Riggo#44 Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 I posted his McNabb's numbers below, and it was the best start in NFL history this is fact you flipping moron. You then mention how Garcia's yards are to his rb, it is a west coast offense and they do hardly rush the ball so yea guess what RB's get a lot of receiving yards. Insults are the sign of a weak arguement... Garcia's success was a direct result of Brian Westbrook. You really think Garcia could have succeeded without him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Garcia had 10 Td's and 2 picks and would rank among the highest in the nfl if he played all season if that continued for his 6 game span? I set that one up riggo you never knocked it down.Passizle McNabbs numbers are posted above and it is fact he had the best nfl start. Yes Garcia played well, but really, it was Westbrook who carried this team. Garcia was no more then Brunell in 2005 - are you going to say he was "elite?" So you're saying Garcia could have carried that team independant of Westbrook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 You have no idea what would have happened without Westbrook, I am going by what DID happen and he DID post elite numbers. You laughed at that, but he would be top 3 in the nfl in td and in fewest ints, if he played all season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 10 Td's 2 ints' in 6 games I set it up Riggo waiting for the knockdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 10 Td's 2 ints' in 6 games I set it up Riggo waiting for the knockdown. Dude, that a direct result of Brian Westbrook taking the pressure off of him. DO you think Mark Brunell was elite in 2005? Same numbers. I am done here. You just keep posting the same questions over and over again. No matter what people refute them with - you ignore whatever disproves you're point. So I am done with this argument. P.S. Don't bother to reply, you've been put on my ignore list. Think what you want, you can "win" this arguement for all I care. You're really you're not worth my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Looking at your most recent post I noticed you mentioned the pats san diego game and claimed his Rivers defense was playing poorly, but they did have 3 picks. River's rushing attack had 100 more yards then the Pats did, what exactly were you trying to prove by showing me those stats. That Brady the better qb set his team up for the W?San Diego had more yards in that game, there D produced 3 turnovers as opposed to NE's 4, I don't really see what you were trying to prove with those stats other than the team with the better qb came out on top. Actually no I did not. The Charger were winning on both sides of the ball. They clearly outplayed the Pats in every facet of the game. The keys to their demise were three things. Fumbles by Rivers, Gates and McCree. Rivers was sacked, Gates was drilled and McCree actually intercepted that ball, came down, ran for a few yards and did not see Brown behind him. Btrown forced the fumble and the Pats got the ball back with a new first down. Clearly that was the work of the elite and all mighty Brady. Secondly, their receivers wer sloppy with the ball. There were at least six instances where receiver were hit quarley but could not hold on. this cost them some key first downs. Finally there was clock management. On a key play with 1:10 left on the clock, Rivers completed a 14 yard pass to Gates. They then let 35 seconds of the clock burn up instead of spiking the ball. You can do alot in 35 seconds. Had they faired better with that single play, I am sure they could have gotten a chip shot for Keading to win the game. they had no problem moving the chains all day. The other instances was the fact they could not get possesion of the turnovers created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Why did you randomly bring that post up again Passizle, I posted Macnabbs 8 game starts for you and you talked about how wrong I was. Please look over those numbers and let me know how awful they are, and Riggo your refute that Westbrook carried Garcia is not a good argument, they run a west coast offense west is suppose to have a lot of receptions thats what they do. The 10 td throws and only 2 ints, did westbrook do that for him too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 And Passizle so you know, they didn't have more passing yards then NE so they didn't beeat them in every facet of the game. Funny a qb stat is what they win in and they won the game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 you claim MacNabb didn't start out with a bang? Only the best 8 game start in NFL history WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? For the record: Warner's first 8 games in 1999: 119.2 QB rating 172/250 69% Completion rate 2171 yards 24 TDs 5 INTs 6-2 record McNabb's first 8 games in 2006: 96.64 QB rating 162/279 58% Completion rate 2312 yards 16 tds 5 ints 4-4 record I'd rethink that statement if I were you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Riggo here are some stats from this season with garcia and mcnabb at qb: McNabb receptions w/ Westbrook per game: 4,7,4,5,12,3,7,8,3 = an avg of 7 rec per game Garcia receptions w/ Westbrook per game: 7,6,3,5,2 = an avg of 4.4 rec per game. Only out of 14 games because they both played in one game and west sat another. -I am assuming since Westbrook is just the entire offense of this team, if Garcia rode him with 4 rec a game and McNabb had an avg of 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 I can't remember the stat califan, but McNabb did have the best start for some passing record in nfl history. Looking at that it was probably based on yards, I never gave a basis for it earlier. Looking for the article now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 I'd rethink that statement if I were you... That's laughable...don't held your breath. I recommend to both you and Passizle replying with something like this: This message is hidden because BMahoney is on your ignore list He's really not worth it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 I posted his McNabb's numbers below, and it was the best start in NFL history this is fact you flipping moron. You then mention how Garcia's yards are to his rb, it is a west coast offense and they do hardly rush the ball so yea guess what RB's get a lot of receiving yards. But you yourself said stats do not matter. Its all about the W/L record. BTW Mannings first 8 starts = 104.1 QB rating(17 TD's, 3 INT's, 2291 yds, 64.8 comp%, Colts go 8-0 in that stretch. McNabbs first 8 starts = 97.5 QB rating(16 TD's, 5 INT's, 2312 yds, 58.3 comp%, Eagles go 4-4 in that stretch. What do I keep telling you about embarassing yourself? Stop it man! You are making this too easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 And Passizle so you know, they didn't have more passing yards then NE so they didn't beeat them in every facet of the game. Funny a qb stat is what they win in and they won the game... Oh... im sorry. My mistake. They beat in every other facet of the game but passing yards. I did explain to you about the receivers dropping good thrown balls. Has nothign to do with the QB. FACT: The chargers beat themselves and not any other thing happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 You have no idea what would have happened without Westbrook, I am going by what DID happen and he DID post elite numbers. You laughed at that, but he would be top 3 in the nfl in td and in fewest ints, if he played all season. You are so funny. You just get done saying you are only counting what DID happen, then go on and say what would have happened IF he played all season. Just too funny. Keep it up. I love this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 You will not argue against my point only take everything out of context, McNabb had a good start based on his stats. W-L record is a way to judge qb's, and an elite qb is required to take a team to the next level. You say it is because he is 4-4 do you look at who a team plays? Home games? They played a tough jax d, NO on the road, a tough TB d on the road, and a division game at home. These are there losses pretty ordinary for any team in the NFL. I will not discuss with you guys anymore because you have only made 1 valid point, and that is points allowed has a correlation to w-l. Isn't surprsing teams you don't score on have good records, and guess what teams that score the most points also have the best records. It would equal out to 58-22 which is the highest. Lol and you think you guys are right... So I will end this one more time, there WILL BE A TOP 5 QB based on pr in the sb, if any of you would like to choose rb or D and place a sig bet with me your welcome too. My guess is once again you won't take the bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 This thread is still going? The arguments aren't even about the thread. So let's see: The argument has shifted back to the need of an elite QB to make the Superbowl (go far). And I also see BMahoney has yet again been backed into a corner so is throwing out insults and bet challenges, like that will somehow erase the fact he's been proven wrong again and again. If you need an elite QB, then every QB in the Superbowl should be elite. 2006: Peyton Manning vs. Rex Grossman Yes - No 2005: Matt Hasslebeck vs. Ben Roethlisberger No - No (both are good, not elite) 2004: Tom Brady vs. Donovan McNabb Yes - Yes (though McNabb didn't play like it) 2003: Tom Brady vs Jake Delhomme Yes - No 2002: Rich Gannon vs. Brad Johnson Yes - No 2001: Kurt Warner vs. Tom Brady Yes - No (at the time Brady wasn't elite) 2000: Trent Dilfer vs. Kerry Collins No - No The simple fact that there is even one No on here proves you don't need an elite QB to go far (i.e. Superbowl). The reason I won't take the bet is simple, I never said you need an elite D to make it far, just that defense was more important than an elite QB. Also, for that one year whichever QBs are in the Superbowl could be top 5 in passer rating that year, and suck the rest of the time. Would that mean they are elite? No. But I would lose the bet. Also, a D can easily be top 10 and have a good but not great QB and make it to the Superbowl. Also, BMahoney, why are you complaining that people are ignoring certain "stats" you post, when you are pulling the same tricks. I put a write up earlier in this thread of the past 3 Superbowls, and why defense and/or run game had more to do with it than an elite QB playing elite. Yet all you did was say Manning's game management won it, basically crediting the QB for the RB's performance. You never responded to my listing of the 2005 Superbowl, where the Seahawks and Steelers faced off. Two teams that had excellent Ds that year, and great run games. Shaun Alexander was NFL MVP, not Hasselbeck or Roethlisberger. Bottom line is an elite QB can win games for you, but unless the defense can hold the other team down in points you're not going to win it all. Defense wins championships. Oh, and if you want to bet, instead of hijacking the same thread twice, why not bet me that the two participants in the next Superbowl will get there more because of defense and/or run game than they will an elite QB? C'mon, prove me wrong, bet me. Oh that's right, making a bet doesn't automatically prove you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 You will not argue against my point only take everything out of context, McNabb had a good start based on his stats. W-L record is a way to judge qb's, and an elite qb is required to take a team to the next level. You say it is because he is 4-4 do you look at who a team plays? Home games? They played a tough jax d, NO on the road, a tough TB d on the road, and a division game at home. These are there losses pretty ordinary for any team in the NFL. I will not discuss with you guys anymore because you have only made 1 valid point, and that is points allowed has a correlation to w-l. Isn't surprsing teams you don't score on have good records, and guess what teams that score the most points also have the best records. It would equal out to 58-22 which is the highest. Lol and you think you guys are right... So I will end this one more time, there WILL BE A TOP 5 QB based on pr in the sb, if any of you would like to choose rb or D and place a sig bet with me your welcome too. My guess is once again you won't take the bet. You mean you won't discuss anymore because you know you're wrong and are tired of people coming on here and throwing it back in your face. Tampa was terrible last year, finished worse than us. We beat Jax, so I guess Brunell is an elite QB. We beat NO on the road, so I guess JC is already an elite QB. Didn't you say that the best way to judge a QB is by W-L? There have been many valid points made on here, ignoring them doesn't mean they are all of a sudden invalid. Also, your bet doesn't prove you right. Just becuase a QB is top 5 in passer rating that year doesn't make him elite. I will again say that why don't you bet the QB has more to do with both teams making the Superbowl, than does the D or run game. It has to be both teams, because even if just one team makes it to the Superbowl without an elite QB, it proves you wrong (though this has already happened). Also, it's a stupid bet becuase you've worded it to where the odds are in your favor. A QB who's top 5 in passer rating makes the Superbowl most every year. Does that mean you can only make it to the Superbowl with an elite QB? No it doesn't. But for some reason you are still caught up in your fantasy world where Vince Young is mayor, insults are thrown at anyone who disagrees, and you make bets to try and magically erase the fact you've been proven wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Bet yes or no? I probably didn't reply to your numbers because I was responding to three other peoples as well couldn't look at all of them. If you have specific numbers in mind you really want me to refute post them in bold. And I will make that bet, what is the basis? Rank in the nfl? Find criteria and I will take your bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Lol Elka im done with you, because I said McNabb played elite in his 1st 8 games, and went 4-4 and I said what the losses are. You think that because we beat the teams they lost to, it equates to our qb's being elite? Your a joke, I haven't "hijacked" any thread all of these people argue towards me first but you fail to recognize that. Bet, aynone? If not I can be done "hijacking" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Bet yes or no? I probably didn't reply to your numbers because I was responding to three other peoples as well couldn't look at all of them. If you have specific numbers in mind you really want me to refute post them in bold. And I will make that bet, what is the basis? Rank in the nfl? Find criteria and I will take your bet. So now I have to edit my font just to get a response? That's your excuse? And no, you didn't miss it because you responded to part of it, but ignored the parts you couldn't argue. Whatever happened to reading a whole post and responding where necessary. The criteria for the bet is simple: Both teams that play in the upcoming Superbowl have to get there by relying more on their QB than on their D or run game or anything else. There's no ranking or anything, it's actually quite simple. Every year people know, and have a general consensus, of what aspects of a team contributed most to their Superbowl appearance. If we are uncertain, we can start a poll. My sig is already on the line this season, and if I lose my sig is occupied the entire offseason. We could don goofy avatars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 You will not argue against my point only take everything out of context, McNabb had a good start based on his stats. W-L record is a way to judge qb's, and an elite qb is required to take a team to the next level. You say it is because he is 4-4 do you look at who a team plays? Home games? They played a tough jax d, NO on the road, a tough TB d on the road, and a division game at home. These are there losses pretty ordinary for any team in the NFL. I will not discuss with you guys anymore because you have only made 1 valid point, and that is points allowed has a correlation to w-l. Isn't surprsing teams you don't score on have good records, and guess what teams that score the most points also have the best records. It would equal out to 58-22 which is the highest. Lol and you think you guys are right... So I will end this one more time, there WILL BE A TOP 5 QB based on pr in the sb, if any of you would like to choose rb or D and place a sig bet with me your welcome too. My guess is once again you won't take the bet. What do you mean argue against your point? How can you take: you claim MacNabb didn't start out with a bang? Only the best 8 game start in NFL history WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Then I said... 4 and 4 is the best 8 game start in NFL history? WTF are you smoking? Just go away dude. You are embarrassing yourself BADLY!!! Then you said... I posted his McNabb's numbers below, and it was the best start in NFL history this is fact you flipping moron. You then mention how Garcia's yards are to his rb, it is a west coast offense and they do hardly rush the ball so yea guess what RB's get a lot of receiving yards. Then Riggo said... Yes Garcia played well, but really, it was Westbrook who carried this team. Garcia was no more then Brunell in 2005 - are you going to say he was "elite?"So you're saying Garcia could have carried that team independant of Westbrook? Then you said... You have no idea what would have happened without Westbrook, I am going by what DID happen and he DID post elite numbers. You laughed at that, but he would be top 3 in the nfl in td and in fewest ints, if he played all season. The we got back on this and... Why did you randomly bring that post up again Passizle, I posted Macnabbs 8 game starts for you and you talked about how wrong I was. Please look over those numbers and let me know how awful they are, and Riggo your refute that Westbrook carried Garcia is not a good argument, they run a west coast offense west is suppose to have a lot of receptions thats what they do. The 10 td throws and only 2 ints, did westbrook do that for him too? And I said... But you yourself said stats do not matter. Its all about the W/L record. BTW Mannings first 8 starts = 104.1 QB rating(17 TD's, 3 INT's, 2291 yds, 64.8 comp%, Colts go 8-0 in that stretch.McNabbs first 8 starts = 97.5 QB rating(16 TD's, 5 INT's, 2312 yds, 58.3 comp%, Eagles go 4-4 in that stretch. What do I keep telling you about embarassing yourself? Stop it man! You are making this too easy. Wich led to the top of this post. EVERYTHING YOU HAVE CONJURED AS FACT, I or WE HAVE DEBUNKED or you just plainly made yuorselff look stupid. At this point I feel your are just arguing for arguments sake. There is no way in hell that anyone would side with you on most of the lies you posted. I am not going to rehash, you can check the rest of the post history of this thread yourself. I will debate this no longer. It is just like lambs to the slaughter at this point. Just dont forget our sig bet. I am looking forward to my reward. Bye now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 My avatar is on the line, and you can't just do a poll, you are pretty much saying you want everyone else opinion. If you are going to bet is has to be something concrete that cannot be argued, such as qb pr rating, top 5 ranked d, top 5 ranked rb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 My avatar is not on the line then, I guess Im doing sig bets. So my avatar is waiting for you elka. Edit: I love how you quote single sentences and take them out of context. You are making an argument for me I didn't put forth and not showing time between posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMahoney Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 24/35 314 3 1 27/45 350 2 0 18/33 296 2 0 16/30 288 2 0 18/34 354 2 0 19/32 247 2 1 22/35 302 3 3 18/35 161 0 0 -Above are McNabbs #'s you said he didn't start with a bang. you said: 5-5 is starting off with a bang? truth is, they were on a losing streak until NcNabb got hurt. This is just another example of how you versions of the facts is always wrong. Explain to me how those numbers are not starting out with a bang? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.