Alaska Darin Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 you mean adding something that agrees with your brillance 181487[/snapback] Note to billfan63 (which seems to be based on IQ score): If you're going to insult someone's intelligence using the written word, it's probably smart to spell really big words like "brilliance" correctly. Yeah.
PromoTheRobot Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 His team played in the AFC Championship game last season. I guess Jim Kelly sucked, too. 181486[/snapback] In case you forgot, Jim Kelly got his team to 4 Super Bowls. What's the point of having a QB setting all kinds of records if you never get close to winning a title? Maybe this is the Colts year, and that will end the debate. But you know the stigma of not winning a ring hangs over Marino and Kelly. I'll bet Dan Marino would give up his records for one ring. PTR
Alaska Darin Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 In case you forgot, Jim Kelly got his team to 4 Super Bowls. What's the point of having a QB setting all kinds of records if you never get close to winning a title? Maybe this is the Colts year, and that will end the debate. But you know the stigma of not winning a ring hangs over Marino and Kelly. I'll bet Dan Marino would give up his records for one ring. PTR 181494[/snapback] I'm sure he would but it's misplaced criticism to go after a guy who has yet to take the best TEAM into the playoffs (which Kelly did at LEAST once). I didn't like it when people did it to Kelly and it hasn't gotten any fresher now that they're doing it to Manning.
billfan63 Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 Note to billfan63 (which seems to be based on IQ score): If you're going to insult someone's intelligence using the written word, it's probably smart to spell really big words like "brilliance" correctly. Yeah. 181492[/snapback] Note to AD,, Got me, I'm searching the archive's to find a incorrect spelling by you, but that's just foolish, oh and the IQ score quip,,,,brilliant
Alaska Darin Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 Note to AD,, Got me, I'm searching the archive's to find a incorrect spelling by you, but that's just foolish, oh and the IQ score quip,,,,brilliant 181502[/snapback] I'm not sure you've got quite enough commas in there. Perhaps one more would do the trick. It has nothing to do with a misspelling, as it were. Only that it was an attempted insult on someone else's intelligence. There's more than a little poetic irony in that. Even you should agree. Oh, and "archives" isn't possessive. No need for an apostrophe.
billfan63 Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 I'm not sure you've got quite enough commas in there. Perhaps one more would do the trick. It has nothing to do with a misspelling, as it were. Only that it was an attempted insult on someone else's intelligence. There's more than a little poetic irony in that. Even you should agree. Oh, and "archives" isn't possessive. No need for an apostrophe. 181506[/snapback] I knew you and DC were one,,,, I do agree about the irony, ya got me
Alaska Darin Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 I knew you and DC were one,,,, I do agree about the irony, ya got me 181510[/snapback] Our wives would vehemently disagree, though there would certainly be concurrence were the question "are both of them azzholes?"
DCgirl Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 I'm sure he would but it's misplaced criticism to go after a guy who has yet to take the best TEAM into the playoffs (which Kelly did at LEAST once). I didn't like it when people did it to Kelly and it hasn't gotten any fresher now that they're doing it to Manning. 181497[/snapback] I agree - just because Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, etc. would give up a lot for one Super Bowl ring does NOT diminish the fact that they were great quarterbacks. Just because Trent Dilfer has a ring does not mean he's a better quarterback than Jim Kelly. I was reading Bill Simmons - who is a very funny guy but has the typical Pats' fan POV - and he argued that Brady was better than Manning in the same way that Emmitt is better than Barry Sanders. I.e. Emmitt has rings and Barry does not. Right - I'm sure if you switched Emmitt and Barry and put Barry on that loaded Cowboys team - Barry wouldn't have any Super Bowl rings and Emmitt would - sure... That shows how dumb that kind of reasoning is.
Foxboro Mike Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 It's going to be entertaining watching this board turn on Tin Manning when the Bills face the Colts in round one.
34-78-83 Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 I agree - just because Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, etc. would give up a lot for one Super Bowl ring does NOT diminish the fact that they were great quarterbacks. Just because Trent Dilfer has a ring does not mean he's a better quarterback than Jim Kelly. I was reading Bill Simmons - who is a very funny guy but has the typical Pats' fan POV - and he argued that Brady was better than Manning in the same way that Emmitt is better than Barry Sanders. I.e. Emmitt has rings and Barry does not. Right - I'm sure if you switched Emmitt and Barry and put Barry on that loaded Cowboys team - Barry wouldn't have any Super Bowl rings and Emmitt would - sure... That shows how dumb that kind of reasoning is. 181955[/snapback] Very good points
Alaska Darin Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 Emmitt has rings and Barry does not. Right - I'm sure if you switched Emmitt and Barry and put Barry on that loaded Cowboys team - Barry wouldn't have any Super Bowl rings and Emmitt would - sure... That shows how dumb that kind of reasoning is. 181955[/snapback] You said it.
Like A Mofo Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 Just because Trent Dilfer has a ring does not mean he's a better quarterback than Jim Kelly. Sadly, there are some idiots out there that actually think that statement is true.
DCgirl Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 It's going to be entertaining watching this board turn on Tin Manning when the Bills face the Colts in round one. 181961[/snapback] What I find odd is that all Pats fans seem to despise Manning. Why is that? I was asking my boyfriend that question last night (he's a Browns fan). He also thinks Manning is one of the best - better than Marino. Whenever, I talk to football fans of any team other than the Pats - the vast majority give Manning his props. Only Pats fans appear to hate him. It has to be connected to Tom Brady but it just seems strange to me to be so insecure about Brady. He's a great quarterback, but he did not win those Super Bowls singlehandedly. He has the better team and the clearly better coach - so why can't Pats fans admit that Manning is the better quarterback?
Alaska Darin Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 What I find odd is that all Pats fans seem to despise Manning. Why is that? I was asking my boyfriend that question last night (he's a Browns fan). He also thinks Manning is one of the best - better than Marino. Whenever, I talk to football fans of any team other than the Pats - the vast majority give Manning his props. Only Pats fans appear to hate him. It has to be connected to Tom Brady but it just seems strange to me to be so insecure about Brady. He's a great quarterback, but he did not win those Super Bowls singlehandedly. He has the better team and the clearly better coach - so why can't Pats fans admit that Manning is the better quarterback? 181998[/snapback] Blind arrogance because there team doesn't suck anymore. That's the reason they hang out here.
Foxboro Mike Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 I agree - just because Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, etc. would give up a lot for one Super Bowl ring does NOT diminish the fact that they were great quarterbacks. Just because Trent Dilfer has a ring does not mean he's a better quarterback than Jim Kelly. I was reading Bill Simmons - who is a very funny guy but has the typical Pats' fan POV - and he argued that Brady was better than Manning in the same way that Emmitt is better than Barry Sanders. I.e. Emmitt has rings and Barry does not. Right - I'm sure if you switched Emmitt and Barry and put Barry on that loaded Cowboys team - Barry wouldn't have any Super Bowl rings and Emmitt would - sure... That shows how dumb that kind of reasoning is. 181955[/snapback] Well said, but I disagree with you. The reason why Marino never succeeded was that his team became too dependent on him throwing the ball to succeed. They always helped out Marino, providing him with weapons, but always to the detriment of a running game (Mark Higgs, Sammie Smith, Bernie Parmalee, etc) and the defense. At least Manning HAS the running game, but the Colts don't choose to exercise that dimension often. I will go to my grave claiming Emmitt was better than Barry. Emmitt scored TDs, moved the chains, was always moving forward, and didn't put his team in 2nd-long, 3rd-long a lot by losing big yardage. Barry was great, don't misunderstand me, but I'd take Emmitt every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Foxboro Mike Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 What I find odd is that all Pats fans seem to despise Manning. Why is that? I was asking my boyfriend that question last night (he's a Browns fan). He also thinks Manning is one of the best - better than Marino. Whenever, I talk to football fans of any team other than the Pats - the vast majority give Manning his props. Only Pats fans appear to hate him. It has to be connected to Tom Brady but it just seems strange to me to be so insecure about Brady. He's a great quarterback, but he did not win those Super Bowls singlehandedly. He has the better team and the clearly better coach - so why can't Pats fans admit that Manning is the better quarterback? 181998[/snapback] I think most Patriot fans see a lot of a young Bledsoe in Manning. That's all. I may be wrong. Manning always seems to spit the bit when it matters, although he's gotten better each year. We'll see.
DCgirl Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 Well said, but I disagree with you. The reason why Marino never succeeded was that his team became too dependent on him throwing the ball to succeed. They always helped out Marino, providing him with weapons, but always to the detriment of a running game (Mark Higgs, Sammie Smith, Bernie Parmalee, etc) and the defense. At least Manning HAS the running game, but the Colts don't choose to exercise that dimension often. I just think there are a lot of factors that go into winning a Super Bowl. To say someone is not a great quarterback because they never won the big one is a very simplistic view. Your argument above is a slightly different point and it could be that Marino was too selfish and that was the reason he never won. But to say because he never won, he was not one of the best is wrong to me. I will go to my grave claiming Emmitt was better than Barry. Emmitt scored TDs, moved the chains, was always moving forward, and didn't put his team in 2nd-long, 3rd-long a lot by losing big yardage. Barry was great, don't misunderstand me, but I'd take Emmitt every day of the week and twice on Sundays. 182010[/snapback] Here I think the fact that Emmitt had an amazing O-line really played to his advantage. The fact that Barry lost big yardage just demonstrates to me how bad his O-line was. Give Barry the Cowboys starting 4 and how could he NOT move forward every time?
BRH Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 I think most Patriot fans see a lot of a young Bledsoe in Manning. That's all. I may be wrong. Manning always seems to spit the bit when it matters, although he's gotten better each year. We'll see. 182019[/snapback] The young Bledsoe did something Manning hasn't yet done, which is take his team to a Super Bowl.
Foxboro Mike Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 I just think there are a lot of factors that go into winning a Super Bowl. To say someone is not a great quarterback because they never won the big one is a very simplistic view. Your argument above is a slightly different point and it could be that Marino was too selfish and that was the reason he never won. But to say because he never won, he was not one of the best is wrong to me.Here I think the fact that Emmitt had an amazing O-line really played to his advantage. The fact that Barry lost big yardage to me just demonstrates to me how bad his O-line was. Give Barry the Cowboys starting 4 and how could he NOT move forward every time? 182042[/snapback] The Lions zone-blocked for Sanders, letting him pick/choose openings. The Cowboys ran more set plays, pulled guards, tackles, trapped, etc. Sanders was a homerun hitter who strikes out 200 times (Dave Kingman). Emmitt Smith was a batting champion who could also hit for power (Albert Pujols, Manny Ramirez). Just because you don't win it all doesn't mean you aren't a good player at whatever you do. I'd just rather have a guy that wins, not just puts up gaudy stats. It's the old Bill Russell/Wilt Chamberlain argument. Put it this way: Would you have traded Kelly for Marino, straight up?
BRH Posted December 28, 2004 Posted December 28, 2004 Put it this way: Would you have traded Kelly for Marino, straight up? 182057[/snapback] !@#$ no
Recommended Posts