Top Ten Quarterbacks in the League...

yes there are heated disagreements but you tend to think you are the only one who is right...why waste my time talking to a ...actually you have wasted more of my time than you are worth :moon2:

 

Ewker...

If my posts are a waste of time don't read them. I can't be the only person who thinks he is right after all i'm not arguing with myself. I guess you didn't notice.

I have no respect for cry babies.

Put me on ignore. :moon2:

 

Make the call..

The 1999 dallas cowboy defense or the 1999 tennessee titans defense. Which would you rather face in a playoff game?

According to 2008 the defense of the 8-8 cowboys from 1999 would represent superior opposition because they were 8th in total defense. The titans a mere 18th in total defense would represent inferior competition.

The 1999 dallas cowboys defense =the prince of f-ing darkness. The 1999 titans defense a walk in the park.

Or to use 2008's own analogy the 99 cowboys defense was a pro unit in comparison to the college like titans defense.

To play the 99 cowboys would be like playing today's colts but playing the 99 titans would be like playing today's raiders.

This lunatic logic courtesy of titans2008. My response? Dumb!

 

More lame logic from 2008..

There is no "well they are all in the NFL" argument here. The Raiders are not the same level of competition as the Colts.
----------------------------------------

Raiders are not the same as the colts. No kidding. But which team has the roethlisberger led steelers played in the post season that would be anything like the raiders? 2008? Roethlisberger did face a colt like team in the 2005. The colts! The 14-2 colts.

Again according to my friend 2008's illogical thinking playing the 2005 colts 14-2 record and all would be easier than playing the 2005 packers with their 4-12 record simply because the colts defense was only ranked 15th while the mighty packer's defense was rated 6th.

Not my thinking, his. According to 2008 a team is better, no check that far far better, no check that far far far far superior to another for no other reason than they had a defensive ranking a half dozen spots higher. Well there you go the 2005 colts and packers have just taken that notion and trashed it!:banned:

 

Can you honestly not comprehend an analogy? Do I have to point out every single possible scenario for you instead? This is retarded. Analogies are made extreme to show clarity. If I told you that the 16th defense is not the same as the 12th defense, that really wouldn't drive my point home, would it? They are close enough so that one could argue some small factor caused the change. That is why I use extreme examples, just like every other sane person on the planet. I guess you can continue to mock the extremeties while dodging the actual point that the analogy is getting at and you will fool a few unintelligent posters, but for the most part, you are just looking more and more foolish.

Ummm no. It would be easier to score points on them, though.

So what you are telling me is that if Team A allows more yards per game than Team B, that doesn't mean that Team B has a better defense? Last I checked, yards = points and the object of the game is to score more points than the other team. All you are doing is (attempting to) playing on people's biases since most people think that the Packer's defenses haven't been very good lately. Still, there is one simple point that you are overlooking (read: ignoring): yards allowed is the main factor that we look at to determine how dominating a defense was for a reason. That reason is that yards generally lead to points and guess what? The object of the game is to outscore the other team. Now, you might follow with 'why don't we just look at points allowed then?'. Well, for one, the defense doesn't always allow points. They can be surrendered by special teams or the offense. Is that the defense's fault? To a lesser extent, the special teams and offense can put the defense in a very bad field position situation. That also is not the defense's fault. Using yards allowed excludes both of these. Even more ludicrous is to use the teams' win loss records to determine how good their defense is. This, to be sure, is a very bad measure. The Oakland Raiders had a top defense last year and we all know how that turned out. Sure, it is not exactly the case that these rankings are the end all statistic, but there is no such formula and this is the best solution. There is a reason that we use this system to rank teams. You can ignore it if you want. I expect that any foolish analysis would.

 

2008 is dishonest now..

So what you are telling me is that if Team A allows more yards per game than Team B, that doesn't mean that Team B has a better defense?
----------------------------------------------

No i'm not telling you that i said the opposite. I agreed the defenses were somewhat better But you didn't just say the defenses were better and leave it at that no you want to project this moronic idea that the team with the 6th ranked defense is on a whole different level like a whole different league than a team with a 15th ranked defense. A whole different "level of competition". Like the 6th ranked team is so far superior. The packers superior to the colts right? On a whole level better right?

You admit your analogy is an extreme one but why use an extreme analogy that is just dumb and meaningless. There are real world analogies you could use like peyton manning who historically destroys average nfl defenses but has struggled at times against the leagues best ones most notably the pats. Do i have to come up with analogies to make your point for you? How pathetic is that?

What makes this whole thing so dumb and so pointless is that players have no say in who they get to play against. It isn't like roethlisbger called the comish and demanded he only play average defenses in the post season or that mcnair caled the comish demanding the leagues elite defenses. All a QB can do is go out there and play well enough to win.

 

2008 is dishonest now part2..

After 20 posts of nonsensical drivel arguing that total defense rankings mean everything 2008 now wants to change the parameters to scoring defense rankings instead.. What's the matter you lost a debate?

 

2008 is dishonest part 3..

Numerous times in this debate 2008 has suggested that i would have considered charlie ward a better QB than roethlisberger because ward had better collge stats than roethlisberger had pro stats. He is saying that i have or would disregard the fact that both players are at a whole different level. That is completely dishonest.



Never never never in my entire 5 years of posting on this site have i said anything like that. Never have i said that QB A, over there at whatever college has better college stats than QB B for a certain nfl team therefore he must be better. Never, never never. If i thought that way troy smith would be in my top 10 list. Hell i didn't even put 1st year nfl starters in my list. 2008 made a claim that is absolutely false and made that false claim the centerpeace of 20 posts of worthless nothing.

 

I realize you said the opposite. I was hoping that if there weren't team names attached that you would yield to reason, but I guess that was too much to hope for.

This is where the plot thickens. In a post where you are calling me dishonest, you misquote the statistics (intentional?). First of all, GB was not 6th in yards per game allowed. Second of all, Indy wasn't 15th.

Source: http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/DEF-TOTAL/2005/regular?sort_col_1=4

There is a difference of about 30 yards per game allowed between the actual 6th and 15th teams. Doesn't sound like much, but over the course of a season, that is almost 500 yards.

Lol. So let me get this straight... you know what the analogy meant, but you still blabber about how it's dumb? I say "that's like saying Charlie Ward is better than Big Ben because his stats are better" and you read "Charlie Ward is better than Big Ben" and I need YOU to make points for ME? Sure chico.

Of course they don't pick who they play against. You are saying that we can't judge them because they didn't get to pick who they played? That's ludicrous. McNair and Roethlisberger have very close stats. The tiebreaker is that McNair played tougher defenses and got the same stats. It's not rocket science... really it isn't. There are only two factors in my estimation that affect the qb's statistics. That is his own team's talent combined with his ability and the level of the defense he's playing against. I am trying to use both to show how McNair has performed better than Roethlisberger and you are making these retarded arguments about how the second factor doesn't matter. Ludicrous.

 

I think you would be the only who thinks so. I would love for you to quote where I said that. It isn't there lol. Do you just pull **** out of thin air?