02-17-2013, 07:38 PM
Whenever Herm Edwards comes on ESPN my IQ loses 10 Points...........its contagious.......you have to retune your ears and mind to even get down on his level
02-17-2013, 08:02 PM
Originally Posted by giantsfan420
02-17-2013, 08:05 PM
You realize that QB's don't actually play against eachother right?
02-17-2013, 08:12 PM
So who else is in the ESPN Hall of Fame if expert analysts? Trent Dilfer, Hassleback (the backup who never played), that running back for the Steelers whose name I can never remember (wide knot in the tie), Mangenius, yes, Herm's in stellar company....
02-17-2013, 08:24 PM
How about Teddy Bruschi.....they said he had a hole in his heart and forgot to mention the hole in his head
02-17-2013, 09:00 PM
Your tone is really condescending. I'll take it with a grain of salt, no worries. As for my misunderstanding of logic you may want to refresh your memory of the actual definition of the word. Another helpful hint is that words have 1, 2, and 3 definitions for the same word. Now your flawed logic was very relevant to the point I was making. Maybe you forgot what you posted, so I'll quote you to help you out.
Originally Posted by gmen46
"Because what is undeniably the single most important stat attached to a QB in the NFL is the number of Super Bowl victories.After that, the next important stat is the number of Super Bowl appearances, followed by number of post season and post season game appearances, followed by number of post season wins. After that the most important stats are number of games won during his career.
Only after these stats do QB numbers like TDs, total yards, ave per attempts,, comp %, interceptions, etc, etc.have any significant meaning to team owners, front office, coaches. and to most of a team's fans."
No knowledgeable sports pundit or color analyst believes that SB victories is the ultimate judge of performance of a QB. You clearly are a smart guy but you lack football savvy, and I am Black Madden (Having fun now, not serious). SB victories are the ultimate prize but in no way do they determine greatness. Performance determines greatness for any position far better than SB victories, even QB, now because of the importance of the QB position performance usually has a strong correlation with winning and losing. Yet there are QBs that didn't win SBs that were great. And there are SB winning QB's that aren't great. The Redskins won 3 SBs with good/mediocre but not great QBs; 2012 Ravens are a prime example as were the 2000 Ravens that greatness at QB is unnecessary for a SB victory; the Giants first 2 SBs were won with good but not great QB play.
I describe Eli's clutch factor as his most outstanding quality. The Giants performance has mirrored his play in their inconsistency so we've had 2 seasons out of the past 5 years where he had the opportunity to prove his clutch factor and the other 3 season in those 5 years we've missed the playoffs entirely. In our most pressure filled moments during playoff runs when the drama is at it's highest he has come through. Looking at his career in its entirety its been very inconsistent and filled with spotty play, save 2011.
Elite is a word with a legitimate place and makes good convo during the offseason. I don't know how anybody could look at Eli's career and say his play is on par with AR, Brady. His inconsistency takes him out of that category.
I have Eli ranked fifth among active QBs but there is a considerable gap between Eli and #4.
02-17-2013, 09:22 PM
Bruschi is usually fair to the Giants. Herm Edwards sounds like Charlie Browns teacher's to me most of the time.
Originally Posted by BParcells777
02-17-2013, 09:59 PM
I've been reading this thread. Where did anyone make this double standard? Wins are a team achievement.
Originally Posted by Rudyy
02-18-2013, 01:20 AM
After all that, and we both say--in slightly differing terms--Eli is in the top 5 of current QBs. Alrighty, then. Glad to hear it.
Originally Posted by B&RWarrior
As for your points about some good QBs don't win SBs, and some "bad" (I prefer "mediocre") QBs do win SBs--I 've already addressed that in a few different threads, and i'm pretty certain I addressed it here.
And, as I've said in each case, those are exceptions to the rule. As such, they don't really belong in the debate--at least not in any meaningful way.
They occur, yes, but infrequently. If you just go back the last 23 years (1990), how many QBs were on a winning SB team, but would be considered by most as mediocre? Hofstettler, Ripkin, Dilfer, Brad Johnson? Four out of twenty three--about 1 out of every 6 SBs (17%) had mediocre careers that included a magical run one year. If you look at all 47 SBs, that 17% will be fairly accurate for the entire era to date--meaning there have been about 7-9 QBs who won SBs who would not be considered very good QBs. And 1 of them (Plunkett) even won 2!
My biggest complaint in all these "who's an elite QB" threads is not about whether one agrees if Eli is or is not Elite. My complaint is much more about those who equate Rodgers to--or even better!!--than Brady and Peyton. Even the idea of comparing a QB of 5 seasons to 2 QBs who have guaranteed reservations in the HOF and are still performing at their highest level (and superior to virtually everyone else) after 13 and 15 seasons, respectively, I find offensive.
02-18-2013, 02:45 AM
People are comparing AR's first 5 years with Brady and Peyton's first 5 years. In that comparison he has outperformed them. But he also had a much longer grooming process because of Favre. AR is the best in the game right now. Regardless of who has the most SBs if I were to start a team right now I'd pick AR over all active QB's.
Originally Posted by gmen46
Your rule is bogus. C'mon dude 17% of anything is a significant enough amount to discredit any rule of thumb. Besides you left out McMahan and Flacco neither of which are great or very good, they are/ were above average. Although to be honest I thought Hostetler and Brad Johnson were both better than mediocre, but far from great.
Last edited by B&RWarrior; 02-18-2013 at 03:12 AM.