Hollywood Donahoe

Sorry, most of my interactions with Daquix have been centered around Manning. Does he have a Clements boner as well?

Daquix is just trying to rationalize his purchase of this and this.

Your original post was not about "qualifying" or "explaining" anything. It was about setting certain words apart from others using various characters. You got your words mixed up. It happens. Don't try and weasel out of it by resorting to bogus definitions (my New Oxford American Dictionary includes no such definition).

Why should I be forced to compensate for your grammatical deficiencies?

In the future, if you begin a sentence with the word "why," you may want to consider ending it with a question mark. This thread is titled: "Peyton Manning: What is the general feeling about him?" How do you infer from that thread title that the topic at hand is whether or not Manning is a good FOOTBALL player? A "general feeling" could pertain to anything.

Same goes to you. "Parenthetic" refers to parentheses. You used quotation marks.

Are you the inspiration for this comic?

is that last sentence a question? It's formed like a question, but the punctuation tells me that it isn't one. I'm so confused. When communicating via the written word, Johnny Five, clarity is important.

Did you ever have someone shove their ass into your face in a professional setting? That's an important distinction to make. It's all well and good to say that guys do stupid, infantile stuff in college, because they do, but when that behavior begins to bleed into other aspect of one's life outside of college fraternizing, it becomes a significant problem, and is not something to shrug off.

For future reference: Your You're There They're Their

"At most, went a little overboard"? How would you like it if you were at work one day and Manning came in and sat down nude on your face?

That's evidence that he's had ONE good game without ONE of the many All Pro types that surround him. I'm fairly certain we're not arguing isolated incidents here.

I didn't think an argument that essentially amounted to "being surrounded by worse players would have no negative impact on a player's statistical performance" really dignified a response.

This thread was started at 11:14 PM. My first post in the thread was at 12:22 AM. Explain how 68 minutes is under 10 minutes. Or is math not your strong suit, Johnny Five? Why would you expect Brady to be involved in a game between the Colts and Steelers? That type of slam only works if Brady's team hadn't made the playoffs at all, or was eliminated in an earlier round than was Manning's. Your attempt at an insult looses its oomph when the answer to your rhetorical question is not "at home," but rather "In Foxboro recovering from the previous day's loss, which came IN THE SAME ROUND as Manning's loss, but came on the road, and came after he had already won one playoff game, something Manning wasn't able to do."

Not only that, but the "just get him a defense" argument also ignores the fact that any money spent on the defense would take away from that spent on the offense, thus lessening Manning's ability to put up monster numbers. To pretend, as many do, that if Manning had a defense, he'd pile up huge numbers and win Super Bowls, is nonsensical. His ability to accumulate statistics is due largely to to the lack of money spent on defense, for that is what has allowed him to be surrounded to premier offenseive talent. Hardly. Remember this? 1-10-IND44 (5:33) (Shotgun) P.Manning pass intended for B.Fletcher INTERCEPTED by T.Polamalu at 50. T.Polamalu to 50 for no gain. FUMBLES, touched at PIT 48, and recovers at PIT 48. T.Polamalu to PIT 48 for no gain (J.Saturday). Play Challenged by IND and REVERSED. (Shotgun) P.Manning pass incomplete to B.Fletcher (T.Polamalu). Everyone knows that was an INT that shouldn't have been overturned, and it would've given Pittsburgh the ball up 11 with just over 5 minutes left. Manning choked that game away on that play, and it was only the inexplicable reversal of the proper call that even allowed Manning a chance to get the Colts to within 3. Then, after the gift from the refs allowed the Colts to get to within 3, Manning responded with this series the next time he got the ball: 1-10-IND18 (2:31) (Shotgun) P.Manning pass to E.James to IND 20 for 2 yards (K.von Oelhoffen). 2-8-IND20 (2:00) (Shotgun) P.Manning sacked at IND 12 for -8 yards (J.Porter). 3-16-IND12 (1:33) (Shotgun) P.Manning pass incomplete to B.Stokley. 4-16-IND12 (1:27) (Shotgun) P.Manning sacked at IND 2 for -10 yards (sack split by J.Porter and J.Farrior). It was only the subsequent Bettis fumble, which was almost as inexplicable as the blown call on the INT, that allowed him to recover from his second choke of the game. And finally, facing a 2nd down from the 28 with chance to get into more comfortable FG range, Manning does this: 2-2-PIT28 (:31) (Shotgun) P.Manning pass incomplete to R.Wayne (B.McFadden). 3-2-PIT28 (:25) (Shotgun) P.Manning pass incomplete to R.Wayne. Still think he got the team into a position to win that game? The refs and Jerome Bettis played a far larger role, frankly.

You forgot mentioning Hurricane Katrina. That's gotta be worth 50 points at least.

Really?

Actually, here's an interesting stat that refutes that: Brady (QB rating): 2006 : Turf 99.9, Grass 72.4 2005 : Turf 108.6, Grass 88.7 2004 : Turf : 109.4, Grass 88.4 Manning (QB rating): 2006 : Turf : 101.7, Grass 113.8 2005 : Turf 98.2, Grass 115 2004 : Turf 126.7, Grass 112.7

I appreciate having a coach who wants to.

Yeah, I prefer classy coaches who are super upbeat after they lose. After getting completely and totally outcoached and outplayed the last two weeks, he should be sporting a nasty tone.

Merely pointing out that there are sources - however credible or incredible - that challenge Joey Balls' claim.

Actually, here's a blog that posts nightly on every Olbermann episode, and includes ratings. Most nights (like tonight, 11/9), Olbermann finishes well behind O'Reilly, both overall and in his "key demographic." Both are unwatchable blowhards, but O'Reilly draws far more viewers. Doesn't it have to be entertaining for that to work?

Sadly, he wasn't on the ballot.

Just got back from voting.