McD Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 keep up, you're like five posts behind. jw Since I just drove my wife home and I'm facing a 4,765,196 on 1, I'm doing pretty good, thanks. Throw me some stats now John. What we saw last year is the absolute best Fitz will be in the NFL. I think Fitz can, and will, put up better #'s next year. Another way to state that is that Pittsburgh's vaunted defense took down the Jets and made them play from behind all game. The Bears were undone by Green Bays stifling defense who also took out their QB and effectively any chance of victory. Quit being obtuse. Again the answer is both. Great defense AND a franchise QB. Now this, if anything, is a breathe of fresh air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Another way to state that is that Pittsburgh's vaunted defense took down the Jets and made them play from behind all game. The Bears were undone by Green Bays stifling defense who also took out their QB and effectively any chance of victory. Quit being obtuse. Again the answer is both. Great defense AND a franchise QB. that's what i've been saying. the one point that the original poster has failed to acknowledge or address is his obtuse statement "defenses win ... PERIOD!" no they don't. he's is patently wrong, and impervious to reason on that point. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 I'm putting on my "Defenses win...PERIOD" tie and you can't make me take it off... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Since I just drove my wife home and I'm facing a 4,765,196 on 1, I'm doing pretty good, thanks. Throw me some stats now John. how are you doing "pretty good?" you're the embodiment of one-hand clapping. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I didn't realize I had to spell everything out for you, you seem like a big boy. Funny how you left out that I said you don't need a franchise QB... which you dont. Again, you're going back to this stance. Explain to me then how this year's playoff field (which is what you're using as the impetus to this thread) proves you don't need a franchise QB when both teams left in the playoffs HAVE a franchise QBs. And, you could argue quite successfully that the Packers (the first 6 seed in the NFC ever to make it to the Super Bowl) wouldn't even be IN the playoffs if not for the play of Rodgers. Expand it out further and you have 10 different QBs winning a ring in the past 14 years. 7 of those are Hall of Famers (that's 70%). Two of the remaining three played at or above Pro Bowl level for their championship season. That leaves 1 out of 10, or a 10% chance that you can win a Super Bowl WITHOUT a franchise QB at the helm by relying entirely on an absolute beast of a defense (one of the best defenses ever assembled in the salary cap era). So if you wanna take those odds, God speed. Me? I'll take the 90%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 that's what i've been saying. the one point that the original poster has failed to acknowledge or address is his obtuse statement "defenses win ... PERIOD!" no they don't. he's is patently wrong, and impervious to reason on that point. jw Not so John. I've always acknowledged the need for O, but you don't need a franchise QB to run it. You need an effective QB. Have you forgotten the ass kickings we took in our SB's? We had a dynamite O, but the D... well you know. how are you doing "pretty good?" you're the embodiment of one-hand clapping. jw Yawn... provide something of substance John. Again, you're going back to this stance. Explain to me then how this year's playoff field (which is what you're using as the impetus to this thread) proves you don't need a franchise QB when both teams left in the playoffs HAVE a franchise QBs. And, you could argue quite successfully that the Packers (the first 6 seed in the NFC ever to make it to the Super Bowl) wouldn't even be IN the playoffs if not for the play of Rodgers. Expand it out further and you have 10 different QBs winning a ring in the past 14 years. 7 of those are Hall of Famers (that's 70%). Two of the remaining three played at or above Pro Bowl level for their championship season. That leaves 1 out of 10, or a 10% chance that you can win a Super Bowl WITHOUT a franchise QB at the helm by relying entirely on an absolute beast of a defense (one of the best defenses ever assembled in the salary cap era). So if you wanna take those odds, God speed. Me? I'll take the 90%. Again you all hang your hat on a single player... without regard to the other 21 starters! A single point of failure?? It would be great to have a Rodgers, but there's not another one out there. With a stout D, we'll be much better off that with a reach at QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) Not so John. I've always acknowledged the need for O, but you don't need a franchise QB to run it. You need an effective QB. Have you forgotten the ass kickings we took in our SB's? We had a dynamite O, but the D... well you know. Yawn... provide something of substance John. Again you all hang your hat on a single player... without regard to the other 21 starters! A single point of failure?? It would be great to have a Rodgers, but there's not another one out there. With a stout D, we'll be much better off that with a reach at QB. Again, you're changing your argument. It's hilarious that you can't see this (or, this is the best trolling job in a few weeks on here). First you say you don't need a Franchise QB to win. Now it'd "be great to have one". Edited January 26, 2011 by tgreg99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Not so John. I've always acknowledged the need for O, but you don't need a franchise QB to run it. You need an effective QB. Have you forgotten the ass kickings we took in our SB's? We had a dynamite O, but the D... well you know. Yawn... provide something of substance John. Again you all hang your hat on a single player... without regard to the other 21 starters! A single point of failure?? It would be great to have a Rodgers, but there's not another one out there. With a stout D, we'll be much better off that with a reach at QB. yes, there is only one Aaron Rodgers. there is only one Peyton Manning, too. now that you've evidently mastered the patently obvious, how is it possible that others points of reason prove to be so inpenetrable. let's try it simply: do number 1 defenses always (and by always, i mean, well, always) win Super Bowls? jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 No, actually I've seen THAT defense/response to my posts quite a bit. I've presented my case, and gave evidence to it as well, but most people here have just been bitter about that, lol. Nothing I can do about that John. Also, take a gander as to when I posted this. It was soon after (minutes I think) the Divisional games. If Im not mistaken, I wrote this because of another thread going on and on about the playoff QB's. I sat there watching ALL of the supposed superstar/franchise QB's go down, and who was it that took them down? Defense, defense and more defense. You must have missed the Steelers come from behind win against the great "defense, defense, defense" of the Ravens that caved under Big Ben's 2 half play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 Again, you're changing your argument. It's hilarious that you can't see this (or, this is the best trolling job in a few weeks on here). First you say you don't need a Franchise QB to win. Now it'd "be great to have one". "Great", BUT not necessary. Do you not see the flaws in your own argument? Anything to debate, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir andrew Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 17 pages? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 yes, there is only one Aaron Rodgers. there is only one Peyton Manning, too. now that you've evidently mastered the patently obvious, how is it possible that others points of reason prove to be so inpenetrable. let's try it simply: do number 1 defenses always (and by always, i mean, well, always) win Super Bowls? jw Do they? Nope... they don't ALWAYS win SB's, but that's not what the OP said either. Same question... do #1 offenses ALWAYS win SB's? You must have missed the Steelers come from behind win against the great "defense, defense, defense" of the Ravens that caved under Big Ben's 2 half play. You mean the Steelers great, and better, than Ravens defense?? Yes, I saw that. The better defense won... and? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Do they? Nope... they don't ALWAYS win SB's, but that's not what the OP said either. Same question... do #1 offenses ALWAYS win SB's? sorry, don't turn this around. i'm not arguing in favor of offenses or defenses. i'm questioning your misplaced and obtusely thought out header, which states: "defenses win ... PERIOD!" so, in other words, you finally admit that you're wrong. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 sorry, don't turn this around. i'm not arguing in favor of offenses or defenses. i'm questioning your misplaced and obtusely thought out header, which states: "defenses win ... PERIOD!" so, in other words, you finally admit that you're wrong.jw Yeah, like that's going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Lightning Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 It's hard to be wrong on TSW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Yeah, like that's going to happen. well, at least we've got him on the defensive ... ah ... maybe that came out wrong jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 sorry, don't turn this around. i'm not arguing in favor of offenses or defenses. i'm questioning your misplaced and obtusely thought out header, which states: "defenses win ... PERIOD!" so, in other words, you finally admit that you're wrong. jw Ha ha ha! BS man, you have NO argument! You're only action here is to be part of the internet grammar police, lol!! Oh no.... please own up to your comments. I ask a question and you turn on it? Let me guess... you're taking a creative writing class and you have a bet going that you can use the word "obtuse" more than anyone in the history of public forums... lol. WTF man! Yeah, like that's going to happen. I know right? But again, I've not been proven wrong have I? well, at least we've got him on the defensive ... ah ... maybe that came out wrong jw Hardly. Defense wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBaumer Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Peyton carried the team to win the Super Bowl in Indy Dilfer won it with a ridiculous defense Both are not the norm........ Franchise QB with above average D gets it done and so may a top 5 D with an above average QB.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 The closest thing you'll find to an olive branch to this thread: (not that we need one, lol) COOL FACTOID: In the last 27 Super Bowls, 19 of the winners have been the team that had the better defensive ranking while only eight have been the team with the worse defensive ranking. If the same thing were true for the offensive ranking, the cool factoid above wouldn’t mean anything… but it isn’t true. The winner had the better offensive rank 13 times and the worse offensive rank 14 times – a toss up. As you can plainly see, the offensive ranking did not seem to make much difference one way or the other, but the defensive ranking in the Super Bowl game does seem to have an affect. Despite the fact that more points are scored, it’s still true that the fewer a team allows, the better their chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Ha ha ha! BS man, you have NO argument! You're only action here is to be part of the internet grammar police, lol!! Oh no.... please own up to your comments. I ask a question and you turn on it? Let me guess... you're taking a creative writing class and you have a bet going that you can use the word "obtuse" more than anyone in the history of public forums... lol. WTF man! I know right? But again, I've not been proven wrong have I? grammar police? actually, you must be new to these intrawebs in which the ability to communicate in a common language -- in this case English -- is generally appreciated and routinely regarded as critical to having a formal and reasonable discussion. you see -- and let me type slowly for you here, in the event you can't keep up -- when someone, say it's you, writes something such as "defenses win ... PERIOD!" it is roundly accepted by those familiar with the basics of the english language that you are making a case that defenses always win. the fact that you added three periods followed by a PERIOD and then an exclamation mark is widely regarded as you stating an absolute case. you are stating, to wit, that defenses always -- without fail, precedence or exception -- come out victorious. and yet, we are all aware that that is not entirely the case. you in fact have stated so yourself in your acknowledgment to me that the best defenses do not, in fact, always win the Super Bowl. in fact, the case can be made that the Indianapolis Colts, who gave up something like 22 points a game, won the Super Bowl in 2006 despite their defense. but i don't need to bring up facts to prove to you how obtuse your point might be, when you have already agreed that defenses don't always win. thus: you have been proven categorically wrong. unless, of course, you: 1) live in a bizarro world in which wrong is actually right. 2) have a rare immunity to logic. 3) english may not be your first language. 4) are doing this to simply be silly. 5) are out to prove a point that being addled is a virtue. 6) suffer from dyslexia. 7) have a lifelong passion for proving how obtuse you can be. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts