Manning chooses Broncos

[Bemular]

And you have provided zero evidence to refute my claim. I guess we're even.

I did provide my rationale for why the Giants were not markedly worse as you previously claimed. Perhaps I misunderstood your point. When you said the other offensive groups were markedly worse than ours, how were you quantifying and qualifying that remark relative to the 2011 season?

 

[Bemular]

Every game and every team is different. I guarantee that if NO had turned the ball over five times against a Joe Montana-led team - especially in his seventh season - there wouldn't have been any issue of "coming back" to win.

A comeback is always great and almost always impressive. As others have pointed out, if it's the only thing that matters, teams would now be leaping at the chance to get Tim Tebow. When you lead the league in turnover differential, you shouldn't need seven come-from-behind victories.

4th qtr QB comebacks (comebacks) are a measure of (among other things) a QB's ability to overcome adversity regardless of whose fault or why the adversity had to be overcome.


"As others have pointed out, if it's the only thing that matters, teams would now be leaping at the chance to get Tim Tebow."

I have never once even suggested that comebacks are the only thing that matters - not sure what, beyond that of being a red herring, the point of this statement was.


"When you lead the league in turnover differential, you shouldn't need seven come-from-behind victories."

I understand the rationale of this position but does the historical evidence support this position? On the other hand, if your team does need 7 come from behind victories you better hope you have the QB that can deliver those victories. Fortunately for us, we did.


"I guarantee that if NO had turned the ball over five times against a Joe Montana-led team - especially in his seventh season - there wouldn't have been any issue of "coming back" to win."

You're right, Montana only needed a plus 3 TO's to stage what was at the time the greatest comeback in NFL history - vs. the Saints, in Dec. 1980.


Finally, you keep illuminating the NO game and the 5 TO's as if it proves some negative point about Smith - it doesn't. I suggest you examine the evidence a little more thoroughly.

 

[wartyOne]

please pick a better example than crabtree. smith was middle of the road stats wise while crabtree's numbers put him at the bottom of the pack of starting wr's.

Quickly (for starting WR's; then divide by two):

Receptions: 16
Targets: 23
Yards: 29
TD's: Tied for 43 (though this represented a quarter of Smith's TD's.)
Yds/GM: 33
YAC: 29

Yeah, those are about Smith's numbers. Crabtree was middle of the road for the 64 starting WR's in the league. Better than, in most cases.

Honestly, are you guys even looking at these numbers, or are you just guessing?

 

[wartyOne]

the wr's were very bad. a reason why we're replacing crabtree with a guy who wasn't in the league and a 3rd stringer. can't have back ups at skill positions and expect miracles.

Alex Smith.

Cough.

 

[wartyOne]

4th qtr QB comebacks (comebacks) are a measure of (among other things) a QB's ability to overcome adversity regardless of whose fault or why the adversity had to be overcome.


"As others have pointed out, if it's the only thing that matters, teams would now be leaping at the chance to get Tim Tebow."

I have never once even suggested that comebacks are the only thing that matters - not sure what, beyond that of being a red herring, the point of this statement was.


"When you lead the league in turnover differential, you shouldn't need seven come-from-behind victories."

I understand the rationale of this position but does the historical evidence support this position? On the other hand, if your team does need 7 come from behind victories you better hope you have the QB that can deliver those victories. Fortunately for us, we did.


"I guarantee that if NO had turned the ball over five times against a Joe Montana-led team - especially in his seventh season - there wouldn't have been any issue of "coming back" to win."

You're right, Montana only needed a plus 3 TO's to stage what was at the time the greatest comeback in NFL history - vs. the Saints, in Dec. 1980.


Finally, you keep illuminating the NO game and the 5 TO's as if it proves some negative point about Smith - it doesn't. I suggest you examine the evidence a little more thoroughly.

Seriously, if we had Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Stafford, either Manning, Romo, Cutler, Roethlisberger, and probably a handful of others as our starting QB in that game, it would have been a blowout, and people wouldn't be talking about "what a comeback."

If you have five turnovers and need a comeback, you also need a new quarterback. I don't care who you're playing against.

 

[Flyingiguana]

Alex Smith.

Cough.

saying smith is a back up after the year he put up shows you're an idiot. seriously, go look at the stats.

 

[Flyingiguana]

Quickly (for starting WR's; then divide by two):

Receptions: 16
Targets: 23
Yards: 29
TD's: Tied for 43 (though this represented a quarter of Smith's TD's.)
Yds/GM: 33
YAC: 29

Yeah, those are about Smith's numbers. Crabtree was middle of the road for the 64 starting WR's in the league. Better than, in most cases.

Honestly, are you guys even looking at these numbers, or are you just guessing?

crabtree would be much better as a #2, however as a #1 which he was playing as he was bottom of the barrel. having crabtree as a #1 when he clearly isn't a #1 makes things harder for the rest of the offense.

thanks for proving my point

 

[wartyOne]

saying smith is a back up after the year he put up shows you're an idiot. seriously, go look at the stats.

No need to get testy. I didn't call you an idiot when your argument has been garbage for weeks.

You go look at the stats. He had an average year by NFL QB standards, and that was the best year on his resume.

 

[wartyOne]

crabtree would be much better as a #2, however as a #1 which he was playing as he was bottom of the barrel. having crabtree as a #1 when he clearly isn't a #1 makes things harder for the rest of the offense.

thanks for proving my point

Your point was Alex was middle of the road.

That post proved that Crabtree was equivalent to Smith. Which you don't want to admit.

 

[Flyingiguana]

Your point was Alex was middle of the road.

That post proved that Crabtree was equivalent to Smith. Which you don't want to admit.

there's a big difference between being a #1 and #2 wr. classic example is peerless price. excellent #2 but when he got his big contract and started seeing the better cover corners, he was hogwash.

an avg #2 makes for a horrible #1

 

[wartyOne]

saying smith is a back up after the year he put up shows you're an idiot. seriously, go look at the stats.

Also, Matt Moore and Tavaris Jackson had equivalent years in everything but INT differential.

Both of them have been replaced.

Smith is a backup everywhere but SF. Sorry. That's reality.

 

[wartyOne]

there's a big difference between being a #1 and #2 wr. classic example is peerless price. excellent #2 but when he got his big contract and started seeing the better cover corners, he was hogwash.

an avg #2 makes for a horrible #1

So now we're changing the rules? You said Crabtree was at the bottom of the barrel of starting WR's. I pointed out that his stats according to other WR's in this league prove otherwise.

 

[wartyOne]

there's a big difference between being a #1 and #2 wr. classic example is peerless price. excellent #2 but when he got his big contract and started seeing the better cover corners, he was hogwash.

an avg #2 makes for a horrible #1

Aside from which, what are we talking about? There is no #1 versus #2 WR. There are three different WR positions in a conventional offense. Is Welker the #3 WR as his position would expect, according to your argument?

 

[Flyingiguana]

No need to get testy. I didn't call you an idiot when your argument has been garbage for weeks.

You go look at the stats. He had an average year by NFL QB standards, and that was the best year on his resume.

average isnt back up material. i define a quality starter as being 85 rating + 7 ypa. smith finally hit those marks last season. which about half the qb's in the league typically do

 

[Flyingiguana]

Also, Matt Moore and Tavaris Jackson had equivalent years in everything but INT differential.

Both of them have been replaced.

Smith is a backup everywhere but SF. Sorry. That's reality.

that is complete bullshit. jackson had back up numbers while moore didn't. there's a reason why miami was looking to replace moore with smith...

 

[Flyingiguana]

Aside from which, what are we talking about? There is no #1 versus #2 WR. There are three different WR positions in a conventional offense. Is Welker the #3 WR as his position would expect, according to your argument?

uhm welker is a #1, you're an idiot. i'm not responding to your stupid posts...

 

[Bemular]

Seriously, if we had Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Stafford, either Manning, Romo, Cutler, Roethlisberger, and probably a handful of others as our starting QB in that game, it would have been a blowout, and people wouldn't be talking about "what a comeback."

If you have five turnovers and need a comeback, you also need a new quarterback. I don't care who you're playing against.

You have a short memory - I don't know about the other QB's but Brees needed 5 TO's and OT to comeback vs. the Vikings on their way to winning the SB.

Look, I'm not at all suggesting that we don't need a new QB but this TO/comeback argument is a ridiculous litmus test to determine that.

 

[wartyOne]

average isnt back up material. i define a quality starter as being 85 rating + 7 ypa. smith finally hit those marks last season. which about half the qb's in the league typically do

You're right. Matt Moore and Matt Hasslebeck basically hit both of those benchmarks.

Hell, Tarvaris Jackson and Mark Sanchez nearly did as well. All four of those guys are going to be unemployed in the next year and a half.

Smith has had 7 years to prove himself. He hasn't, as far as I'm concerned. Sure he had obstacles. Every 1st overall pick has.

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this, and I don't want to keep arguing with you. If I took any cheap shots, I apologize. I'm sure I probably did. Cheers, seks.

 

[wartyOne]

uhm welker is a #1, you're an idiot. i'm not responding to your stupid posts...

Wow.

I stand by my previous post. Cheers.

 

[wartyOne]

that is complete bullshit. jackson had back up numbers while moore didn't. there's a reason why miami was looking to replace moore with smith...

And then signed Garrard. Before Smith caved.