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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 216 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report