Guest Guest_dan_* Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 I know that's what you were saying! I figured you'd enjoy an article agreeing with you. Trent Dilfer will always be known as the worst QB to ever win the SB. Unfortunatly, guys like him are an exception, not the rule. 137582[/snapback] I am perpetually dumb-founded by the continual talk that we need a better QB to win the superbowl. Look at the games. Of the top of my head; Hostetler (however you spell it), Brad Johnson, Dilfer, Doug Williams. Are any of these Hall of Famers? Yet they all won the SB. Then look at the flip side: Kelly and Marino - no SBs (just to name 2). If the Pats have shown us anything, its that we need a Team to win - not a star QB. So, everyone get their heads our of their asses and realize that one or 2 players a team does not make. Drew may or may not be finished, but he's definitely better than several SB quaterbacks. That's all I'm saying about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Did you even watch the game? I've called for his head in the past, but despite those three bad throws - Drew played damn solid ball. He chucked some that were brilliant throws. He dumped off when he should have, he audibled out of bad plays when needed, and was sacked only once despite people being in his face quite often. Not only that, I think he completed over 60% of his third downs and overall, I think he completed almost 70% of his passes. I don't give a crap how many interceptions he had as long as he can balance it out with the other great things he did. And yeah, he threw only one TD pass, but did you see it? It was awesome. And someone had to help get the bills into the red zone for Willis' 4 TDs. Who might that be? Not only that, Buffalo scored every time they were within the 10, and were 66% in the red zone. That's damn good. I'm sure Drew had nothing to do with that, either. I suggest you refrain from comment until you can watch the game. Basing your assessment on passer rating is assinine. 137800[/snapback] It's funny. No one mentions the fact that I didn't watch it until LABillz did. Then I basically said "the numbers must be misleading because the numbers STINK, but I will watch the game when I go home for xmas". Then, 3 other jokers have to have the original idea to tell me to watch the game. I got it. But to say judging a QB's performance on rating is assinine is, well assinine. This week: Peyton Manning 141.4 Kelly Holcomb 128.5 Bledsoe 64.6 Kyle Boller 38.4 Eli Manning 16.9 Now, if you look at their performances, the QB rating puts them in order for "how good of a game they had" pretty well. I apologize that I didn't get to watch the game, but after that I use stats, and the fact is, we are all geeked up that DESPITE Bledsoe throwing three picks, one TD, and rating a mere 64.6 we didn't lose. You shouldn't win in spite of your QB, you should win because of him. I will watch the game, and I am sure (from LABills telling me in a normal, non-bashing, way that he was better than the numbers) but to say QB rating is not a good indicator is just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Winning IN SPITE of Bledsoe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted November 29, 2004 Author Share Posted November 29, 2004 It's funny. No one mentions the fact that I didn't watch it until LABillz did. Then I basically said "the numbers must be misleading because the numbers STINK, but I will watch the game when I go home for xmas". Then, 3 other jokers have to have the original idea to tell me to watch the game. I got it. But to say judging a QB's performance on rating is assinine is, well assinine. This week: Peyton Manning 141.4 Kelly Holcomb 128.5 Bledsoe 64.6 Kyle Boller 38.4 Eli Manning 16.9 Now, if you look at their performances, the QB rating puts them in order for "how good of a game they had" pretty well. I apologize that I didn't get to watch the game, but after that I use stats, and the fact is, we are all geeked up that DESPITE Bledsoe throwing three picks, one TD, and rating a mere 64.6 we didn't lose. You shouldn't win in spite of your QB, you should win because of him. I will watch the game, and I am sure (from LABills telling me in a normal, non-bashing, way that he was better than the numbers) but to say QB rating is not a good indicator is just wrong. 137850[/snapback] When you lead your offense on 5 touchdown drives including the first drive and last drive of the first half to close shut the Seahawks chances to win then you are a BIG TIME player in my book. Your little book of QB rating numbers be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 When you lead your offense on 5 touchdown drives including the first drive and last drive of the first half to close shut the Seahawks chances to win then you are a BIG TIME player in my book. Your little book of QB rating numbers be damned. 137882[/snapback] Not to mention when you do it on the road against a division leader coached by a guy who's won a Super Bowl. What's asinine is that there is even a debate over whether Bledsoe had a good game yesterday. He had a good game, Steve (and ICE). Get the hell over it already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 I am just happy that he proved me wrong and didn't kill the team with mistakes..... Yeah he made some....but he also came back and made some good plays..... I am not saying I want him starting next year however...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 I apologize that I didn't get to watch the game. I will watch the game, and I am sure (from LABills telling me in a normal, non-bashing, way that he was better than the numbers) but to say QB rating is not a good indicator is just wrong. 137850[/snapback] Watch the game. Rob Johnson used to have ridiculous QB ratings. He still sucked more than a $10 whore on her period the day the rent is due. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneida Lake Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Watch the game. Rob Johnson used to have ridiculous QB ratings. He still sucked more than a $10 whore on her period the day the rent is due. 138164[/snapback] A $10 whore? Imagine what a house costs. That's it I'm packing up and moving to Fairbanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 I will watch the game, and I am sure (from LABills telling me in a normal, non-bashing, way that he was better than the numbers) but to say QB rating is not a good indicator is just wrong. 137850[/snapback] Well, if it was about maintaining QB ratings, perhaps they would have had him throwing in the red zone instead of running the ball. 5 TD's passing vs. 1 TD passing, 4 running is about a 30 point difference in QB rating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneida Lake Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Well, if it was about maintaining QB ratings, perhaps they would have had him throwing in the red zone instead of running the ball. 5 TD's passing vs. 1 TD passing, 4 running is about a 30 point difference in QB rating. 138187[/snapback] Exactly. Brady is a master at the 1 yard TD pass, he's got about 12 this year. NE thinks pass to the tight end before anything, inside the 5. We run it in to give the O line a lift and the RB his props. QB ratings can be very misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts