Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Amusing, DeAngelo Hall, Eli Manning, DeAngelo Willingham, Observer-Reporter, Justin Tuck, WFAN, Redskins, Giants  
•       •       •

3867 clicks; posted to Sports » on 25 Oct 2012 at 11:21 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 216 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report