Sharky's NFL play of the week

[Exoter175]

]The younger crowd that doesn't understand the evolution of football[/SIZE] may have trouble understanding why this is so. Football has evolved over the years and the passing game has evolved as rule changes affect the passing games effectiveness. I can't blame younger people for being ignorant to the fact that you can't compare the stats from one era to the next on an equal basis. In Monatana's day a 60% completion rate was exceptional but today you won't hold a starting job if you don't have that. Today exceptional is a 70%+ completion rate. Montana came in right when a favorable rule change hit. The receivers used to be able to be hit downfield when running a pattern. In 1979 the league made it illegal to make contact beyond 5 yards. That set up Montana and many others to destroy the record book from the previous era. You just can't compare stat for stat. In 2003 a bunch of favorable rule changes starting to come into effect. These protected the QB and the receivers from more effective defensive play. The result is was another era set up for the players playing in it to destroy all the previous records. It is obvious a QB that did great in an era it was harder on QBs would excel with more favorable rules. But QBs that excel with the more favorable rules are not guaranteed to excel when the rules make it tougher. Those that saw play in the previous era or know enough about football historically have a pretty good sense for what it took.

Well anyway I can't blame the youngsters for their ignorance about football since they only know what they have seen in the last decade or so. But I did find an article that touches on why you can't compare stat for stat from one era to another. Comparing stat for stat is like going to a carny game based on BJ and thinking it is the same as BJ. Guess what. they took out the tens. All your stats the BJ strategies are based on BJ can't be used as stats in a game without tens. The same is true about the rule changes as football became a different game at various times in football history. Here is an article that will help the youngsters understand football better and how and when football became a different game as time passed. The author divdes football into 5 eras. Those that really know football may argue for more or fewer eras but this should help those that don't understand football very well from a historic standpoint become more educated if they understand football well enough to understand how, when and why the game changed as time passed. You rarely hear people throw out names of the greatest QBs of all time that played in eras before Montana's. I think Johnny Unitas, Y A Tittle and Sammy Baugh are among the best QBs from each era but you never hear these youngsters that think they know everything mention them. I guess they just don't understand the differences in each era of football and what exceptional stats were then. Some of the slow learners will read this link that explains a bit about the differences and still try to compare stat for stat from on era to another.

www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/brief-fact-filled-history-the-nfl-passing-game/6778/

Only prima donna glory hogs worry about their own stats. The best players do what makes the team have the best shot at winning. The best players do this and as things changed in the NFL, QBs passing went from not even having a designated passing position to only the best passing or rare situational passing to passing being a minor but significant part of the game to passing being the most frequent play. It wasn't a matter of QB abilities changing just what percentage of pass plays gave the team the best chance of winning and how much harder rule changes have made it for the defense to defend the pass. Even what is considered holding by a lineman has evolved over the years.

Yet another of your posts not directly quoting me, but attempting underhanded insults left and right.

Understand this, T3. I know more about the game, the history of the game, and how to play the game than you EVER will.

So while you might be older than I, you certainly ARE NOT more knowledgeable than I am about it. The irony here, is that I've LONG stated in this thread that you simply CANNOT compare arbitrary statistics from one guy to the next, and here you are supporting that statement, despite your COUNTLESS attempts to do just THAT. Very contradictory T3, I suppose you'll do what you will with statistics as long as you can find a way to bend them to "paint a pretty picture" of an absolutely ignorant argumentative standpoint.

PS, for the last god forsaken time, Montana did NOT play in a "different era" than Brady. They might be ~20 years apart from one another, but most of the same rules applied, same number of games applied, same defensive schemes applied, and considering he got to be the "front man" for Walsh's WCO, he basically pioneered the "dink and dunk" offense, to which you claim Brady is a "dink and dunk" guy, and couldn't have done the same in Joe's shoes, which is again, contradictory to your theory.

PS, there's plenty of guys from Joe's era in the top 35 (60% or better) "all time career passing percentage leaders". Jim Kelly, Steve Young, Rich Gannon, Brett Favre, and Troy Aikman ring a bell there. Then as you dig into the mid 90's-99, you've got Warner, Manning, Griese, Culpepper, Brad Johnson, Trent Green, Jeff Garcia, Matt Hasselbeck, Jon Kitna, and Steve McNair.

The reason I bring that up, however, is that you can look down that list of all of those names from Joe to Matt, and pick out a LARGE chunk of them that were products of WCO's, pioneered by Walsh and perfected under Montana. Of the top 15, 6 of those guys played in the NFL before the turn of the century.

While we're on it, though, lets go ahead and list the current starters/former starters in the NFL these few seasons below 60%, since you stated that 60% won't hold a starting job.

Matt Stafford, Cam Newton, Chad Henne, Eli Manning, Matt Cassel, Sam Bradford, Andrew Luck (The most surprising considering he's wildly regarded as the next "big" thing in the future of the QB position) Josh Freeman, Michael Vick, Mark Sanchez.

Why do some NFL franchises perform horribly year after year? Is it because of poor draft, GM and coaching choices? Poor ownership philosophy and direction? Small media market? Non-supportive fan base? Poor geographical location? Highly-competitive or non-competitive division? What are the common threads for these seven (7) teams?
__

Here are the teams winning less than 42% of all their games since 2002 (32 NFL teams -- Divisional realignment).

1. Cleveland Browns: 1 playoff appearance since 2002 -- loss. Last appearance in playoffs = 2002 season. Last playoff win = 1994 season (21 seasons). 34.4% win percentage since 2002.
All-time passing leader: Sipe; leading rusher: Jim Brown; leading receiver: Ozzie Newsome
Current issues: Gordon, Manziel, Gilbert

2. Buffalo Bills: NO playoff appearances since 2002. Last appearance in playoffs = 1999 season. Last playoff win = 1995 season (20 seasons). 41.3% win percentage since 2002.
All-time passing leader: J Kelly; leading rusher: T Thomas; leading receiver: A Reed
Current issues: EJ Manuel, Vick

3. Detriot Lions: 2 playoff appearances since 2002 -- both losses. Last playoff win = 1991 season (24 seasons). 32.9% win percentage since 2002.
All-time passing leader: M Stafford; leading rusher: B Sanders; leading receiver: C Johnson

4. Washington Redskins: 4 playoff games in 3 seasons since 2002. Last appearance in playoffs = 2012 season. Last playoff win = 2005 season (10 seasons). 39.2% win percentage since 2002.
All-time passing leader: J Theismann; leading rusher: J Riggins; leading receiver: A Monk

5. Oakland Raiders: 3 playoff games in 1 season since 2002. Last appearance in playoffs = 2002 season. Last playoff win = 2002 season (13 seasons). 32.7% win percentage since 2002.
All-time passing leader: K Stabler; leading rusher: M Allen; leading receiver: Tim Brown

6. St. Louis Rams: 3 playoff games in 2 seasons since 2002. Last appearance in playoffs = 2004 season. Last playoff win = 2004 season (11 seasons). 36.7% win percentage since 2002.
All-time passing leader: J Everett; leading rusher: S Jackson; leading receiver: I Bruce

7. Jacksonville Jaguars: 3 playoff games in 2 seasons since 2002. Last appearance in playoffs = 2007 season. Last playoff win = 2007 season (8 seasons). 40.8% win percentage since 2002.


http://www.pro-football-reference.co...e/playoffs.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...f/playoffs.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...t/playoffs.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...s/playoffs.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...i/playoffs.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...m/playoffs.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...x/playoffs.htm

All of the above. If you don't have a dedicated owner who is wiling to put the "best" out there, you won't be competitive. Conversely, if you don't have big enough support from your local market and fan base, it'll be nearly impossible for a team to remain competitive enough to draw in "big ticket" free agents. And almost certainly here, you have to consider competitive/non competitive divisions.

The Browns had to wade through the Ravens/Steelers "dominant" years with QB's like Roethlisberger and Flacco in the division.

The Bills had to square up against the Patriots twice a year, which is just rough, and then the Jets who were competitive until the last couple years in that division. Couple that with the resurgence of the Dolphins at least TRYING to go 8-8 or better and improve from the ground up, and that's just a tight division, likely THE tighest.

The Lions have been a conundrum until the last few years. They've managed to draft well and hit free agency well in the last 4 or 5 years, and with an aging Bears team in the division, they've certainly improved despite having to face Rodgers twice a year which are certainly their most anxious games year after year.

The Redskins get it pretty badly with Dallas, New York, and Philly trading off every couple years on who the "real" team is, which should have had them enter that race for the first time in a long time with RG3 and/or Cousins at the helm, but they just can't seem to stay healthy both physically and in comparison to the salary cap, and BUILD upon each roster.

The Raiders? Shoot. You've got Three VERY strong AFC teams in that division already with Denver, Kansas City, and San Diego. With two GREAT QB's at the helm, and likely the most remarkable Running Back in the league on the "other" team. Oakland also suffered from poor ownership, poor drafting, and a poor fanbase.

The Rams didn't always have it bad, they've just made poor free agent/drafting decisions and keep taking 2 steps backward for one step forward. When they were the "Greatest Game on Turf" they pretty much had everything going for them, with the world in their palms. Fast forward a decade and you no longer have your star QB, your two star wide outs, your star Running Back, and the fan base just disappeared, and now you're competiting with Oakland for moving to LA.

As for the Jaguars, that one's a little interesting, you could pretty much count on the Colts to "be there" year in and year out, and for a couple years the Texans weren't half bad either, but with the Titans being virtually nonexistent most years in the division, you figure they'd have a shot at "something". When you don't draft well, however, and let all of your "star" guys walk in free agency, you're going to run into this problem.

Lets look at a few of those wonderful Jaguar Drafts.

Byron Leftwitch 2003 1st round draft pick, played witht hem for 4 seasons (lol)
Reggie Williams 2004 1st round draft pick , played with them for 5 seasons (lol)
Matt Jones 2005 1st round pick, played with them for 4 seasons (lol)
Marcades Lewis 2006 1st round draft pick, 9 seasons and counting with them (good job)
Reggie Nelson 2007 1st round draft pick, played with them for 3 seasons (ouch), the guy they traded him for, David Jones, spent 2 seasons with Jacksonville before moving on
Derrick Harvey 2008 1st round draft pick, played with them for 3 seaons (ouch)
Eugene Monroe 2009 1st round draft pick, played with them for 5 seasons, traded for Baltimore's 2014 4th and 5th round draft picks which turned into two "bubble" guys on their roster, big mistake
Tyson Alualu 2010 1st round draft pick, 5 seasons and counting with them (good job)
Blaine Gabbert 2011 1st round draft pick, played with them for 3 seaons and got traded to the 49ers for a 6th round pick in 2014, which turned into Luke Bowanko, who started 14 games for them at Center last year.
Justin Blackmon 2012 1st round draft pick, played with them for 2 seasons, injured/banned for the 3rd, likely won't return to football/the team. (ouch)
Luke Joeckel 2013 1st round draft pick, 2 seasons and counting with them (jury is out on the pick)
Blake Bortles 2014 1st round draft pick, 1 season and counting with them, (Jury is still out on this pick)

I mean, just look at that. From 2003 to 2014 and onward, they've managed to keep 4 of their 12 1st round draft picks, trading three of those guys for 1 starter, 2 practice squad guys, and a guy who left the team. Hell, only 3 of their last 5 are with the team still, with an average lifespan of only 3-5 years with the team.

Now compare that to a "middle" team like Kansas City, who has 7 of their last 12 1st rounders still on the roster, including their 05, 06, and 07 picks (though that is expected to change this next season). WIth 4 of their last 5 1st round picks still on the roster. The guy not on the roster, they traded to the 49ers for a fellow 1st rounder, and he is still on the roster and will be for some time. So really, that's 8/12 and 5/5 if you're looking at raw value, and on top of that, 2 of the 12 1st rounders, which left the team this season in free agency, will be adding compensaotry draft selections for the Chiefs this coming draft, likely in the 3rd or 4th round variety.

Now keep in mind, both are "small market" teams. The difference comes from ownership and fanbase. Chiefs fans are some of the most devoted fans in the league, and their ownership runs deeeeeep into the roots of the NFL itself (the AFC Championship trophy is named after their founding father, and father of the current owner).

Obviously drafts are a lot "bigger" than the depth of your 1st round selections, but its important to keep in mind how "well" a team is "hitting" on those picks, whether they become starters, and whether they remain on the team as starters. When your average 1st rounder is spending only 3-4 years with your team, or in the NFL as a whole, that speaks VOLUMES to the "health" of your organization. It likely means you've got bad ownership and a bad front office, and that combination can be deadly to an NFL organization.

Thanks Tthree.

Does winning hinge on continuity in front-office and coaching staff? Seems to me that the most successful teams have long-tenured GM, scouts & personnel people, head coach and coaching staff, and oftentimes, owners.

Or maybe getting lucky in drafting (and trading) like Brady, Manning, Luck, Favre, Rodgers, Flacco, etc? On the opposite end, CLE & BUF seem to be wasting draft picks left-and-right.

The top 10 teams with regards to win percentage since 2002 are:
NE (75.6%), IND (67.5%), PIT (63.8%), GB (61.6%), BAL (58.7%), PHI (58.6%), DEN (58.4%), SD (57.3%), SEA (56.4%) & NO (55.5%).

Winning absolutely hinges on the front office, coaching staff, and their ability to draft and/or get lucky.

Look at New England, at the top of your list. They picked a "diamond in the rough" QB in Brady and have absolutely CRUSHED the NFL since. Looking back now, they have won 4 super bowls in 14 years, that's absolutely impressive, and they've gone SIX times.

Then you look at "the rest" in that picture and you have a recurring theme there. Each team has a solid QB at the helm. Luck, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Flacco, McNabb/Vick/Foles, Manning/Cutler, Rivers, Wilson/Hasselbeck, and Brees.

It goes without saying that you "need" a "good enough" QB in this league to win. Obviously if you can have a GREAT one like Brady, Manning, Rivers, Rodgers, or Roethlisberger, you're pretty much set, and that starters with the personnel department doing their homework on each QB both in free agency and in drafting, and then ends with the Front Office either signing/drafting them, or not.

[Math Demon]

All of the above. If you don't have a dedicated owner who is wiling to put the "best" out there, you won't be competitive. Conversely, if you don't have big enough support from your local market and fan base, it'll be nearly impossible for a team to remain competitive enough to draw in "big ticket" free agents. And almost certainly here, you have to consider competitive/non competitive divisions.

The Browns had to wade through the Ravens/Steelers "dominant" years with QB's like Roethlisberger and Flacco in the division.

The Bills had to square up against the Patriots twice a year, which is just rough, and then the Jets who were competitive until the last couple years in that division. Couple that with the resurgence of the Dolphins at least TRYING to go 8-8 or better and improve from the ground up, and that's just a tight division, likely THE tighest.

The Lions have been a conundrum until the last few years. They've managed to draft well and hit free agency well in the last 4 or 5 years, and with an aging Bears team in the division, they've certainly improved despite having to face Rodgers twice a year which are certainly their most anxious games year after year.

The Redskins get it pretty badly with Dallas, New York, and Philly trading off every couple years on who the "real" team is, which should have had them enter that race for the first time in a long time with RG3 and/or Cousins at the helm, but they just can't seem to stay healthy both physically and in comparison to the salary cap, and BUILD upon each roster.

The Raiders? Shoot. You've got Three VERY strong AFC teams in that division already with Denver, Kansas City, and San Diego. With two GREAT QB's at the helm, and likely the most remarkable Running Back in the league on the "other" team. Oakland also suffered from poor ownership, poor drafting, and a poor fanbase.

The Rams didn't always have it bad, they've just made poor free agent/drafting decisions and keep taking 2 steps backward for one step forward. When they were the "Greatest Game on Turf" they pretty much had everything going for them, with the world in their palms. Fast forward a decade and you no longer have your star QB, your two star wide outs, your star Running Back, and the fan base just disappeared, and now you're competiting with Oakland for moving to LA.

As for the Jaguars, that one's a little interesting, you could pretty much count on the Colts to "be there" year in and year out, and for a couple years the Texans weren't half bad either, but with the Titans being virtually nonexistent most years in the division, you figure they'd have a shot at "something". When you don't draft well, however, and let all of your "star" guys walk in free agency, you're going to run into this problem.

Lets look at a few of those wonderful Jaguar Drafts.

Byron Leftwitch 2003 1st round draft pick, played witht hem for 4 seasons (lol)
Reggie Williams 2004 1st round draft pick , played with them for 5 seasons (lol)
Matt Jones 2005 1st round pick, played with them for 4 seasons (lol)
Marcades Lewis 2006 1st round draft pick, 9 seasons and counting with them (good job)
Reggie Nelson 2007 1st round draft pick, played with them for 3 seasons (ouch), the guy they traded him for, David Jones, spent 2 seasons with Jacksonville before moving on
Derrick Harvey 2008 1st round draft pick, played with them for 3 seaons (ouch)
Eugene Monroe 2009 1st round draft pick, played with them for 5 seasons, traded for Baltimore's 2014 4th and 5th round draft picks which turned into two "bubble" guys on their roster, big mistake
Tyson Alualu 2010 1st round draft pick, 5 seasons and counting with them (good job)
Blaine Gabbert 2011 1st round draft pick, played with them for 3 seaons and got traded to the 49ers for a 6th round pick in 2014, which turned into Luke Bowanko, who started 14 games for them at Center last year.
Justin Blackmon 2012 1st round draft pick, played with them for 2 seasons, injured/banned for the 3rd, likely won't return to football/the team. (ouch)
Luke Joeckel 2013 1st round draft pick, 2 seasons and counting with them (jury is out on the pick)
Blake Bortles 2014 1st round draft pick, 1 season and counting with them, (Jury is still out on this pick)

I mean, just look at that. From 2003 to 2014 and onward, they've managed to keep 4 of their 12 1st round draft picks, trading three of those guys for 1 starter, 2 practice squad guys, and a guy who left the team. Hell, only 3 of their last 5 are with the team still, with an average lifespan of only 3-5 years with the team.

Now compare that to a "middle" team like Kansas City, who has 7 of their last 12 1st rounders still on the roster, including their 05, 06, and 07 picks (though that is expected to change this next season). WIth 4 of their last 5 1st round picks still on the roster. The guy not on the roster, they traded to the 49ers for a fellow 1st rounder, and he is still on the roster and will be for some time. So really, that's 8/12 and 5/5 if you're looking at raw value, and on top of that, 2 of the 12 1st rounders, which left the team this season in free agency, will be adding compensaotry draft selections for the Chiefs this coming draft, likely in the 3rd or 4th round variety.

Now keep in mind, both are "small market" teams. The difference comes from ownership and fanbase. Chiefs fans are some of the most devoted fans in the league, and their ownership runs deeeeeep into the roots of the NFL itself (the AFC Championship trophy is named after their founding father, and father of the current owner).

Obviously drafts are a lot "bigger" than the depth of your 1st round selections, but its important to keep in mind how "well" a team is "hitting" on those picks, whether they become starters, and whether they remain on the team as starters. When your average 1st rounder is spending only 3-4 years with your team, or in the NFL as a whole, that speaks VOLUMES to the "health" of your organization. It likely means you've got bad ownership and a bad front office, and that combination can be deadly to an NFL organization.



Winning absolutely hinges on the front office, coaching staff, and their ability to draft and/or get lucky.

Look at New England, at the top of your list. They picked a "diamond in the rough" QB in Brady and have absolutely CRUSHED the NFL since. Looking back now, they have won 4 super bowls in 14 years, that's absolutely impressive, and they've gone SIX times.

Then you look at "the rest" in that picture and you have a recurring theme there. Each team has a solid QB at the helm. Luck, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Flacco, McNabb/Vick/Foles, Manning/Cutler, Rivers, Wilson/Hasselbeck, and Brees.

It goes without saying that you "need" a "good enough" QB in this league to win. Obviously if you can have a GREAT one like Brady, Manning, Rivers, Rodgers, or Roethlisberger, you're pretty much set, and that starters with the personnel department doing their homework on each QB both in free agency and in drafting, and then ends with the Front Office either signing/drafting them, or not.

Thanks Exoter.

[Math Demon]

Regarding Browns' texting violation:

1. I recently read that texting from front office personnel to coaches during a game is a violation of NFL rules. Why? How can texting create an unfair advantage?

2. Are team employees allowed to watch a broadcast/surf during a game (e.g. in the suites, parking lot, sideline)? Can they relay the info (extent of injuries, etc) to coaches (except through electronic devices)?

[Exoter175]

Well not much of a debate. They are both great QBs. Ex is a stat guy so he bases his position on the stats and not the skill set of the QBs.

The fuck I am. YOU, T3, are the stat guy, basing all arguments on "box score" statistics and ignoring the "finer" statistics of the game that don't show up there. Furthermore, in terms of arguments' sake, you've been known to continuously ignore "fact" for "stat" repeatedly. Like your assertion that Baltimore was losing games because they abandoned the run, where I eviscerated your post, showing that the reason they lost the game was in large part due to an ineffective running game, and constantly facing passing downs rather than rushing downs, all the while keeping nearly identical first/second half rushing numbers.

I am NOWHERE near being a "stat guy" in our arguments, more of a historian, realist, or someone who actually pays attention long enough to figure out the depth of the situation, like the Baltimore losses you pissed and moaned about. Also, salt and pepper some experience and time into it (because I actually played the game) and I'm about as far away from a "stat" guy as possible.

Its hilarious when the very "stat guy" of the forum, tries to reverse a claim and argument on this forum, so that he can switch positions. It just doesn't work like that T3. I speak from experience and historical perspective, you speak from box score statistics, lets at least try to be honest with ourselves when we have arguments, alright? lol

[Aslan]

The fuck I am. YOU, T3, are the stat guy, basing all arguments on "box score" statistics and ignoring the "finer" statistics of the game that don't show up there. Furthermore, in terms of arguments' sake, you've been known to continuously ignore "fact" for "stat" repeatedly. Like your assertion that Baltimore was losing games because they abandoned the run, where I eviscerated your post, showing that the reason they lost the game was in large part due to an ineffective running game, and constantly facing passing downs rather than rushing downs, all the while keeping nearly identical first/second half rushing numbers.

I am NOWHERE near being a "stat guy" in our arguments, more of a historian, realist, or someone who actually pays attention long enough to figure out the depth of the situation, like the Baltimore losses you pissed and moaned about. Also, salt and pepper some experience and time into it (because I actually played the game) and I'm about as far away from a "stat" guy as possible.

Its hilarious when the very "stat guy" of the forum, tries to reverse a claim and argument on this forum, so that he can switch positions. It just doesn't work like that T3. I speak from experience and historical perspective, you speak from box score statistics, lets at least try to be honest with ourselves when we have arguments, alright? lol

Brother, are you defensive! It seems like you two have mastered the art of pushing each other's buttons. Your audience may not be as unsophisticated as you obviously fear. Believe it or not, I think most readers here can sift yours and his posts and and separate the wheat from the chaff, from their own personal perspectives, of course. No one sees all facets on all issues, not even Billy Walters. Attacking each other may do more to muddy the waters than allow the facts to stand out and speak for themselves. You guys should host a sports show together. But no poisoned arrows, please.

[Aslan]

The Dan Fouts to tight end Kellen Winslow combination was totally unstoppable. Similar to Brady to Gronk.

Fouts was a heck of a QB. Whatever happened to him. Is he still a sports commentator?

[Exoter175]

One of the best quarterbacks I ever saw who you guys haven't mentioned is Dan Fouts. He's not talked about much because he never went to a Super Bowl. But that's because his team, the Chargers had a terrible defense. I don't hold it against him and I think he's worthy of being mentioned alongside the best.

I can't even stomach that name with how biased he is commentating for the Chargers on CBS.

Brother, are you defensive! It seems like you two have mastered the art of pushing each other's buttons. Your audience may not be as unsophisticated as you obviously fear. Believe it or not, I think most readers here can sift yours and his posts and and separate the wheat from the chaff, from their own personal perspectives, of course. No one sees all facets on all issues, not even Billy Walters. Attacking each other may do more to muddy the waters than allow the facts to stand out and speak for themselves. You guys should host a sports show together. But no poisoned arrows, please.

Here's how the sports show would go. I'd talk about shit that matters, he'd talk about the box scores, then argue with me basing his argument from the box scores, while I go to the teleprompter and draw him arrows and circles showing him why those box scores are the way they are, and why his "conclusion" about the box score was wrong, having had to show him the actual plays of the game.

Isn't he tough. He acts like stat guy is an insult. I just say that because when we talk about QBs he doesn't talk about their abilities to do different things or give stats context from one era to another because of rule changes he just posts stats that are as much a team accomplishment as an individual one. He challenged people to show some rule changes that made his ever so all important stats that was the entire basis of is argument and wen they were listed everyone could see the relationship between the era and stats and the rule changes that changed the face f the game. I just talked about the QBs different abilities and ow effective they would be in the different eras and how one from an era o very physical football would obviously do better in todays era where defenses can do what they used to do. Just watch the Super Bowl Brady didn't do well after each time he got hit. Two interceptions followed being hit. Brady has a long history of being a crybaby to the refs. Montana got hit like Brady never did regularly.

Another time we had a discussion about my pick on the Denver/NE game and he was so stat obsessed about QBs he actually argued any time Manning played Brady no matter what team he was on or how long ago it was it would be a relevant stat. All that he had was stats. No expression of a feel for the game. He challenged me about games I watched and saw the Ravens fail to establish their run game and fall behind and get in trouble because Flacco is much more effective when the defense must be more prepared for the run. Since he didn't watch the games he challenged me. I put up the actual play by play that proved exactly what I had witnessed. He tried to either twist the stats by generalizing the entire game when I had the play by play from the beginning that showed exactly what I said. He still says he won that even though he made a fool of himself because everyone could see the play selection throughout the game showed I was right. He just sees stats not the way the game unfolded. I put up the play by play not stats so everyone could see exactly how and when Baltimore chose to pass or run. All he saw was the box scores.

To me that is a stat guy. I could continue to sow how he just sees stats rather the the story behind the stats but I don't want to go on too long. Everyone that read the thread already knows he is a stat guy. Hell, he just does fantasy football which is just stats. He didn't make one pick against the spread. That speaks volumes. On the other hand my QB arguments has been totally absent of stats but talk about the abilities of QBs. My worry about the Ravens was not based in stats but from watching them fail to establish the running game early in the couple games I sited and then feel they had to pass without ever establishing any real run threat. That is not typically the way the Ravens have gone into games historically. Wether the run was effective or not the ran the ball so their pass game was more effective. It isn't like they have any number one targets. the receivers that get separation can't catch very well and it is about the basics of catching with some or others that don't get separation but have good hands. That is what my statement was based on and when challenged I put up the play by play that showed exactly what I was talking about. Ex just could get past the game stats and see how the game developed as observed from watching the games or shown in the play by play analysis.

The people that know, live and breath football know hat I am talking about. The fantasy football guys who spend endless hours combing over stats tend to get to obsessed with stats. Why not it works great in fantasy football but in actual team play not so much.

1. I'm not a "stat" guy. A "stat" guy is someone who looks at the box score statistics (you) and derives all arguments from arbitrary stat lines (you again) to make a foolish attempt at a point not validated in any way shape or form, from those statistics (you again). Like your argument that Baltimore abandoned the running game in their losses this year, and thus lost the game. In reality, as I've already pointed out half a dozen times, they didn't lose the game because they ran it 2 or 3 times less in the second half than in the first half for the same or better yards per carry. They ended up having to pass the ball more frequently because they were running into "passing downs" more frequently due to an ineffective running game and/or penalties.

2. You've brought up nothing relevant about the QB's we've talked about, in the way they play. You have, however, told us how Joe Montana had an "arm" and could hit receivers "in stride" a mile down the field, while ever single NFL analyst has and will disagree with you, and they already have decades prior to your comment, and a few of them might be rolling over in their grave having you said such a bogus comment, again.

3. You said Brady couldn't play in "joe's era" because he was a "dink and dunk" QB, but were completely ignorant of the fact that Joe was a "dink and dunk" QB in the ORIGINAL "Dink and dunk" offense, under the ORIGINAL "dink and dunk" coach, and then later played out his final years in...........you guessed it......A DINK AND DUNK OFFENSE.

Literally, this is my biggest issue with you here in the debate of QB's. Quite simply put, you're arguing with me while being either completely oblivious to the fact of how wrong you are about Brady and Montana, or you're trolling your heart out 24/7 to get a response. Do yourself a favor, understand the fact that Joe Montana was coached and played in the original dink and dunk offense by the original dink and dunk coach, in the original dink and dunk scheme, and then later Brady would play in essentially the same dink and dunk offense in the same dink and dunk scheme decades later. This doesn't separate them by "era" as they basically played under the same rule sets, in the same types of offenses, and put up, for the most part, the same "efficiency" lines as far as statistics go. Brady just won more in less time and produced more. That's it, that's the end of the argument there. Does that make Brady the best? Not necessarily, but having seen Brady and Montana play before my very eyes at one of the most Iconic and Stoic stadiums the NFL has ever seen, its safe to say that my opinion of the discussion can't be so easily tossed aside as "just a stat guy" commentary, from the stat KING himself.

Fouts was a heck of a QB. Whatever happened to him. Is he still a sports commentator?

Yes, and I wish he would retire. His biased announcing anytime the Chargers play on TV is literally the most annoying thing in the world. All he ever talks about are Phillip Rivers, the Chargers, and the Chargers when he used to play for them. Coupled with peroidic highlight reels of Fouts tossing the rock to his legendary tight end for a touchdown.

He is literally the most annoying announcer on TV aside from Joe Buck, and I wish they would both lose their voices or retire because I have to fight the urge to turn off the television or change the channel when either of them are announcing a game.