You're being shot down, maybe Rex can come here and bail you out.![]()
Really? The fact that you don't see it practically proves my point..So what in my comments do you see as the bias?
Yes Lombardi was a great coach and Starr is a HOF QB. They were both great.He took over a team, that was absolute horseshit with Starr at QB for 2 years, and they immediately started winning. Then when he stepped down the Pack had its 1st losing season since.... you guessed it, the year before Lombardi took over. But it was all Starr. Makes complete sense.
He took over a team, that was absolute horseshit with Starr at QB for 2 years, and they immediately started winning. Then when he stepped down the Pack had its 1st losing season since.... you guessed it, the year before Lombardi took over. But it was all Starr. Makes complete sense.
That has nothing to do with being a great coach.
Really? The fact that you don't see it practically proves my point..
I haven't looked, what was the typical number of passing yards thrown for the top tier QB's of that time during a season?
There is no point. Just to put this stupidity to rest I will say:
"No bias on your part".![]()
There were only 14 teams. He never ranked higher that 8.
So in this discussion, what is the bias?
You seem to be unable to point it out. I'm starting to think you may need to look in the mirror to find it.![]()
That's part of the problem.
But to be fair, it also looks like it wasn't a passing era.
No. You got me. You're completely rationale.So you still can't point to the bias, huh?
No. You got me. You're completely rationale.
I don't think so, since todays coach would be coming from all the strategy advancements that have occurred.
Relax bro. Your gonna hurt yourself.No, go right ahead and point out the bias you were speaking about.