CosmicBills

This letter was just forwarded to me by a friend. It's pretty hilarious -- though not sure if it's authentic. Still, it's worth a chuckle in the doldrums of the off season.

Your entire thread is about defense winning. I assume you mean super bowls as the stats you reference have been super bowls where the number 1 O faced off against the number 1 D. But again, you're dishonestly arguing a point (point is used lightly here) because you either don't have the mental capacity to realize how flawed your original post (and subsequent posts) have been or you just have a problem admitting you're wrong. It's cool. Keep going. You're the one looking like an ass. It's awesome.

Actually you're wrong. There has never been a shut out in the Super Bowl. So once again, your facts and logic are irrelevant. Or should I say, "I assume this is really just a silly and unfounded" thread.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've got five bucks that paper is written in crayon!

What question? The ones you ignore from everyone else? Or your illogical question above about offenses and defenses? I'll answer that one: An offense that scores 32 points will not win every time. But a defense that allows 0 points will not win every time either (ties exist). So again, what does that prove? Oh, right. Nothing.

Be honest. How many times did you watch Bradshaw play. On film or live? Full games?

It's also clear you've never seen Bradshaw actually play. If you had, you'd realize exactly how good the guy was when it counted. You'd also realize that the league Bradshaw played in was very different than the pass-happy, high scoring league that exists now. Oh, but I'm not the one ignoring the stats. You are. But that's cool. It's now clear you're nothing but a troll. Not even a fun one anymore. You have no leg to stand on. You've given nothing in the way of facts other than reaching for .07% of all the Super Bowls played. Look at the more modern era, the same one that has been referenced over and over again in this thread yet you continue to ignore. In the past 14 Super Bowls (I would argue only 10 of those are relevant to today's NFL) there have been 10 QBs who've won. Of those 10, 7 of them are sure fire hall of famers and "franchise QBs". 2 of the remaining 3 played at or above Pro Bowl level during the championship run. The remaining one (Dilfer) played for a team with arguably the greatest defense ever assembled in the modern era. So, 1 times out of 10 you can say it's possible to win a Super Bowl without having a marquee QB leading the team. 1 time out of 10. That's what you're arguing for. How that equates to: "Defense wins.... PERIOD!" is beyond me. But, as I said, it's clear you're nothing but a troll. Or at least I hope you are. Otherwise I hope that you don't work in an industry that demands logical reasoning or the ability to put a coherent and compelling argument down on paper. Because clearly you lack those skills. You even lack the skills to comprehend that you LACK those skills. That's a scary combo.

No response to the 3 times out 45 that match up occurred? It's such a small statistical anomaly that it's irrelevant. It's even more worthless because one of those 3 times was in 78 -- before the chuck rule was implemented. The other 2 times occurred before the rest of the more modern rule changes were put into place that limited the defensive backs' abilities to stop the passing game. Oh, and of course as was pointed out above, 2 of those teams you mentioned were led by Hall of Fame QBs. The other time came down to a missed 47 yard field goal that, had it gone through, would have destroyed your theory. So yeah, no response to that worthless post.

That's not true (on any level). The 1b from Direct TV doesn't need to be paid back. It's theirs free and clear. The network money does have to be paid back (with interest) but not until games resume. Meaning they can leverage the 7+ Billion however they like to withstand the work stoppage. Also, the owners don't give a rat's ass about the PR war in terms of a work stoppage. Why would they? They know their product is the golden goose. This country is addicted to football. It's a ratings monster. Baseball and the NBA, both far less popular, survived worse and more contentious work stoppages in the past decade plus. The Owners know the NFL can, and will, do the same. Also, like I said above, I'm not sure the legalities of it but I think the owners have to lock the players out -- otherwise the existing CBA remains in effect until a new one is reached. But I'd love for someone who knows about the situation to explain that because I'm not sure how it works. Still, I'll bet you an avatar for a month that there's a lockout ...

That monkey fight in your head must be a wonderful show. I bet one wears a tutu. The lack of logical reasoning displayed in this thread is spectacular. It's like a car wreck on the freeway -- you don't want to look, but you have to look.

:lol:

Holy bananas! Really? REALLY? The most recent you can do is 1990??? Okay, here's a fact for you: the rules of the game CHANGED DRASTICALLY to help the passing game and up scoring in the past 10 years (let alone 33). Thus, any Super Bowl pre 2001 is pretty irrelevant to the "franchise QB" debate. The game has changed. You're living in the past.

I heart JW

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".

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%.

John, you continue to bring a breath of fresh (and inspired) air to this board. I know this is off topic for the thread, but thanks for continuing to contribute here.

They will lock the players out to force them to renegotiate the CBA. I'm not sure about this, maybe someone who knows the situation better can tell us, but if the owners don't lock the players out -- the season could go on without a CBA in place. Right? So the only way to force a new CBA is for one side to either lock out or strike. And since the players want things to remain the same and the owners want change ... right? I could be totally off with this paragraph.

That's a broad generalization of the concept at hand. But it's on par with the rest of your analytical skills demonstrated throughout this thread.

Marshawn was not properly shopped. Between the Packers, Saints and Seattle there were ways to leverage a better deal. The local media reported that there wasn't an attempt to do so (could be BS of course). If true, that's criminal. Truth of the matter is, Marshawn's value was high during the draft and no attempt was made to move him. The Bills got lucky and his value actually increased during the season (despite not being utilized) and he was still not properly shopped. Edwards was a disaster at QB -- something that was clear to see on tape. They claimed it was an open competition, but it never was. You can blame that on Chan of course as he's the coach. But if Buddy's personnel prowess is as good as some here believe, shouldn't he have been able to determine how bad Edwards was live based on tape study? Same with Green. He might have been the best OT in FA (I would argue he wasn't), but he was clearly over matched in Oakland time and time again. Based on Green and Edwards, what does that say about Nix's ability to judge talent? Again, this is just my opinion ... and I hope I'm wrong. But Nix so far has wiffed more times than not in year one. Year two HAS to be better. But forgive me for not having much confidence. That has to be earned.

Oh, it's totally my opinion. And it's one that I personally hope is wrong. But my concerns with Nix extend far beyond the draft. Again, for me, he has not made one move that has made me confident in his abilities. The Spiller pick is concerning because what it represents more so than the actual player picked (a backwards, old school thinking that RBs are more valuable than really are). The rest of the draft I agree is far too early to judge. But factor in his poor handling of the Edwards situation, his mishandling of the Marshawn trade, his poor evaluation of Green ... and really, what successes did he have in 2010? Possibly hiring Chan. That's about it. That's a lot of misses in year one.

Or Peterson.

Your thread title says, and I quote, "Defenses win.... PERIOD!". Yet, there has only been one Super Bowl winner in over a decade that has won with defense alone. Thems the facts. And they make everything you're saying subsequent to that thesis statement laughable backtracking. What you're really arguing (now) is that the Bills are good enough with Fitz and shouldn't draft a QB at 3 because there are none worth that high of a pick. While I don't share your belief that Fitz is the answer at QB (or good enough to lead this team to a Super Bowl win without a Raven-esque defense to back him up), I do agree that you don't reach for a QB unless he has the goods to be a franchise caliber player. And in light of the Bills deficiencies all over the field, building up the front 7 is not a bad way to go. But that doesn't make you profound. There isn't a fan on here that's arguing against that. They're arguing the rest of the bollocks you're spewing about defense being the end all be all of championship teams. At the end of the day, as the playoffs have proven once again, this is a QB driven league. The winner of this Super Bowl will be decided by who gets the better QB play -- NOT by the defenses. Both defenses are good. Both defenses will make plays. The difference will come down to Rodgers vs Ben. The smart money is on Rodgers who has been the hottest QB in the league the past month and a half and has taken the number 6 seeded, bruised and battered Packers to the Super Bowl. If they didn't have Rodgers, they wouldn't even be in the playoffs let alone the Super Bowl EVEN WITH THEIR DEFENSE. Everything else you're saying is pointless blather not based in logic, reason or facts.

I write comedy and couldn't have written a better line if I had tried. This sums up this entire thread. You need to learn to read your own thread titles.

I caught that too ... This article sums up (for me) the dilemma that is Buddy Nix. He's an easy guy to like in the press. He has a cool accent, he speaks his mind, he's been around football for (literally) half a century plus. He comes across as old school and driven. Hell, it's tough not to like him. When he says they got better on the line, you want to believe him. And, as the good Doctor said above, the line isn't the number one problem anymore ... but it's still a problem. Then you look at his accomplishments in year 1 with the Bills. Or should I say blunders. From Spiller to Edwards, to Green, to Marshawn -- there's a wake of missteps, utter failures, big talk with little return and a sense that he's in above his head. Every (reasonable) fan knew that the team that Nix inherited was a disaster and it was going to take more than a year or two to fix. But what those fans hoped for were signs of progress. Not in the wins column exactly, but in terms of bringing in more talent through the draft. While it's too early to judge his first draft fully, but the initial outlook is quite grim. Coupled with the other mistakes made in year 1, it gives me pause. I want to believe in Buddy ... I do. But he has to step up in a big way in April. This franchise needs him to be the man so many on here believe he is.

That was hastily typed ... should have been the NFLPA (and every major media outlet) not the owners. The owners get 5 Billion dollars in 2010 whether or not there's a game played. 1 Billion of that, from Direct TV is theirs scott free. There's far more motivation for the owners to lock players out than ever before. It is actually good business sense. But in case you'd like to see some, these are just pulled from random: Uno Dos C