not after every single game to justify why a certain player should not shoulder the blame for the team losing.

It's a team sport and if you don't get the win you didn't acheive the most important stat. Everything else is secondary. And when a team isn't doing good the leaders of the team shoulder the majority of the blame even if they might not be the most at fault. In football, with very few exceptions, the QB is one of the leaders of the team as well as the best paid position so they get most of the blame/praise.
 
2012-10-25 01:13:13 PM

ddam: But I played at a sport that has very few stats and it's all about the win and the loss and that's the mentality I have. I don't care if the QB had a bad game and his stats aren't Fantasy league friendly. Did he lead his team to a win or not? And if he did, great. Work on the mistakes but build on that confidence that the win brings.


There are 45 active players on a football team on any given week. You're pointing to one guy who (regardless if he had a record-setting day) is either credited with a win or a loss and that's the final determinant in his ability.

No. I'm not agreeing with you on this one.
 
2012-10-25 01:16:03 PM

Rwa2play: LOL true. RGIII is where McNabb was in his rookie year IMHO; and if Snyder lets Allen and Shanahan work their magic, they'll be a handful in the future.


When's their next 1st round pick again?
 
2012-10-25 01:16:17 PM

Treygreen13: To him, a QB going 30/33 for 5 TDs and 0 INTs in a loss just isn't "leadering" hard enough and just maybe if he'd scored that 6th TD they would have won, so it's his fault.


Yup, it's apparently the QB's job to also "lead" and instruct the defense to not give up a f*ckload of points in return.
 
2012-10-25 01:16:44 PM

Harv72b: With very few exceptions, it's pretty much impossible to prove who the "best team" was during any given season in a major professional sport. Particularly in the NFL where even the regular season consists of just 16 games (or fewer in the past).


That is true; it's somewhat more acceptable in the NFL because of the limitations of the regular season. And they are Super Bowl champions. It would be nice if there were something similar to the President's Trophy and regular season success were rewarded. I mean, I hate the Patriots and I'm glad they lost the SB in 2007 because their fans would've been insufferable if they did make it through the whole season undefeated...but I'm still going to consider them the best team of that season. They went 18-1 and split the series against the Giants with a tied-up point differential.

And I hate the Cowboys, but that year they finished ahead of the Giants and were 2-1 against the Giants, but because of the playoff system, one win matters more than two.

That's what happens when you expand playoffs - you get more excitement and more teams, but you get more randomized results with worse champions over the length of the season. We now have a WS where the 7th-best team in its own league after 162 games despite playing teams in the weakest division the most often is playing a team with the 4th-best record in its league. It's great for excitement, terrible for ending up with a champion that displayed consistent excellence.
 
2012-10-25 01:17:16 PM
RGIII isn't really McNabb though. He seems more like Vick with a brain and some touch on his passes. McNabb was a good runner but RGIII has true breakaway speed.
 
2012-10-25 01:17:38 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Yeah guys, if you don't lead for the entire game you suck.


It's a stat that fails to take into account why you're behind.
Take Josh Freeman, for example. Guy had some insane number of comeback wins in his first season as the starter. You know why? Because he sucked donkey cock for 3 and a half quarters. If anyone even remotely competent was leading the squad those weeks, they probably win comfortably. But when it comes time for Freeman to trot out for his next career loss where he completes 11 passes, we get "but look at all the comeback wins!"

Now, Eli is much, much better than Josh Freeman. But holy shiatballs is "comeback wins" a loaded stat.
 
2012-10-25 01:19:02 PM

ddam: It's a team sport and if you don't get the win you didn't acheive the most important stat. Everything else is secondary. And when a team isn't doing good the leaders of the team shoulder the majority of the blame even if they might not be the most at fault. In football, with very few exceptions, the QB is one of the leaders of the team as well as the best paid position so they get most of the blame/praise.


This is why Mark Sanchez and Tim Tebow are universally lauded. They win lots of games.
 
2012-10-25 01:20:20 PM

Killer Cars: Treygreen13: To him, a QB going 30/33 for 5 TDs and 0 INTs in a loss just isn't "leadering" hard enough and just maybe if he'd scored that 6th TD they would have won, so it's his fault.

Yup, it's apparently the QB's job to also "lead" and instruct the defense to not give up a f*ckload of points in return.


Also, he's supposed to drag his receivers by their shoulder pads to their spot on the line, describe to them (in detail) their responsibilities and draw them a route on their hand.
 
2012-10-25 01:20:32 PM

you have pee hands: RGIII isn't really McNabb though. He seems more like Vick with a brain and some touch on his passes. McNabb was a good runner but RGIII has true breakaway speed.


also he doesn't seem to be clubhouse cancer, like CAAAaam is turning out to be
 
2012-10-25 01:20:54 PM

Treygreen13: Now, Eli is much, much better than Josh Freeman. But holy shiatballs is "comeback wins" a loaded stat.


Aaron Rodgers has four fourth-quarter comebacks in his career (comebacks don't count if you do them like he and RGIII do - make the plays to win the game, then watch your defense suck fat bags of cocks as the opposing team wins it easily).

Guy must just not be clutch.
 
2012-10-25 01:20:57 PM

IAmRight: The problem I have is that people conflate "tournament champion" with "best team" and don't understand that yes, there is a difference between the two. All people should say about the Giants is that they were the tourney champions.


How is this any different than the packers in 2010, not the best team but the hottest team going into the playoffs.

There is no award for 'BEST TEAM' of a year, there is a Lombardi trophy for the Superbowl winners, for every 85 bears there is an 07 pats.

Fans equating a team accomplishing their goal with BEST TEAM is such a slight miscontruction of the truth, and saying "were the best" is so much easier to do while drunk and celebrating than it is to say "Our team accomplished its preseason goal of winning a super bowl!"

/not that I would know what the feels like
//falcons fan
 
2012-10-25 01:22:57 PM
I'm enjoying the downfall of Cam. The only thing that upsets me is that most of the others who are enjoying it are doing so for racist reasons, which makes me look bad. At least I hate him purely because he came from the SEC (well, and the whole thing that no one's ever going to get in trouble for paying him - yeah, I'm sure he and his dad turned down hundreds of thousands from Miss. St. to go to Auburn for free).
 
2012-10-25 01:26:04 PM

farbekrieg: How is this any different than the packers in 2010, not the best team but the hottest team going into the playoffs.


It's not.
 
2012-10-25 01:26:50 PM

you have pee hands: Rwa2play: LOL true. RGIII is where McNabb was in his rookie year IMHO; and if Snyder lets Allen and Shanahan work their magic, they'll be a handful in the future.

When's their next 1st round pick again?


If you think that a team gets to the next level by way of their 1st round pick, you've obviously never seen Bobby Beathard's history with the Redskins.
 
2012-10-25 01:28:19 PM

you have pee hands: RGIII isn't really McNabb though. He seems more like Vick with a brain and some touch on his passes. McNabb was a good runner but RGIII has true breakaway speed.


I was about to say that, but that would've been an insult to RGIII.
 
2012-10-25 01:29:57 PM

IAmRight: ddam: It's a team sport and if you don't get the win you didn't acheive the most important stat. Everything else is secondary. And when a team isn't doing good the leaders of the team shoulder the majority of the blame even if they might not be the most at fault. In football, with very few exceptions, the QB is one of the leaders of the team as well as the best paid position so they get most of the blame/praise.

This is why Mark Sanchez and Tim Tebow are universally lauded. They win lots of games.


Beat me to it. If wins are all that matter, Tebow must be upper-echelon and Alex Smith is probably the best QB in football. Actual performance is underrated, particularly when compared to the wins they get through their stunning leadership/being on the same team as Revis or Willis/Bowman.
 
2012-10-25 01:33:05 PM

Rwa2play: you have pee hands: Rwa2play: LOL true. RGIII is where McNabb was in his rookie year IMHO; and if Snyder lets Allen and Shanahan work their magic, they'll be a handful in the future.

When's their next 1st round pick again?

If you think that a team gets to the next level by way of their 1st round pick, you've obviously never seen Bobby Beathard's history with the Redskins.


Luckily, Bobby Beathard isn't the Redskins GM, and since Snyder became the owner they haven't exactly been known for mining talent out of the mid-late rounds.
 
2012-10-25 01:34:31 PM

Jubeebee: Beat me to it. If wins are all that matter, Tebow must be upper-echelon and Alex Smith is probably the best QB in football. Actual performance is underrated, particularly when compared to the wins they get through their stunning leadership/being on the same team as Revis or Willis/Bowman.


How has Joe Flacco not come into this conversation yet?
 
2012-10-25 01:37:12 PM

IAmRight: ddam: I don't care if the QB had a bad game and his stats aren't Fantasy league friendly. Did he lead his team to a win or not? And if he did, great.

So Mark Sanchez is an upper-tier QB for you.


No he's not. He's an average QB that might put quality numbers up if he's surrounded by talent but he won't win many games on his own. There are very few QBs in the league today that I see as upper-tier (Brees, Brady, both Mannings, Rodgers) and there are a couple of others that show signs that can be upper-tier but are plagued by inconsistencies.
 
2012-10-25 01:39:05 PM

ddam: IAmRight: ddam: ***snip***

It's a team sport and if you don't get the win you didn't acheive the most important stat. Everything else is secondary. And when a team isn't doing good the leaders of the team shoulder the majority of the blame even if they might not be the most at fault. In football, with very few exceptions, the QB is one of the leaders of the team as well as the best paid position so they get most of the blame/praise.


Y/A+ NY/A+ AY/A+ ANY/A+ Cmp%+ TD%+ Int%+ Sack%+ Rate+
111 109 113 112 108 113 108 100 113
102 95 99 95 96 95 97 79 97


Here are 2 QBs rate stats from Pro Football Reference. ddam, which one would you rather have as your QB for the season based on these stats alone? Since I am making the assumption that you aren't an idiot, of course you would say the top one, he is superior in every category (higher numbers are better). The top QB (Aaron Rodgers) went 6-10 in 2008, and the bottom QB (Ben Roethlisber) won the Super Bowl. It's almost as if wins have more to do with the team as a whole, than how well a QB performs.
 
2012-10-25 01:40:09 PM

ddam: He's an average QB that might put quality numbers up if he's surrounded by talent but he won't win many games on his own.


He is surrounded by absurd talent.
 
2012-10-25 01:40:54 PM

thecpt: ddam: He's an average QB that might put quality numbers up if he's surrounded by talent but he won't win many games on his own.

He is surrounded by absurd talent.


Sanchez?
 
2012-10-25 01:41:45 PM

Gunny Highway: thecpt: ddam: He's an average QB that might put quality numbers up if he's surrounded by talent but he won't win many games on his own.

He is surrounded by absurd talent.

Sanchez?


Flacco. Definitely not the utter ineptitude that is the Jets
 
2012-10-25 01:42:43 PM

roc6783: ddam: IAmRight: ddam: ***snip***


glad I took the time to make all that look pretty in the preview window, just to have it scrunch when I hit Add Comment.
 
2012-10-25 01:45:26 PM
Eli Manning always looks like he just missed the bus whenever a play breaks down.
manningface.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-10-25 01:55:45 PM
You can't have it both ways. Either the Packers of 2010 were the best team for winning the Super Bowl (after finishing 2nd in their division,) or the Packers were the best team of 2011 for going 15-2 (and being the only team to ever accomplish the rare 15-1-and-lose-your-first-home-playoff-game.)
 
2012-10-25 01:58:42 PM

roc6783: ddam: IAmRight: ddam: ***snip***

It's a team sport and if you don't get the win you didn't acheive the most important stat. Everything else is secondary. And when a team isn't doing good the leaders of the team shoulder the majority of the blame even if they might not be the most at fault. In football, with very few exceptions, the QB is one of the leaders of the team as well as the best paid position so they get most of the blame/praise.

Y/A+ NY/A+ AY/A+ ANY/A+ Cmp%+ TD%+ Int%+ Sack%+ Rate+
111 109 113 112 108 113 108 100 113
102 95 99 95 96 95 97 79 97


Here are 2 QBs rate stats from Pro Football Reference. ddam, which one would you rather have as your QB for the season based on these stats alone? Since I am making the assumption that you aren't an idiot, of course you would say the top one, he is superior in every category (higher numbers are better). The top QB (Aaron Rodgers) went 6-10 in 2008, and the bottom QB (Ben Roethlisber) won the Super Bowl. It's almost as if wins have more to do with the team as a whole, than how well a QB performs.


I can't read those stats due to the format but I'm just not a stat guy. I don't pay attention to them and I admit that. To me all that matters is that the team wins. Stats only come into the picture if I'm having a conversation about individual trophies or HOF and I typically don't get involved in those.

The QB has a lot of influence on the defence as well and consistent performance at the QB position fuels the defense (at least it did when I played football). And you can tell a team is in trouble when the defense doesn't have much respect for their own QB or they have no confidence in their QB.

But you are probably right as most of my experience comes from playing a sport that doesn't have offense and defense separate but all players play both ways and the leaders on the field lead the whole team. All in all I think that a lot of football fans are too concentrate on stats and ignore the timing of mistakes or the overall flow of the game. An INT or two during a game will be a footnote if the game is won while that INT will be the turning point if the team loses. I remember the years before Eli's first SuperBowl win when the media wasn't nice to him at all because of the INTs he was throwing but 2 rings buys you a lot of credibility from the media.

As far as Sanchez and Tebow go, they haven't won the SuperBowl so I don't get it where you say that I would view them as top-tier. They were top-tier college QBs (and probably HS level too) but not in NFL. Sanchez did have the Jets go deep in the playoffs but he (just like many in the NFL today) are not consistent enough to get to the elite status.
 
2012-10-25 02:09:29 PM

Harv72b: Jubeebee: Beat me to it. If wins are all that matter, Tebow must be upper-echelon and Alex Smith is probably the best QB in football. Actual performance is underrated, particularly when compared to the wins they get through their stunning leadership/being on the same team as Revis or Willis/Bowman.

How has Joe Flacco not come into this conversation yet?


Joe Flacco has his strengths. He throws a great looking deep ball and can glare at Ernie like nobody's business.

But if we're really going to rank QBs by JUST WINS BABY, I would argue that Cutler has to be considered among the best in the league. For example, Cutler is 12-4 in games started over the last two seasons. In 4 of those wins, Cutler lead his team to victory through his fiery personality and legendary leadership abilities despite posting a sub-70.0 passer rating.
 
2012-10-25 02:14:42 PM

poughdrew: You can't have it both ways. Either the Packers of 2010 were the best team for winning the Super Bowl (after finishing 2nd in their division,) or the Packers were the best team of 2011 for going 15-2 (and being the only team to ever accomplish the rare 15-1-and-lose-your-first-home-playoff-game.)


I didn't say the Packers were the best team of 2010. They were the Super Bowl champions that year. The next year, they had a better season and weren't the champions. Just like the Giants probably will be better than 9-7 this year and probably won't win the Super Bowl.
 
2012-10-25 02:17:55 PM

ddam: I remember the years before Eli's first SuperBowl win when the media wasn't nice to him at all because of the INTs he was throwing but 2 rings buys you a lot of credibility from the media.


They weren't nice to him at all because he was throwing more INTs than TDs and led the league in interceptions. And not garbage-time Interceptions, or 1st quarter INTs. He was regularly blowing it in spectacular fashion and just throwing up jump balls.
 
2012-10-25 02:19:35 PM

Jubeebee: In 4 of those wins, Cutler lead his team to victory through his fiery personality and legendary leadership abilities despite posting a sub-70.0 passer rating.


Would you tell that SOB to start actually throwing some goddamn TD passes? I got all excited that they were facing the Lions' clown defense and even moreso after that early TD...then nothing.

/needed about 30 points and had Cutler, Forte, and Jason Hanson
//got nowhere near anything
 
2012-10-25 02:19:50 PM

Super Chronic: This is not the first time an opponent has said that it gift-wrapped a victory for the Giants. Green Bay's Clay Matthews told Yahoo! Sports earlier this summer the Packers beat themselves during their playoff loss to the Giants last season.

Minor rant: I hate, hate, HATE when people offer the excuse of "they didn't beat us, we beat ourselves." Sure, there are occasions when teams play well but lose due to, for example, avoidable penalties or rare mental errors. But about 95% of the time, this is just a rationalization and a lame way to boost one's own self-image, essentially saying "just because they beat us doesn't mean they're better than us." When you lose, you lose. Think twice before you offer this excuse because it makes you look stupid -- especially when the game in question is an all-around beatdown like the one the Giants laid on the Packers in last year's playoffs.

Today's recommended reading: How We Know What Isn't So, by Thomas Gilovich, which addresses the bias of dissecting and analyzing failures while taking successes at face value.


It's true for dbs and offensive tackles though. In particular for offensive tackles if you're winning 90% of the time, you're giving up 3 sacks a game.
 
2012-10-25 02:20:41 PM
New thread assignment.

Name SB winners who were ALSO Best Team of that year.
 
2012-10-25 02:23:05 PM

Treygreen13: They weren't nice to him at all because he was throwing more INTs than TDs


That happened exactly once, his rookie year, when he took over the starting job after 9 games. Then again I expect you to be wrong, so it's hardly anything new.
 
2012-10-25 02:23:29 PM

robsul82: New thread assignment.

Name SB winners who were ALSO Best Team of that year.


09 Saints....oh i see what you're doing.

/thought the colts had an easy division
 
2012-10-25 02:32:34 PM

Treygreen13: ddam: I remember the years before Eli's first SuperBowl win when the media wasn't nice to him at all because of the INTs he was throwing but 2 rings buys you a lot of credibility from the media.

They weren't nice to him at all because he was throwing more INTs than TDs and led the league in interceptions. And not garbage-time Interceptions, or 1st quarter INTs. He was regularly blowing it in spectacular fashion and just throwing up jump balls.


So they were tough on Eli when he was throwing INTs which resulted in losses but now that he's won two rings and he throws two picks in a game his team wins he isn't getting attacked for it... and you see a problem with this. Why?

I remember when Romo was getting national love from every media type even if he was throwing picks because they reminded everyone of Favre. But after a while you got to put Ws in the standings or the media will turn on you very quickly especially if you're QB of a franchise like the Cowboys.

And I got no love for Giants and as a matter of fact I hope that Eli throws a few picks this weekend that result in a loss for his team.
 
2012-10-25 02:34:00 PM
Isn't deangelo hall the guy terrell owens spit on?
 
2012-10-25 02:35:26 PM

robsul82: New thread assignment.

Name SB winners who were ALSO Best Team of that year.


Of the 5 Super Bowls the Dallas Cowboys have won:

1971 - Tied for the best record (11-3)
1977 - Tied for the best record (12-2)
1992 - 2nd best record (13-3)
1993 - Tied for the best record (12-4)
1995 - 2nd best record (12-4)

Interestingly enough, the best record in 1995 was the Kansas City Chiefs, at 13-3 - who ended up losing their first playoff game to the 9-7 Indianapolis Colts.
 
2012-10-25 02:37:59 PM

IAmRight: Jubeebee: In 4 of those wins, Cutler lead his team to victory through his fiery personality and legendary leadership abilities despite posting a sub-70.0 passer rating.

Would you tell that SOB to start actually throwing some goddamn TD passes? I got all excited that they were facing the Lions' clown defense and even moreso after that early TD...then nothing.

/needed about 30 points and had Cutler, Forte, and Jason Hanson
//got nowhere near anything


That game was classic giving it away. Bears D was playing well, but the Lions should have scored at least enough to tie the game but didn't.
"I'm going to put the ball in my fingertips and dive into a pile of players who pride themselves on takeaways. What could go wrong?"
right up there with
"Cruz is slow, I'm sure letting him get behind me will still work out ok." Hall is right, anyone could have thrown that pass, but the only way what he is saying makes Eli look bad is if Eli had missed, which he didn't.

The Pack did beat themselves in the Giants game last playoffs. They might still have lost had they played better, but there were not even close enough to win. It's like parking your car in an alley unlocked with the keys in it. Sure, if you locked it and took the keys it might still have been stolen, but the way it happened you only have yourself to blame.
 
2012-10-25 02:38:37 PM

Treygreen13: robsul82: New thread assignment.

Name SB winners who were ALSO Best Team of that year.

Of the 5 Super Bowls the Dallas Cowboys have won:

1971 - Tied for the best record (11-3)
1977 - Tied for the best record (12-2)
1992 - 2nd best record (13-3)
1993 - Tied for the best record (12-4)
1995 - 2nd best record (12-4)

Interestingly enough, the best record in 1995 was the Kansas City Chiefs, at 13-3 - who ended up losing their first playoff game to the 9-7 Indianapolis Colts.


If Romo had the O-lines Cowboys had between 91-96 he'd be a 1st ballot HOF. Those lines were just brutal. Since you're a stat kind of guy, can you figure out how many games were missed by starting linemen those years? The Cowboys today not only have an average line at best at the start of the season but they got a lot of injuries too.
 
2012-10-25 02:40:09 PM

ddam: now that he's won two rings and he throws two picks in a game his team wins he isn't getting attacked for it... and you see a problem with this. Why?

Because he threw two crucial INTs in a one-score game and nobody will even mention it because of his previous success. That's my problem with it.

ddam: I remember when Romo was getting national love from every media type even if he was throwing picks because they reminded everyone of Favre. But after a while you got to put Ws in the standings or the media will turn on you very quickly especially if you're QB of a franchise like the Cowboys.


Jesus farking christ did Tony Romo pee in your shoes one day? Why is everything about him?
 
2012-10-25 02:40:51 PM

robsul82: New thread assignment.

Name SB winners who were ALSO Best Team of that year.


By what criteria? Overall record, because I don't think that's always a good measure with the unbalanced nature of the NFL schedule. Anyway, here's my list:

2008 Steelers
2003-04 Patriots
1999 Rams
1998 Broncos
1996 Packers
1994 49ers
1993 Cowboys
1991 Redskins
1989 49ers
1986 Giants
1985 Bears
1984 49ers

I can't really go back any further than that.  Basically everything since the salary cap began to dissolve existing NFL rosters in the mid-90s has been a crapshoot.
 
2012-10-25 02:41:01 PM

thecpt: robsul82: New thread assignment.

Name SB winners who were ALSO Best Team of that year.

09 Saints....oh i see what you're doing.

/thought the colts had an easy division


LOL, honestly no, I was just curious to see opinions of winners through the years, but now that you mention it.

a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com

"Made you say '09 Saints, made you say '09 Saints, ha ha ha ha!"
 
2012-10-25 02:41:47 PM

ddam: If Romo had the O-lines Cowboys had between 91-96 he'd be a 1st ballot HOF. Those lines were just brutal. Since you're a stat kind of guy, can you figure out how many games were missed by starting linemen those years? The Cowboys today not only have an average line at best at the start of the season but they got a lot of injuries too.


I don't mind rooting around for stats but I think it would be a colossal undertaking to find out how many games the starting members of the offensive line of the '71 Cowboys missed. 

Let's just say they were good.
 
2012-10-25 02:42:59 PM

ddam: So they were tough on Eli when he was throwing INTs which resulted in losses but now that he's won two rings and he throws two picks in a game his team wins he isn't getting attacked for it... and you see a problem with this. Why?


Because he can't stand Eli Manning, and he can't stand that Giants fans love their QB despite his opinion of him.
 
2012-10-25 02:43:43 PM

Yanks_RSJ: By what criteria? Overall record, because I don't think that's always a good measure with the unbalanced nature of the NFL schedule.


Yeah, not purely overall record, it'd have something to do with it, but I don't know. Just feel, I guess, very non-scientific question, lol. Just what teams won the SB and you felt they were the best overall for that year, I suppose.
 
2012-10-25 02:47:16 PM

Treygreen13: ddam: now that he's won two rings and he throws two picks in a game his team wins he isn't getting attacked for it... and you see a problem with this. Why?

Because he threw two crucial INTs in a one-score game and nobody will even mention it because of his previous success. That's my problem with it.

ddam: I remember when Romo was getting national love from every media type even if he was throwing picks because they reminded everyone of Favre. But after a while you got to put Ws in the standings or the media will turn on you very quickly especially if you're QB of a franchise like the Cowboys.

Jesus farking christ did Tony Romo pee in your shoes one day? Why is everything about him?



That's the problem with your line of thought. I don't think that they leave it out only because of his track record but also because HE farkING WON THE GAME. If Giants would have lost (and I did have a small bet on Redskins straight up) I guarantee you that the highlights would have shown the picks. Just like in politics, the highlights (history) is written from the point of view of the victorious party.
 
2012-10-25 02:49:37 PM

robsul82: Yanks_RSJ: By what criteria? Overall record, because I don't think that's always a good measure with the unbalanced nature of the NFL schedule.

Yeah, not purely overall record, it'd have something to do with it, but I don't know. Just feel, I guess, very non-scientific question, lol. Just what teams won the SB and you felt they were the best overall for that year, I suppose.


And to satisfy you, I'd say the Saints of '09 are at least in the conversation for that year. Then again, I'd say the same about the 1990 Giants, one of the very best defensive teams in the history of the NFL, but I left them off because the 49ers and Bills were technically "better" that year.
 
2012-10-25 02:50:25 PM
Oh, and everything revolves around Romo because he happens to be the QB of the team I root for and I'm most familiar with his performance since I watch every game while only catching a game or two from other teams or just highlights on RedZone or online.

Maybe if LA gets a team I'll slowly lose interest in the Cowboys due to the local team pulling me in but until then Cowboys are the only team I give a damn about in the NFL.
 
2012-10-25 02:52:10 PM

robsul82: Yanks_RSJ: By what criteria? Overall record, because I don't think that's always a good measure with the unbalanced nature of the NFL schedule.

Yeah, not purely overall record, it'd have something to do with it, but I don't know. Just feel, I guess, very non-scientific question, lol. Just what teams won the SB and you felt they were the best overall for that year, I suppose.


In recent memory:
XLIV - Saints
XXXVIII and XXXIX -Patriots
XXXVII - Buccaneers
XXXIV - Rams
 
2012-10-25 02:54:35 PM

ddam: That's the problem with your line of thought. I don't think that they leave it out only because of his track record but also because HE farkING WON THE GAME. If Giants would have lost (and I did have a small bet on Redskins straight up) I guarantee you that the highlights would have shown the picks. Just like in politics, the highlights (history) is written from the point of view of the victorious party.


The problem with your line of thought is that players can perform independently of the outcome of the game.

ddam: only catching a game or two from other teams or just highlights on RedZone or online.


Well, that certainly explains a lot.

You're extremely critical of everything he does because all you see of other QBs is highlights of when they win games.
 
2012-10-25 02:58:07 PM

Jubeebee: Joe Flacco has his strengths. He throws a great looking deep ball and can glare at Ernie like nobody's business.


Well Kyle Boller could throw a great looking deep ball, he just couldn't throw it anywhere close to his receivers.

Of course, none of these guys can come close the all-time greatest "just win" quarterback:

www.smashinglists.com
 
2012-10-25 03:01:04 PM

Treygreen13: ddam: That's the problem with your line of thought. I don't think that they leave it out only because of his track record but also because HE farkING WON THE GAME. If Giants would have lost (and I did have a small bet on Redskins straight up) I guarantee you that the highlights would have shown the picks. Just like in politics, the highlights (history) is written from the point of view of the victorious party.

The problem with your line of thought is that players can perform independently of the outcome of the game.

ddam: only catching a game or two from other teams or just highlights on RedZone or online.

Well, that certainly explains a lot.

You're extremely critical of everything he does because all you see of other QBs is highlights of when they win games.


Do we have to go over this again... It's a team sport and thus the whole team wins or loses but the QB position is the highest paid and fair or not they get the most praise for when the team does good and the most blame when the team doesn't. Inconsistent play (especially at the QB position) leads to lack of confidence in the team's ability to perform. For example, the Giants team was not very confident in Eli at the start of his career and it showed. For the past few years he has shown the consistence needed to win on the big stage and no matter what the situation is the team trusts him 100%.

And of course I'm critical of Romo because I want him to perform consistently. Every QB has bad games but I don't give a damn about their bad games (unless I got money on their team). It pains me when Romo has a bad game and that's the difference.
 
2012-10-25 03:04:04 PM
As a Giants fan I will certainly agree that Eli had one of his worst games of the year and that the talking heads are pumping him up too much. He missed a few easy TDs and looked off all game. But, at the end of the day, I am very happy with how the game turned out and how Eli has come along as the Giants' QB.

Also, as a brief aside, I don't hear many people talking much about the turnovers that RGIII had in the game (also two, an INT and a fumble). In terms of total yardage (passing and rushing) Eli and RGIII had similiar totals and two of the Giants TDs were rushing from the 1 yrd line so so I wouldn't put much stock in comparing their TD totals since Eli did put the Giants into those short running situations.

In the end the Giants were able to capitalize on the Redskins mistakes (Cruz TD, fumbles galore) while also minimizing their own mistakes (only two turnovers).

/The only upside of playing RGIII twice a year is that the Eagles and Cowboys do too.
 
2012-10-25 03:05:02 PM

Yanks_RSJ: Gunny Highway: What current QBs are better than Eli? Not that it matters. Giants fans love the QB. They trust him when the game is on the line and he has been a major part of two SB championship teams.

Just let him be, he's totally unhinged about Eli and shows up in every thread to biatch about something. I would be too if my team only had one playoff win since 1996.

By the way, have the Giants ever actually beaten anyone? Because it seems like every week there's a jackass out there saying they beat themselves and the Giants got lucky, or some variation. Oh well, I'll take the wins however they come, and the Giants thrive when people are casting doubts on how good they are.


Oh that's rich. Coming from the quintessential "Yankees lost it. The other team just happened to be there" Douchecans.
 
2012-10-25 03:06:49 PM

ddam: Do we have to go over this again...


No, because this is the 3rd time I'm going to try to re-direct the conversation away from Tony Romo. A topic you will. not. stop. bringing. up.

Seriously, drop it. Tony Romo is my favorite player and I'm willing to discuss him at great lengths, but even I am getting sick of talking about the guy with you.

Just drop it. This thread isn't about Tony Romo.

This thread is about a game between the Redskins and the Giants. A close game that featured 4 total turnovers by 2 QBs not named Tony Romo.
 
2012-10-25 03:08:03 PM

Phil Ken Sebben: Yanks_RSJ: Gunny Highway: What current QBs are better than Eli? Not that it matters. Giants fans love the QB. They trust him when the game is on the line and he has been a major part of two SB championship teams.

Just let him be, he's totally unhinged about Eli and shows up in every thread to biatch about something. I would be too if my team only had one playoff win since 1996.

By the way, have the Giants ever actually beaten anyone? Because it seems like every week there's a jackass out there saying they beat themselves and the Giants got lucky, or some variation. Oh well, I'll take the wins however they come, and the Giants thrive when people are casting doubts on how good they are.

Oh that's rich. Coming from the quintessential "Yankees lost it. The other team just happened to be there" Douchecans.


Oh look, Yanks_RSJ is exactly the same moron as the guy I put on ignore a year ago.
 
2012-10-25 03:09:44 PM

Yanks_RSJ: Rwa2play: you have pee hands: Rwa2play: LOL true. RGIII is where McNabb was in his rookie year IMHO; and if Snyder lets Allen and Shanahan work their magic, they'll be a handful in the future.

When's their next 1st round pick again?

If you think that a team gets to the next level by way of their 1st round pick, you've obviously never seen Bobby Beathard's history with the Redskins.

Luckily, Bobby Beathard isn't the Redskins GM, and since Snyder became the owner they haven't exactly been known for mining talent out of the mid-late rounds.


Oh too true. What I meant was that many teams have tried and failed on that strategy of the 1st round pick being "the guy" that'll turn the team around. It's usually finding those hidden gems in the latter rounds (or even undrafted FAs, like one Victor Cruz) that can be the difference.
 
2012-10-25 03:11:59 PM

Phil Ken Sebben: Oh that's rich. Coming from the quintessential "Yankees lost it. The other team just happened to be there" Douchecans.


I don't ever recall having that conversation with you. I do remember the thread in which Tigers fans whined all day long that they weren't getting their dicks sucked hard enough.

Treygreen13: Oh look, Yanks_RSJ is exactly the same moron as the guy I put on ignore a year ago.


Nobody cares that you ignored me, yet you announce it every chance you can. Congrats.
 
2012-10-25 03:14:07 PM

Dr Quest DFA: Also, as a brief aside, I don't hear many people talking much about the turnovers that RGIII had in the game (also two, an INT and a fumble). In terms of total yardage (passing and rushing) Eli and RGIII had similiar totals and two of the Giants TDs were rushing from the 1 yrd line so so I wouldn't put much stock in comparing their TD totals since Eli did put the Giants into those short running situations.


You could also compare their completion percentages, quarterback ratings, and/or the number of turnovers they've had this season. Plus of course the fact that Griffin would likely have totaled more yardage had Alfred Morris not been running over the Giants defense, New York gives up 75 fewer pass yards/game on average, or that Moss, Hankerson, and Josh Morgan are not exactly Cruz, Nicks, and Hixon. ;)

Griffin has outperformed pretty much everyone's expectations every week so far, and particularly mine (I was one of the people who felt the Redskins payed way too much for the right to draft him). Not saying that he's in any way better than or even comparable to Eli as a quarterback right now, but he certainly did have a better game than Manning did this time.
 
2012-10-25 03:15:42 PM

Harv72b: You could also compare their completion percentages, quarterback ratings, and/or the number of turnovers they've had this season. Plus of course the fact that Griffin would likely have totaled more yardage had Alfred Morris not been running over the Giants defense, New York gives up 75 fewer pass yards/game on average, or that Moss, Hankerson, and Josh Morgan are not exactly Cruz, Nicks, and Hixon. ;)


I think you also have to look at their value to the team over a replacement. And my god, the Redskins would be BAD without Griffin.
 
2012-10-25 03:16:40 PM

ddam: 1. 15/26, 180 yrds, 2TDs, 2 INTs and winning the game

or

2. 26/30, 345 yrds, 5 TDs, 1 INT and losing the game


1. Just a matter of time until the Cardinals, Vikings, Jets, Dolphins, Chiefs, Raiders, Seahawks shoddy play at QB catches up to them.

2. The Redskins, Saints, Bengals, Browns (maybe), Broncos, Chargers, Cowboys, Bills defensive units are wasting their offensive talents.
 
2012-10-25 03:17:05 PM

Treygreen13: I think you also have to look at their value to the team over a replacement. And my god, the Redskins would be BAD without Griffin.


A-farking-men.

/That said, I think the Giants would also be a much worse team without Eli at quarterback.
 
2012-10-25 03:19:54 PM
There's no objective way to determine who is the "best" team. That's a subjective determination based on what you think makes a team the "best". The way the NFL has defined

Regular season record? Some combination of computer stats based on offensive and defensive efficiency? Maybe just an eyeball test, "hey this team looks the best to me so it must be". Hell that's what they do in college football.

No, there is no objective way to determine "best". The only thing we can do is say play 16 regular season games, including 6 division games to determine your playoff seedings, win the playoff games and the Super Bowl and you're the "best" team that year. At least that is objective, everyone has the same opportunity to play well during the regular season and make their playoff run.

16-0 during the regular season and blow the Super Bowl game? Guess you weren't good enough that day, you aren't the best. Because the only objective measure of who's best is to have them play. The trophy isn't awarded to who scores the most points per game or who gets the most yards, or who has the most stingy defense. You build your team to win regular season games, then playoff games, and hopefully the Super Bowl.

Maybe it would be more determinate if they played 5 games instead of just 1. Or maybe 7 instead of 5. Or 1001 instead of 7. But they don't. Everyone knows the stakes of the playoffs and Super Bowl, you don't get an excuse "we didn't play our best that day"...you think all the teams you beat in the regular season played their best on the days you beat them? No, if you lose in the Super Bowl you deserved to lose and we at least know the team that beat you was better than you when everything was on the line.

Now if they did play 1001 games, results might be different. I doubt the Giants win 1001 game series against the Patriots that year. Last year it would probably be close. Funny thing is, if you think about it, pretty much every Super Bowl would be close over a huge sample like that. So what could we determine about who is best by playing more games? It's much simpler, and efficiently effective for the teams to know they have one game for everything and let them play it our. The winner is the best, as far as we are able to objectively determine.
 
2012-10-25 03:20:17 PM

Harv72b: Treygreen13: I think you also have to look at their value to the team over a replacement. And my god, the Redskins would be BAD without Griffin.

A-farking-men.

/That said, I think the Giants would also be a much worse team without Eli at quarterback.


Don't even speak of the possibility.
 
2012-10-25 03:24:49 PM
Eh that should say the way the NFL defines best is the Super Bowl champ.
 
2012-10-25 03:26:19 PM

js34603: The winner is the best, as far as we are able to objectively determine.


If the playoffs are so effective at determining the best team, why even play a regular season? Why can't you have a 32-team tournament? If the team that is *really* the best team wins every time, then seeding is irrelevant, right?

We can get this NFL season over in 6 weeks.
 
2012-10-25 03:26:48 PM

IAmRight: Would you tell that SOB to start actually throwing some goddamn TD passes? I got all excited that they were facing the Lions' clown defense and even moreso after that early TD...then nothing.

/needed about 30 points and had Cutler, Forte, and Jason Hanson
//got nowhere near anything


Jay usually does poorly when he gets pressured, and for all of Detroit's defensive failings, they are pretty good at getting pressure. The next two weeks should see him tossing 4-5 TDs barring lingering busted rib syndrome. Ain't nobody racks up stats on soft opponents like Cutler does.
 
2012-10-25 03:32:42 PM

Treygreen13: js34603: The winner is the best, as far as we are able to objectively determine.

If the playoffs are so effective at determining the best team, why even play a regular season? Why can't you have a 32-team tournament? If the team that is *really* the best team wins every time, then seeding is irrelevant, right?

We can get this NFL season over in 6 weeks.


The NFL can decide to determine its champ however it wants. If they decided a 32 team tournament determined the best team, that's what it would be.

You can't say a team isn't the best if they won by the rules set up to determine the champion. I mean you can, but that's your subjective judgment and not objective like looking at the results of the agreed upon season and playoff rules for determining a champion.
 
2012-10-25 03:33:24 PM

js34603: No, there is no objective way to determine "best".


Thank you.

See, the thing a lot of people assume is that I think there is a cut-and-dry "best team." I don't. I'm fine with multiple teams being considered contenders for the "best" crown (that doesn't exist).

I just get tired of people that think a four-game run proves definitively that X or Y team is the best. No, they're the champion. Sometimes the champion isn't the best team.

js34603: No, if you lose in the Super Bowl you deserved to lose and we at least know the team that beat you was better than you when everything was on the line.


Sometimes the better performance within a game doesn't even win a given game.
 
2012-10-25 03:35:26 PM

js34603: I mean you can, but that's your subjective judgment and not objective like looking at the results of the agreed upon season and playoff rules for determining a champion.


Champion is not the same as best. And saying someone is the best because they won the Super Bowl is just as objective as saying another team is the best because they had the best record.
 
2012-10-25 03:38:29 PM

bionicjoe: ddam: 1. 15/26, 180 yrds, 2TDs, 2 INTs and winning the game

or

2. 26/30, 345 yrds, 5 TDs, 1 INT and losing the game

1. Just a matter of time until the Cardinals, Vikings, Jets, Dolphins, Chiefs, Raiders, Seahawks shoddy play at QB catches up to them.

2. The Redskins, Saints, Bengals, Browns (maybe), Broncos, Chargers, Cowboys, Bills defensive units are wasting their offensive talents.


Your analysis would be true if only we didn't have plenty of examples of teams winning the Superbowl despite average (at best) play from the QB position. I agree that the QB position gets too much airtime, pay and attention when this is a sport game but this is how the league has decided to market itself. The QB position is celebrated when the team is doing good (even if the QB is less than stellar) and it is burried when the losses pile up (Cam Newton is perfect example of this).

What is true about football is that on any give Sunday anything can happen no matter how the teams look on paper or what the expert predict. Although there seem to be a couple of teams at least every season that are playing at college level even those teams manage a huge upset once in a while.
 
2012-10-25 03:38:35 PM
What I have always loved about Eli is when he throws an INT or fumbles the ball he moves on. He has the uncanny ability to not let mistakes get to him. There are an awful lot of QB's who get rattled off their game after a mistake. Take a look at Cam Newton or Phillip Rivers just to name a few, when the wheels start coming off they have no idea how to stop it You can see them forcing balls into coverage and trying to make the big play. In short they get rattled. Like others have said, if you are a stat guy Eli looks a little better than average. But if you need a guy to lead your team it's hard to do better than Eli has over this last 5 years
 
2012-10-25 03:40:32 PM

ddam: The QB position is celebrated when the team is doing good (even if the QB is less than stellar) and it is burried when the losses pile up (Cam Newton is perfect example of this).


Actually, Cam got more love back when the team sucked last year. The love for him is pretty much FFB-related.
 
2012-10-25 03:42:01 PM

Harv72b: Treygreen13: I think you also have to look at their value to the team over a replacement. And my god, the Redskins would be BAD without Griffin.

A-farking-men.

/That said, I think the Giants would also be a much worse team without Eli at quarterback.


If Eli had an accident and couldn't play football, who could you replace him with and get even close to the same level? I don't think there is anyone, I would give Flynn a shot.
 
2012-10-25 03:43:09 PM

IAmRight: js34603: No, there is no objective way to determine "best".

Thank you.

See, the thing a lot of people assume is that I think there is a cut-and-dry "best team." I don't. I'm fine with multiple teams being considered contenders for the "best" crown (that doesn't exist).

I just get tired of people that think a four-game run proves definitively that X or Y team is the best. No, they're the champion. Sometimes the champion isn't the best team.

js34603: No, if you lose in the Super Bowl you deserved to lose and we at least know the team that beat you was better than you when everything was on the line.

Sometimes the better performance within a game doesn't even win a given game.


For me, I just use best and champion interchangeably because there is no other objective way to determine best.

You won under the rules set up for determine the league's champion, that's good enough to at least be called the best to me at least.

It doesn't definitively prove anything, that is for damn sure. I have no doubt that last years Giants team would have been just as likely to lose a game to the Browns the week after the Super Bowl as they were to beat the Patriots again. All we can really say is the Giants won the most important game of the season and were the "best" as far as we can determine under the rules.
 
2012-10-25 03:44:06 PM

js34603: The NFL can decide to determine its champ however it wants. If they decided a 32 team tournament determined the best team, that's what it would be.

You can't say a team isn't the best if they won by the rules set up to determine the champion. I mean you can, but that's your subjective judgment and not objective like looking at the results of the agreed upon season and playoff rules for determining a champion.


The NFL also tells me that (according to the agreed upon rules) a team could go 3-13, make the playoffs, win out, and be The Super Bowl Champion.
So I reject your concept that the Super Bowl winner is objectively the best team.
 
2012-10-25 03:48:25 PM

Harv72b: Dr Quest DFA: Also, as a brief aside, I don't hear many people talking much about the turnovers that RGIII had in the game (also two, an INT and a fumble). In terms of total yardage (passing and rushing) Eli and RGIII had similiar totals and two of the Giants TDs were rushing from the 1 yrd line so so I wouldn't put much stock in comparing their TD totals since Eli did put the Giants into those short running situations.

You could also compare their completion percentages, quarterback ratings, and/or the number of turnovers they've had this season. Plus of course the fact that Griffin would likely have totaled more yardage had Alfred Morris not been running over the Giants defense, New York gives up 75 fewer pass yards/game on average, or that Moss, Hankerson, and Josh Morgan are not exactly Cruz, Nicks, and Hixon. ;)

Griffin has outperformed pretty much everyone's expectations every week so far, and particularly mine (I was one of the people who felt the Redskins payed way too much for the right to draft him). Not saying that he's in any way better than or even comparable to Eli as a quarterback right now, but he certainly did have a better game than Manning did this time.


(Had a nice post ready but then my browser ate it)

I would certianly agree that RGIII had been the biggest and most pelasant surprise of the NFL season thus far (even if my team has to play him twice). And in the Giants game he did put up a better stat line that Eli (that strnage statistical duck QBR aside), but I wonder if it is sustainable. Can he still be as effective if the run game gets stuffed or reduced to merely average? Right now he is 24th in pass attempts. If he had to put the team on his arm, how would he do? I don't know and it will be interesting to see how he performs when he has to put it up 34+ times a game (happened twice already, 1 win and 1 loss) or when teams have a year or two worth of tape on him.

I hope he doesn't go the way of Cam Newton (no one deserves that fate and I am sick of being forced to watch boring Redskins games in NoVa), but I don't think it would be fair to compare him to other QBs until he has had at least a few years under his belt.

In any event, I hope you kick the Cowboys' and Eagles' keysters when you finally end up playing them!
 
2012-10-25 03:50:09 PM

js34603: For me, I just use best and champion interchangeably because there is no other objective way to determine best.


You just said that there's no objective way to determine the best team. Now you're saying that the playoff winner is an objective way to say a team is the best. Champion is quite enough.
 
2012-10-25 03:51:36 PM

Treygreen13: ddam: Do we have to go over this again...

No, because this is the 3rd time I'm going to try to re-direct the conversation away from Tony Romo. A topic you will. not. stop. bringing. up.

Seriously, drop it. Tony Romo is my favorite player and I'm willing to discuss him at great lengths, but even I am getting sick of talking about the guy with you.

Just drop it. This thread isn't about Tony Romo.

This thread is about a game between the Redskins and the Giants. A close game that featured 4 total turnovers by 2 QBs not named Tony Romo.


And that's the crux of the problem with you. Since you view a player as your favorite is hard for you to criticize him (or accept criticism of him) and are willing to look for any other mistake by the team to justify a loss.

And this victimization of Romo that you feel at the hand of the media is in part to blame for the issue you raise in this thread. You feel that the two QBs in this game are not getting the same treatement as Romo would if he threw 2 QBs even if you don't mention him by name but you are comparing apples to oranges.

1. In the case of Eli, he won the freaking game. He didn't play a perfect game but he managed to win the game and due to his track record (yes, track record matters) he's getting a pass this week on the picks. If he didn't win the game and his team record wasn't 5-2 then we'd see a lot of headlines taking shots at Eli just like every single year when he has a rough patch.

2. RGIII is in his rookie year and he gets a lot of love due to that. Media and expert expect a certain inconsistency from him this year and are impressed by him even if his team's record is at .500. Romo (and every other QB) gets the same type of treatement the first year or two they start in the league. Cam Newton got a lot of love last season and I bet that the media wouldn't be as tough on him (just like they aren't on Stafford or Bradford) if he didn't have the shiatty attitude he's had after games. But I guarantee you that if 2-3 years down the road RGIII doesn't progress you'll see the same coverage in the media "Black QBs cannot be successful once defenses get used to their particular athleticism" or something along those lines.
 
2012-10-25 03:52:12 PM

IAmRight: js34603: I mean you can, but that's your subjective judgment and not objective like looking at the results of the agreed upon season and playoff rules for determining a champion.

Champion is not the same as best. And saying someone is the best because they won the Super Bowl is just as objective as saying another team is the best because they had the best record.


No it isn't because that's not the way the rules are set up. The rules are setup so the team that wins the Super Bowl is the champion, the team that accomplished the goal of the season is the best as defined by the rules everyone is playing by.

The best regular season record could be determinative if the rules were set up that way. But they aren't. The goal of the season is to win the Super Bowl and only one team can accomplish that and be the best at doing what everyone set out to do when the year started.

It doesn't mean that team wins every game they would play against the Super Bowl loser, or even the Conference Championship loser, or even the last place team in the league. It just means they were the best at accomplishing the goal of the season.
 
2012-10-25 03:52:31 PM

IAmRight: js34603: For me, I just use best and champion interchangeably because there is no other objective way to determine best.

You just said that there's no objective way to determine the best team. Now you're saying that the playoff winner is an objective way to say a team is the best. Champion is quite enough.


Any system that allows for a 6-13 "winner" and 18-1 "loser" can't objectively decide anything.
 
2012-10-25 03:53:50 PM

Treygreen13: Any system that allows for a 6-13 "winner" and 18-1 "loser" can't objectively decide anything.


Well, they'd have to be 7-13, since I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be getting the first-round bye with a 3-13 record.
 
2012-10-25 03:54:20 PM

ddam: And that's the crux of the problem with you. Since you view a player as your favorite is hard for you to criticize him (or accept criticism of him) and are willing to look for any other mistake by the team to justify a loss.

And this victimization of Romo that you feel at the hand of the media is in part to blame for the issue you raise in this thread. You feel that the two QBs in this game are not getting the same treatement as Romo would if he threw 2 QBs even if you don't mention him by name but you are comparing apples to oranges.

1. In the case of Eli, he won the freaking game. He didn't play a perfect game but he managed to win the game and due to his track record (yes, track record matters) he's getting a pass this week on the picks. If he didn't win the game and his team record wasn't 5-2 then we'd see a lot of headlines taking shots at Eli just like every single year when he has a rough patch.

2. RGIII is in his rookie year and he gets a lot of love due to that. Media and expert expect a certain inconsistency from him this year and are impressed by him even if his team's record is at .500. Romo (and every other QB) gets the same type of treatement the first year or two they start in the league. Cam Newton got a lot of love last season and I bet that the media wouldn't be as tough on him (just like they aren't on Stafford or Bradford) if he didn't have the shiatty attitude he's had after games. But I guarantee you that if 2-3 years down the road RGIII doesn't progress you'll see the same coverage in the media "Black QBs cannot be successful once defenses get used to their particular athleticism" or something along those lines.


I don't know how many more times I have to tell you this isn't about Tony Romo.

My argument stands for anyone else that isn't one of the favored few that ESPN and the media have a big sports-boner for.
 
2012-10-25 03:55:50 PM

IAmRight: Treygreen13: Any system that allows for a 6-13 "winner" and 18-1 "loser" can't objectively decide anything.

Well, they'd have to be 7-13, since I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be getting the first-round bye with a 3-13 record.


You're right, forgot about the wild card game.
 
2012-10-25 03:57:10 PM

Treygreen13: js34603: The NFL can decide to determine its champ however it wants. If they decided a 32 team tournament determined the best team, that's what it would be.

You can't say a team isn't the best if they won by the rules set up to determine the champion. I mean you can, but that's your subjective judgment and not objective like looking at the results of the agreed upon season and playoff rules for determining a champion.

The NFL also tells me that (according to the agreed upon rules) a team could go 3-13, make the playoffs, win out, and be The Super Bowl Champion.
So I reject your concept that the Super Bowl winner is objectively the best team.


Every team is trying to win the Super Bowl. The team that wins it is objectively the team that accomplished the goal set up by the being in the league. That makes them objectively the best according to the rules of the league. You don't like it don't watch.

I reject the notion that X team is the "best" based on someone's subjective judgment about how much better they are than the team that beat them in the most important game of the year.

The bottom line is every team is talented in the NFL and the line separating them is so thin, that we can't say any team is definitively better than other. All we can say is one team won the Super Bowl, we're all trying to win the Super Bowl, so they did it better than we did. In other words they're the best at doing what everyone wanted to do that year.
 
2012-10-25 03:57:52 PM

Treygreen13: IAmRight: js34603: For me, I just use best and champion interchangeably because there is no other objective way to determine best.

You just said that there's no objective way to determine the best team. Now you're saying that the playoff winner is an objective way to say a team is the best. Champion is quite enough.

Any system that allows for a 6-13 "winner" and 18-1 "loser" can't objectively decide anything.


That's like saying you can't lose at chess if you have more pieces on the board even if you got checkmated (is that a word?)/

The rules of determining the best team are set up prior to the season starting (and they have been for quite a few years) and that includes a playoffs system. The winner of the playoffs win the championship and is deemed the best team that year.

I'm sorry that doesn't fly in your hypothetical universe you just made up as I'm not aware of any team winning the superbowl with a 6-13 record.
 
2012-10-25 03:58:59 PM

js34603: Every team is trying to win the Super Bowl.


Not the Browns or Jaguars or Chiefs, if the past decade is any indication of their intent.
 
2012-10-25 04:01:45 PM

js34603: You don't like it don't watch.


Well I see we've reached the point where "GTFO" is an argument.

js34603: All we can say is one team won the Super Bowl, we're all trying to win the Super Bowl, so they did it better than we did. In other words they're the best at doing what everyone wanted to do that year.


Alright, so in your opinion the team that won the Super Bowl is "the best".

So what about the rest? Let's say this year the Falcons go 16-0 and the Browns go 1-15. Are the Falcons "better" than the Browns? Or are they impossible to objectively compare because every team is so good?
 
2012-10-25 04:02:37 PM

Dr Quest DFA: I would certianly agree that RGIII had been the biggest and most pelasant surprise of the NFL season thus far


Not only him but also Alfred Morris.

I got offered a trade AM for Dwayne Bowe 2 weeks ago and I held off. I hadn't seen AM play yet, and then Cassel went down. Feels bad man.
 
2012-10-25 04:03:04 PM

Treygreen13: IAmRight: js34603: For me, I just use best and champion interchangeably because there is no other objective way to determine best.

You just said that there's no objective way to determine the best team. Now you're saying that the playoff winner is an objective way to say a team is the best. Champion is quite enough.

Any system that allows for a 6-13 "winner" and 18-1 "loser" can't objectively decide anything.


What part of the NFL playoff system do you not understand? The rule isn't that 18 wins gets you a Lombardi trophy.

The rules are you play 16 regular season games, including 6 in your division to determine playoff seeding. You play 3 (or 2) playoff games and then the Super Bowl. You win those games you are the champion of the league. Every team wants to be the champion, only one team accomplishes it. What quibble do you have with team that accomplished the goal of the season being declared the best? They did what every team is trying to do. Every team isn't trying to be 18-1, there's no reward for that, you thinking an 18-1 team is the best is your subjective judgment. The team that is the best, objectively according to the RULES of the NFL system, is the team that won the Super Bowl.
 
2012-10-25 04:03:10 PM

Treygreen13: ddam: And that's the crux of the problem with you. Since you view a player as your favorite is hard for you to criticize him (or accept criticism of him) and are willing to look for any other mistake by the team to justify a loss.

And this victimization of Romo that you feel at the hand of the media is in part to blame for the issue you raise in this thread. You feel that the two QBs in this game are not getting the same treatement as Romo would if he threw 2 QBs even if you don't mention him by name but you are comparing apples to oranges.

1. In the case of Eli, he won the freaking game. He didn't play a perfect game but he managed to win the game and due to his track record (yes, track record matters) he's getting a pass this week on the picks. If he didn't win the game and his team record wasn't 5-2 then we'd see a lot of headlines taking shots at Eli just like every single year when he has a rough patch.

2. RGIII is in his rookie year and he gets a lot of love due to that. Media and expert expect a certain inconsistency from him this year and are impressed by him even if his team's record is at .500. Romo (and every other QB) gets the same type of treatement the first year or two they start in the league. Cam Newton got a lot of love last season and I bet that the media wouldn't be as tough on him (just like they aren't on Stafford or Bradford) if he didn't have the shiatty attitude he's had after games. But I guarantee you that if 2-3 years down the road RGIII doesn't progress you'll see the same coverage in the media "Black QBs cannot be successful once defenses get used to their particular athleticism" or something along those lines.

I don't know how many more times I have to tell you this isn't about Tony Romo.

My argument stands for anyone else that isn't one of the favored few that ESPN and the media have a big sports-boner for.


ESPN and the media like whoever sells more papers or generate more clicks. ESPN and the media's bias is mostly towards winners so it seems you got a problem with that. Media was all over Tiger Woods while he was winning but one club to the head and not winning a major turns the media against him quickly. If he manages to win a couple of majors the media will be back in his pocket. Kobe Bryant was a media darling at the turn of the 2000s when the Lakers were winning but once the team started sucking and he got into a rape charge in Colorado the media turned on him... but now he's a media darling again due to winning 2 championships.

Winning sells papers (and generates clicks). More at SportsCenter at 11.
 
2012-10-25 04:04:26 PM

ddam: That's like saying you can't lose at chess if you have more pieces on the board even if you got checkmated (is that a word?)/


No, it's not.

ddam: The rules of determining the best team are set up prior to the season starting (and they have been for quite a few years) and that includes a playoffs system. The winner of the playoffs win the championship and is deemed the best team that year.


That determines the Super Bowl champion. The trophy doesn't say "Best Team in the NFL".
 
2012-10-25 04:07:22 PM

js34603: hat part of the NFL playoff system do you not understand? The rule isn't that 18 wins gets you a Lombardi trophy.


And getting the Lombardi trophy doesn't make you the best team in the NFL.

ddam: Treygreen13: ddam: And that's the crux of the problem with you. Since you view a player as your favorite is hard for you to criticize him (or accept criticism of him) and are willing to look for any other mistake by the team to justify a loss.

And this victimization of Romo that you feel at the hand of the media is in part to blame for the issue you raise in this thread. You feel that the two QBs in this game are not getting the same treatement as Romo would if he threw 2 QBs even if you don't mention him by name but you are comparing apples to oranges.

1. In the case of Eli, he won the freaking game. He didn't play a perfect game but he managed to win the game and due to his track record (yes, track record matters) he's getting a pass this week on the picks. If he didn't win the game and his team record wasn't 5-2 then we'd see a lot of headlines taking shots at Eli just like every single year when he has a rough patch.

2. RGIII is in his rookie year and he gets a lot of love due to that. Media and expert expect a certain inconsistency from him this year and are impressed by him even if his team's record is at .500. Romo (and every other QB) gets the same type of treatement the first year or two they start in the league. Cam Newton got a lot of love last season and I bet that the media wouldn't be as tough on him (just like they aren't on Stafford or Bradford) if he didn't have the shiatty attitude he's had after games. But I guarantee you that if 2-3 years down the road RGIII doesn't progress you'll see the same coverage in the media "Black QBs cannot be successful once defenses get used to their particular athleticism" or something along those lines.

I don't know how many more times I have to tell you this isn't about Tony Romo.

My argument stands for anyone else that isn't one of the favored few that ESPN and the media have a big sports-boner for.

ESPN and the media like whoever sells more papers or generate more clicks. ESPN and the media's bias is mostly ...


Well it's a good thing that we spent all this time arguing so you could re-state the argument I originally made 5 hours ago.
 
2012-10-25 04:14:07 PM

Treygreen13: Well it's a good thing that we spent all this time arguing so you could re-state the argument I originally made 5 hours ago.




Only true if you ignore the rest of the post. Media and ESPN will celebrate winner while dumping on the losers. You win and mistake can be overlooked. You lose and every mistake is under the microscope.

shiat, look at how fast the media turned on the Yankees.

Now there are certain media personalities that will never let go of their bias and would criticize a winning player/team no matter what just like they'll make an excuse for a losing player/team no matter what. I used to listen to Colin Cowherd for a bit a few years ago and he had a ragin' boner for Notre Dame and that fat coach that was an offensive genious (I forget his name) no matter how many Ls piled up in their standings.
 
2012-10-25 04:14:31 PM

Treygreen13: ddam: That's like saying you can't lose at chess if you have more pieces on the board even if you got checkmated (is that a word?)/

No, it's not.

ddam: The rules of determining the best team are set up prior to the season starting (and they have been for quite a few years) and that includes a playoffs system. The winner of the playoffs win the championship and is deemed the best team that year.

That determines the Super Bowl champion. The trophy doesn't say "Best Team in the NFL".


That's because there is no way to objectively determine the best team in the NFL without parameters.

There is no objective best team in some mythical vacuum where you live. There can only be a best team in accordance with the system set up by the league. Regardless of what the trophy says, the team that wins the Super Bowl accomplished the goal for that year. Every other team failed to achieve the season's goal and so be definition weren't as good as the team that did achieve the goal. In other words, the team that won the Super Bowl was the best...and since you like pedantics so much feel free to add in "best at accomplishing the goal of winning the Super Bowl but maybe not at being superior to every team in the league by other subjective measures".
 
2012-10-25 04:17:59 PM

js34603: Treygreen13: IAmRight: js34603: ***snip***

The team that is the best, objectively according to the RULES of the NFL system, is the team that won the Super Bowl.


If winning the Super Bowl is the criteria for "objectively being the best" (to paraphrase), then how do you determine whether one Super Bowl winning team is better than another? They don't play each other, but have achieved the "objective" criteria of being the "best", and yet, there are differences between them that allow people to make an informed argument as to which one is "better."

//Now imagine if we did that inside a season, rather than just across seasons. How awesome would that be?
 
2012-10-25 04:21:43 PM

ddam: Only true if you ignore the rest of the post. Media and ESPN will celebrate winner while dumping on the losers. You win and mistake can be overlooked. You lose and every mistake is under the microscope.


Which was exactly the point I made. Eli Manning has won in the past so his mistakes are overlooked. Look at this. This was me. This was what started all this.

Treygreen13: Easy to look elite when your TD gets its own segment on Sports Center and your 4th quarter INT (your 2nd of the day) is buried.


That was my whole point. We've been arguing around that point for 5 hours.

As it pertains to Cowherd, I know he has biases. We all do. Nobody is without bias.

I don't listen to Cowherd because he annoys me, but I would sit down and have a drink with Cowherd and talk sports because he at least has reasons for his opinions instead of just seeing who can scream the loudest.
 
2012-10-25 04:24:17 PM

roc6783: js34603: Treygreen13: IAmRight: js34603: ***snip***

The team that is the best, objectively according to the RULES of the NFL system, is the team that won the Super Bowl.

If winning the Super Bowl is the criteria for "objectively being the best" (to paraphrase), then how do you determine whether one Super Bowl winning team is better than another? They don't play each other, but have achieved the "objective" criteria of being the "best", and yet, there are differences between them that allow people to make an informed argument as to which one is "better."

//Now imagine if we did that inside a season, rather than just across seasons. How awesome would that be?


anything across seasons is just BS and made up in the past 30 or so years (mostly) to fill in the gap for the numerous 24/7 sports chanels. And that is not only because the quality of athletes has improved over the years but also because the sports have also changed. There are a few athletes that could be said that they were ahead of their times and revolutionized the sport (Bobby Orr comes to mind) but those are few and far between.

The only thing I'd consider ranking across season is number of championships per franchise.
 
2012-10-25 04:30:25 PM

Treygreen13: ddam: Only true if you ignore the rest of the post. Media and ESPN will celebrate winner while dumping on the losers. You win and mistake can be overlooked. You lose and every mistake is under the microscope.

Which was exactly the point I made. Eli Manning has won in the past so his mistakes are overlooked. Look at this. This was me. This was what started all this.

Treygreen13: Easy to look elite when your TD gets its own segment on Sports Center and your 4th quarter INT (your 2nd of the day) is buried.

That was my whole point. We've been arguing around that point for 5 hours.

As it pertains to Cowherd, I know he has biases. We all do. Nobody is without bias.

I don't listen to Cowherd because he annoys me, but I would sit down and have a drink with Cowherd and talk sports because he at least has reasons for his opinions instead of just seeing who can scream the loudest.


We're still not in agreement. You keep saying that Eli is getting a pass only because of his past.... he gets a pass this week mainly because he freaking won this week. Past performance plays a role in it, sure, but it's not the main thing.

Look up the coverage of the Buffalo game where Romo threw 5 INTs but won and the coverage after the Bears game in which he threw the same number of INTs but won. In the Buffalo game the coverage was along the lines "Cowboys and Romo manage to win despite a bad game from Romo" while the coverage after Bears game was "WTF is Romo doing out there".

And I used Romo because I'm familiar with him and can't recall similar stats for other QBs but here's one from another sport and team I'm familiar with: Kobe Bryant has a 5/17 shoting night and scores 30 points due to many trips to the line and the team wins and the coverage is "Kobe plays major role in win despite poor shooting night". The following night Kobe Bryant shoots 5/17 again, has 30 points again due to many trips to the line but the team loses and hte coverage is "Kobe is selfish and forces shots when teammates are open".

Winning the game affects the highlights shown. More at 11.
 
2012-10-25 04:32:27 PM

js34603: That's because there is no way to objectively determine the best team in the NFL without parameters.


The tournament only decides the "tournament winner". Otherwise the trophy would say "best team" instead of "tournament winner".

Listen, here's the deal. The team that wins the Super Bowl is the NFL Champion. They won The Super Bowl. But "Best Team" is subjective.

Let's take an example from a previous season. The year the Pats went 18-0 but lost in the Super Bowl. Not only did the Pats win all their games but one, they split the series with the one team they lost to. That's looking outside the results of a tournament.

To me, they were the better team that year, in spite of the fact that I was rooting for the Giants to win because the Pats were a bunch of smug, unlikeable jackasses.
 
2012-10-25 04:34:32 PM

Treygreen13: js34603: You don't like it don't watch.

Well I see we've reached the point where "GTFO" is an argument.

js34603: All we can say is one team won the Super Bowl, we're all trying to win the Super Bowl, so they did it better than we did. In other words they're the best at doing what everyone wanted to do that year.

Alright, so in your opinion the team that won the Super Bowl is "the best".

So what about the rest? Let's say this year the Falcons go 16-0 and the Browns go 1-15. Are the Falcons "better" than the Browns? Or are they impossible to objectively compare because every team is so good?


It's not an opinion, do you understand what objective means? We're talking about the NFL. The goal of the NFL is to win the Super Bowl. Only one team does that. That team is the best according to the rules and parameters of the NFL. There's no opinion there, the most you can say is it might be more accurate to say "that team is the best at accomplishing the goal of an NFL season." But that's pretty wordy.

As for your question, the Falcons objectively had a better regular season than the Browns in your scenario. When you ask if they are better, you're asking me a subjective question. Which team looks best? Which team has more talented players? Subjective, I could subjectively think the Browns are "better" but have been really unlucky or had a much harder schedule than the Falcons.

That is why there cannot be an objective best team without some system in place. If the parameters are which team won more regular season games, then I can say objectively the Falcons are better under those terms. If the parameters are who is better in terms of the franchises' future maybe the Browns are better. See how the parameters alter the answer?
 
2012-10-25 04:40:51 PM

js34603: That team is the best according to the rules and parameters of the NFL.


I'm sorry, but TG has already explained the fallacy here. There is no rule on who is the best. The rules are on who can get to, and win a season ending tournament. I think how I view the argument is you can look at a team and you can consider which one had the most potential, ability, talent, and best performances consistently throughout the season and not just 4 games at the end.
 
2012-10-25 04:41:13 PM

roc6783: js34603: Treygreen13: IAmRight: js34603: ***snip***

The team that is the best, objectively according to the RULES of the NFL system, is the team that won the Super Bowl.

If winning the Super Bowl is the criteria for "objectively being the best" (to paraphrase), then how do you determine whether one Super Bowl winning team is better than another? They don't play each other, but have achieved the "objective" criteria of being the "best", and yet, there are differences between them that allow people to make an informed argument as to which one is "better."

//Now imagine if we did that inside a season, rather than just across seasons. How awesome would that be?


You can't. (Other than the obvious 2000s teams being so physically superior to the old teams). That's why that topic provides voluminous cannon fodder for Sports talk shows and football fans. You can present evidence and arguments for all the teams, there is no objective "best" Super Bowl winning team.

/although it was obviously the '78 Steelers
//we can' do that within a season until the Super Bowl is over, then that team accomplished the goal of that season and are the best at "winning" the league
 
2012-10-25 04:47:10 PM

ddam: We're still not in agreement. You keep saying that Eli is getting a pass only because of his past.... he gets a pass this week mainly because he freaking won this week. Past performance plays a role in it, sure, but it's not the main thing.


I know we're not in agreement. We never are. Because you apparently come from some planet from a universe far, far away from what I consider normal human thought.
 
2012-10-25 04:52:48 PM

thecpt: js34603: That team is the best according to the rules and parameters of the NFL.

I'm sorry, but TG has already explained the fallacy here. There is no rule on who is the best. The rules are on who can get to, and win a season ending tournament. I think how I view the argument is you can look at a team and you can consider which one had the most potential, ability, talent, and best performances consistently throughout the season and not just 4 games at the end.


So you basically look at a bunch of subjective criteria and decide who you think is best?

And it is not just 4 games at the end, it's 16 games before that. Of you go back to my original post I tried to make the point you cannot objectively define the BEST team absent some parameters. Since we're talking about the NFL it makes sense to use the parameters and rules they set up right? Well those rules set up the goal of the league as winning the Super Bowl. Only one team does that, but every team wants to do it. That team is the best as far as we can objectively determine by the rules and parameters of the NFL.

We can make up different parameters and say the goal of the season is the best regular season record, or most yards, or least points given up. If you do that you can then objectively say Team A met that criteria they are the best. We can also make subjective judgments like who has the most talent, potential, and performed consistently and try to call those teams the best. But since those are subjective judgments, what you're really saying is "my opinion is Team A is the best because...".

The only objective "best" team is the one that won the league under the rules they're playing with. We can hypothesize about what the result of a 1001 game series or 600 game regular season would be and try to say the winners of those would be the best. But that's just fantasy.
 
2012-10-25 04:56:07 PM

js34603: It's not an opinion, do you understand what objective means? We're talking about the NFL. The goal of the NFL is to win the Super Bowl. Only one team does that. That team is the best according to the rules and parameters of the NFL. There's no opinion there, the most you can say is it might be more accurate to say "that team is the best at accomplishing the goal of an NFL season." But that's pretty wordy.


The team, that year, was the best at winning The Super Bowl.

js34603: As for your question, the Falcons objectively had a better regular season than the Browns in your scenario. When you ask if they are better, you're asking me a subjective question. Which team looks best? Which team has more talented players? Subjective, I could subjectively think the Browns are "better" but have been really unlucky or had a much harder schedule than the Falcons.


And we could argue based on Strength of Schedule, or compare statistics (which are objective) and make arguments which team was "better" between those two.
Winning the Super Bowl doesn't nullify statistics and comparisons between teams. If you can subjectively compare two NFL teams, then you can also subjectively compare the team that won the tournament at the end of the year to another and make an argument that they're not "better".

js34603: That is why there cannot be an objective best team without some system in place. If the parameters are which team won more regular season games, then I can say objectively the Falcons are better under those terms. If the parameters are who is better in terms of the franchises' future maybe the Browns are better. See how the parameters alter the answer?


And that's why we have mouths to talk and fingers to type and brains to send signals to both of them. Because we can look at performance outside of what happens in a tournament and make judgements based on things other than the outcome of a single-elimination tournament.
 
2012-10-25 04:57:15 PM
This thread sucks.
 
2012-10-25 04:59:52 PM

Treygreen13: js34603: That's because there is no way to objectively determine the best team in the NFL without parameters.

The tournament only decides the "tournament winner". Otherwise the trophy would say "best team" instead of "tournament winner".

Listen, here's the deal. The team that wins the Super Bowl is the NFL Champion. They won The Super Bowl. But "Best Team" is subjective.

Let's take an example from a previous season. The year the Pats went 18-0 but lost in the Super Bowl. Not only did the Pats win all their games but one, they split the series with the one team they lost to. That's looking outside the results of a tournament.

To me, they were the better team that year, in spite of the fact that I was rooting for the Giants to win because the Pats were a bunch of smug, unlikeable jackasses.


So you're saying to you they were the better team. How would one define that I wonder. Oh yeah, that's your subjective opinion.

The only objective way to say who was best that year is within the framework of the NFL league system. And according to that system the team that accomplished the goal of every NFL season was the Giants.

That doesn't mean the Patriots wouldn't win the next game they played. It doesn't mean the Patriots wouldn't win 4/7 or 5/9 or 501/1001 games from the Giants. But those aren't the rule they play under. If you reject the framework of the NFL system and substitute who you really deep down feel was the best, that's certainly you're right as a football fan. I think we all do that. But just admit you're being deliberately subjective about it, and consciously ignoring the easily definable objective definition of the best team being the one that accomplished the goal of the season: win the Super Bowl.
 
2012-10-25 04:59:58 PM

js34603: The only objective "best" team is the one that won the league under the rules they're playing with. We can hypothesize about what the result of a 1001 game series or 600 game regular season would be and try to say the winners of those would be the best. But that's just fantasy.


The rules they're playing with determine a "champion", but not "the best team". "The Best Team" is not always the "champion".

Winning the Super Bowl doesn't remove you from comparison from all other teams because you won the Super Bowl.
 
2012-10-25 05:02:01 PM

js34603: thecpt: js34603: That team is the best according to the rules and parameters of the NFL.

I'm sorry, but TG has already explained the fallacy here. There is no rule on who is the best. The rules are on who can get to, and win a season ending tournament. I think how I view the argument is you can look at a team and you can consider which one had the most potential, ability, talent, and best performances consistently throughout the season and not just 4 games at the end.

So you basically look at a bunch of subjective criteria and decide who you think is best?

And it is not just 4 games at the end, it's 16 games before that. Of you go back to my original post I tried to make the point you cannot objectively define the BEST team absent some parameters. Since we're talking about the NFL it makes sense to use the parameters and rules they set up right? Well those rules set up the goal of the league as winning the Super Bowl. Only one team does that, but every team wants to do it. That team is the best as far as we can objectively determine by the rules and parameters of the NFL.

We can make up different parameters and say the goal of the season is the best regular season record, or most yards, or least points given up. If you do that you can then objectively say Team A met that criteria they are the best. We can also make subjective judgments like who has the most talent, potential, and performed consistently and try to call those teams the best. But since those are subjective judgments, what you're really saying is "my opinion is Team A is the best because...".

The only objective "best" team is the one that won the league under the rules they're playing with. We can hypothesize about what the result of a 1001 game series or 600 game regular season would be and try to say the winners of those would be the best. But that's just fantasy.


Okay there are some logical leaps and bounds in there. Imagine if the the 10 Seahawks won the superbowl. I cannot, as a fan and admirer of the sport, condone calling them the best that year. You can have your justification though technicality, but I'm going to call the best team the one that I thought played the most impressive football that year. Yes, it can't be proven. Did you notice upthread when the question was asked and a lot of people posted the same teams?
 
2012-10-25 05:02:30 PM

js34603: The only objective way to say who was best that year is within the framework of the NFL league system. And according to that system the team that accomplished the goal of every NFL season was the Giants.


OR... or. And this is a big "OR" here.

There is no objective way to say who is the best team. You can objectively say who won the Super Bowl, but that doesn't make them "the best team."

Mind = Blown
 
2012-10-25 05:06:40 PM

Gunny Highway: This thread sucks.


Yeah, well look who's shiatting all over an Eli thread like he always does and that's the reason.

And back to the original topic, DeAngelo did some pretty fancy tap-dancing away from his idiotic remarks today.
 
2012-10-25 05:08:38 PM

Treygreen13: js34603: It's not an opinion, do you understand what objective means? We're talking about the NFL. The goal of the NFL is to win the Super Bowl. Only one team does that. That team is the best according to the rules and parameters of the NFL. There's no opinion there, the most you can say is it might be more accurate to say "that team is the best at accomplishing the goal of an NFL season." But that's pretty wordy.

The team, that year, was the best at winning The Super Bowl.

js34603: As for your question, the Falcons objectively had a better regular season than the Browns in your scenario. When you ask if they are better, you're asking me a subjective question. Which team looks best? Which team has more talented players? Subjective, I could subjectively think the Browns are "better" but have been really unlucky or had a much harder schedule than the Falcons.

And we could argue based on Strength of Schedule, or compare statistics (which are objective) and make arguments which team was "better" between those two.
Winning the Super Bowl doesn't nullify statistics and comparisons between teams. If you can subjectively compare two NFL teams, then you can also subjectively compare the team that won the tournament at the end of the year to another and make an argument that they're not "better".

js34603: That is why there cannot be an objective best team without some system in place. If the parameters are which team won more regular season games, then I can say objectively the Falcons are better under those terms. If the parameters are who is better in terms of the franchises' future maybe the Browns are better. See how the parameters alter the answer?

And that's why we have mouths to talk and fingers to type and brains to send signals to both of them. Because we can look at performance outside of what happens in a tournament and make judgements based on things other than the outcome of a single-elimination tournament.


Of course you can argue and judge anything you want. Those are subjective opinions. In other words they're not even worth the time it took to type them. All the stats in the world don't decide anything, you can use them as support or as criticism of your position that Team X is best because that is what you believe.

But there is only one objective way to determine the best team in the NFL, as I've I said 900 times. The point if an NFL season is to win the Super Bowl, every team wants to do that, only one team does. Objectively, that team accomplished its goal to the exclusion of all the others. It is "the best" in those terms, the only objective way to measure it. Doesn't mean you can't argue that your team was better because of this stat or that stat. But that's you inserting your subjective judgment to justify your feelings. In other words its an opinion, and like assholes everyone had one.
 
2012-10-25 05:13:18 PM

js34603: But there is only one objective way to determine the best team in the NFL, as I've I said 900 times.


I know. You've made the exact same argument for 15 minutes and so have I. You think that the Super Bowl is "objectively" the way to determine the best team. I don't think there is a way to "objectively" determine the best team because I reject a single-elimination tournament as grounds for qualifying as the "Best Team".

And speaking of opinions, ours are both *gasp* opinions.

Are we done here?
 
2012-10-25 05:14:31 PM

Treygreen13: js34603: The only objective way to say who was best that year is within the framework of the NFL league system. And according to that system the team that accomplished the goal of every NFL season was the Giants.

OR... or. And this is a big "OR" here.

There is no objective way to say who is the best team. You can objectively say who won the Super Bowl, but that doesn't make them "the best team."

Mind = Blown


The farking NFL determines who is the best team by handing them a trophy at the end of the year. You're feelings about who are the best team are completely that, your feelings.

The NFL says here's your goal. One team can do it. That team accomplished the goal, the others didn't. No matter how much you want to feel and believe the other teams are just as good because you believe if to be true, there is one team that wins the NFL every year. That team is objectively the best, because any other definition of the best is just the opinion of people who don't matter. It's fine to have your own opinion, but you're being completely obtuse over the fact it is quite easy to see which team did what every NFL team is trying to do every year.
 
2012-10-25 05:19:28 PM

Treygreen13: js34603: But there is only one objective way to determine the best team in the NFL, as I've I said 900 times.

I know. You've made the exact same argument for 15 minutes and so have I. You think that the Super Bowl is "objectively" the way to determine the best team. I don't think there is a way to "objectively" determine the best team because I reject a single-elimination tournament as grounds for qualifying as the "Best Team".

And speaking of opinions, ours are both *gasp* opinions.

Are we done here?


I guess so until you learn the difference between subjective and objective. If you think it is my opinion that the goal of every NFL team is to win the Super Bowl and only one team does it every year so they are objectively the best under the terms of the NFL, then yeah we're done.
 
2012-10-25 05:21:14 PM

js34603: Treygreen13: js34603: The only objective way to say who was best that year is within the framework of the NFL league system. And according to that system the team that accomplished the goal of every NFL season was the Giants.

OR... or. And this is a big "OR" here.

There is no objective way to say who is the best team. You can objectively say who won the Super Bowl, but that doesn't make them "the best team."

Mind = Blown

The farking NFL determines who is the best team by handing them a trophy at the end of the year. You're feelings about who are the best team are completely that, your feelings.

The NFL says here's your goal. One team can do it. That team accomplished the goal, the others didn't. No matter how much you want to feel and believe the other teams are just as good because you believe if to be true, there is one team that wins the NFL every year. That team is objectively the best, because any other definition of the best is just the opinion of people who don't matter. It's fine to have your own opinion, but you're being completely obtuse over the fact it is quite easy to see which team did what every NFL team is trying to do every year.


The Lombardi trophy is not given to the best team. The Lombardi trophy is given to the team that wins a tournament at the end of the year. The teams do want to win the trophy at the end of the year. It is their goal to win that trophy.

But your idea that the team that wins the Super Bowl is the "best team" is an opinion.

Just like my argument is an opinion. We both have opinions. Now let's drop it.
 
2012-10-25 05:25:55 PM

js34603: Treygreen13: js34603: But there is only one objective way to determine the best team in the NFL, as I've I said 900 times.

I know. You've made the exact same argument for 15 minutes and so have I. You think that the Super Bowl is "objectively" the way to determine the best team. I don't think there is a way to "objectively" determine the best team because I reject a single-elimination tournament as grounds for qualifying as the "Best Team".

And speaking of opinions, ours are both *gasp* opinions.

Are we done here?

I guess so until you learn the difference between subjective and objective. If you think it is my opinion that the goal of every NFL team is to win the Super Bowl and only one team does it every year so they are objectively the best under the terms of the NFL, then yeah we're done.


Maybe you're stuck on the word "objective".

The teams all have an "objective" to win the Super Bowl. Objective as in "something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target"

But "objective" as you're using it is "of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality".

So yes, the Giants reached their "Objective" to win the Super Bowl.

But they're not "objectively better than all other teams." Unless you're arguing that they're "objectively better at winning the Super Bowl in a season".
 
2012-10-25 05:28:13 PM
I wish Fark paid me per post. I'm sure by now I've paid for a server at least with just my clicks.
 
2012-10-25 06:18:24 PM
Aw man...

I thought this was one of those Photochop Threads...
 
2012-10-25 08:27:07 PM
I had both Eli and Cruz on my fantasy team so I am getting a kick . . . .
 
2012-10-25 08:54:13 PM
All you need to know about this thread.

Eli Manning.

Threadshat by butthurt Packers/Rodgers fans.
Threadshat by Cowboys fans.

The Giants aren't my #1 team, but hey if my team can't win it all, I hope the Giants do for the lulz.
 
2012-10-25 10:16:54 PM

js34603: we can' do that within a season until the Super Bowl is over, then that team accomplished the goal of that season and are the best at "winning" the league


It's kinda like those reality shows where sometimes a guy can be a sh*tbird the whole time, so people don't vote him off and don't vote him off and then he wins...meanwhile, a guy kicks ass every week until toward the very end and slips on an event, doesn't have immunity, and gets voted off.

Is the guy who was good at everything and had a slip-up the best performer? Or the f*ckup who won? Maybe the f*ckup was sandbagging it the whole time as part of the overarching game to win. You can make that argument. Just like you can make the argument that the Giants were the best team in each of their recent SB years. But there's legitimate arguments for other teams.

/but in the end, for the players, the only thing that counts is the trophy. The rest of us don't get trophies, so we might as well argue that our teams were the best.

js34603: But there is only one objective way to determine the best team in the NFL, as I've I said 900 times.


Actually, you started off by saying there is no objective way to determine the best team in the NFL. And that was correct. Then you went off claiming that there was one.
 
2012-10-26 02:38:44 AM

Dr Quest DFA: I would certianly agree that RGIII had been the biggest and most pelasant surprise of the NFL season thus far (even if my team has to play him twice). And in the Giants game he did put up a better stat line that Eli (that strnage statistical duck QBR aside), but I wonder if it is sustainable. Can he still be as effective if the run game gets stuffed or reduced to merely average? Right now he is 24th in pass attempts. If he had to put the team on his arm, how would he do? I don't know and it will be interesting to see how he performs when he has to put it up 34+ times a game (happened twice already, 1 win and 1 loss) or when teams have a year or two worth of tape on him.

I hope he doesn't go the way of Cam Newton (no one deserves that fate and I am sick of being forced to watch boring Redskins games in NoVa), but I don't think it would be fair to compare him to other QBs until he has had at least a few years under his belt.

In any event, I hope you kick the Cowboys' and Eagles' keysters when you finally end up playing them!


First things first: I'm a Ravens fan & I traditionally cannot stand the Redskins. But since they've sucked so much recently, my hatred has simmered down & either way I'd still have to give Griffin props.

Washington is indeed the top-rated rushing offense in the league, but you have to factor in that about 37% of their run yards come from Griffin himself; if you knock his contributions down to a more normal QB range of 100 yards so far, then they fall to 9th in the league. You could also argue that at least part of Alfred Morris' success this year is the fact that opposing teams always have a linebacker or safety spying Griffin, in effect giving him one free block on most plays.

Two things about Griffin as a passer stand out to me: the first is his 70.4% completions (best in the NFL), which is astounding for a rookie quarterback, even more so given the relative lack of talent they have at wide receiver. Even more impressive than that, though, is that his completion percentage actually goes up on deeper routes; 68.6% on routes under 10 yards, 70.8 from 11-19, and 72.2 on 20+ yards...and it's a fairly even split in terms of attempts (70-65-54, respectively). Tack on the lack of turnovers (only 5 in his first 7 starts) and the fact that he's actually got that team to a 3-4 record and it's difficult to even think of him as a rookie.

There's obviously no way to know about sustainability; the record books are littered with young quarterbacks who put together a run of good games over a season or less and then disappeared. But the results he's posting so far definitely trend towards him being the real deal.
 
2012-10-26 02:08:23 PM

Harv72b: Two things about Griffin as a passer stand out to me: the first is his 70.4% completions (best in the NFL), which is astounding for a rookie quarterback, even more so given the relative lack of talent they have at wide receiver. Even more impressive than that, though, is that his completion percentage actually goes up on deeper routes; 68.6% on routes under 10 yards, 70.8 from 11-19, and 72.2 on 20+ yards...and it's a fairly even split in terms of attempts (70-65-54, respectively). Tack on the lack of turnovers (only 5 in his first 7 starts) and the fact that he's actually got that team to a 3-4 record and it's difficult to even think of him as a rookie.


Please disregard this as I'm a dumbass & was looking at attempts #11-19, etc, rather than yards thrown. Griffin still has very good numbers on deep routes, but they account for a much smaller percentage of his total throws & are not better than his stats on short patterns.
 
Displayed 216 of 216 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report