KC Joyners QB over/under rated

[BMahoney]

If those numbers were static all season:

1st in TDs

6th in yds

3rd in fewst ints

-Not elite? Not a bang?

[elkabong82]

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"

You're done with me? Why do you say things like that and insult people, and throw in LOLs every time you are challenged? Are you really that incapable of producing counter-arguments? Wait, judging by your posts in this thread I know the answer is yes.

You are the one who said you judge a QB by W-L, and were even leg-humping the one poster who agreed with you on that. Now that W-L has been thrown back in your face, you ignore it.

I've already shown to you that the psat three Superbowls, the teams were more reliant on D and/or run game than they were on an elite QB. You ignored most of it. So again, exhibit A:

2006: Bears vs Colts: Bears got there with D. Colts got through the playoffs thanks to Bob Sanders and a sound run game. Manning did decent in the Pats game, but the run dictated the pace of that game (Addai's 93 yards weren't measely against a tough Pats D in the postseason) and the Superbowl. The simple fact Grossman was playing in the Superbowl proves your elite QB theory wrong.

2005: Seahawks vs. Steelers: Seahawks had league MVP Shaun Alexander and a great D, with Tatupu lighting it up. Steelers got there thanks to a solid D and Parker coming out of nowhere, more so than they did thanks to Big Ben's arm.

2004: Patriots vs Eagles. Brady is great in that system, but the D dictates the pace, not Brady. Also, the Pats did kind of luck their way into the 2001 Superbowl, missed the playoffs the next year. The Pats didn't become dominant until they shored up their run game with the addition of Corey Dillon, and bolstered their D with good draft picks. The Eagles could never get to the big game, despite their elite QB McNabb. In '04, they had a great D with multiple Probowlers. McNabb was doing well that year, but TO was doing his share. That D had more to do with it though, than did anything else.

BMahoney, I'm done with you. I don't know how many more ways I can show you that good Ds have more to do with "going far" than elite QBs do. But again, the simple fact guys like Rex Grossman, Trent Dilfer, and Brad Johnson have played in Superbowls proves you don't need an elite QB to go far. You are wrong, and all the little LOLs and insults you respond with won't change that.

[Passizle]

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.

No I am not. I posted every portion of the posts that were quoted. It was all on the last two pages. Check yourself.

I did not include the arguments that you had with other people that did not pertain to our argument.

nothing was hand crafted to make you look stupid. you did that all by yourself.

You just dont like being owned like The Broncos in Superbwol XXII.

[elkabong82]

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.

Well obviously with you there is nothing concrete that can't be argued. You wouldn't think "defense wins championships" could be argued against, but you've tried. Not succeeded, but tried. Again, your bet doesn't accurately depict what you've been arguing. Just because a QB has a top 5 passer rating for one season doesn't make him elite.

Aghain, you are arguing that you need an elite QB to go far, and I am saying you don't. Again, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Rex Grossman. Thread over.

[Passizle]

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?

Let me make this simple for you. Your whole argument about elite QB's was that stats did not matter so much as win/loss record. Now here you are performing the opposite.

I already gave you Manning numbers for the same stretch. If you are to lazy to look then here:

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.

Need I really say more?

Are yo bipolar? Or do you have ADD or something. You just dont make any sense at all.

[BMahoney]

Seahawks did have an MVP Alexander, but they had a 16th ranked D, and Hasslebeck was the #4 qb.

Steelers Roethlisberger was ranked 3rd, Rushing attack 12th, and D 4th

Bears were a total fluke and everyone knows it.

Tom Brady is an elite qb who knows how to win, he absolutely dictates the pace of the game and the D was ranked 9th overall just like Tom.

McNabb an elite qb, and got his team to the sb. He messed up there might have been the pressure, who knows but he did take his team far.

[Passizle]

Never mind arguing anymore. I realized why its pointless to keep going on with you Mahoney.

[Passizle]

Seahawks did have an MVP Alexander, but they had a 16th ranked D, and Hasslebeck was the #4 qb.

Steelers Roethlisberger was ranked 3rd, Rushing attack 12th, and D 4th

Bears were a total fluke and everyone knows it.

Tom Brady is an elite qb who knows how to win, he absolutely dictates the pace of the game and the D was ranked 9th overall just like Tom.

McNabb an elite qb, and got his team to the sb. He messed up there might have been the pressure, who knows but he did take his team far.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

In 2004 when "McNabb carried his team to the superbowl" ,the Eagles defense was 10th overall and 3rd in points allowed.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/DEF-TOTAL/2004/regular

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/tmstats2004.htm

Why? Just why?:doh:

[BMahoney]

No see this is what Im talking about with your argument. I originally stated that W-L record is a good judge if not the best of a qb, since they are a field commander. Football is a team sport, obviously there are other things that come into play that would have an affect on a qb's W-L record. However a qb is the field commander and needs to be able to control the pace of the game as well as the clock, which are very determining factors on the W-L. However there are obviously instances as their are for any circumstance when a QB does extremely well, and he just can't win the game, there just those few plays that don't go there way. However for the most part a good judge of a qb is there W-L record, I also believe that a qb can "start with a bang" based on every other stat of theirs other than W-L, much like McNabb did. It's like you don't look at a general picture, you look at one instance and because of a instance you feel you have proved me wrong for some reason. Top 5 qb's make it into the playoffs this is no coincidence, the teams that have the highest ppg make it to the playoffs, and like Passizle said teams that allow the fewest points make it deep as well (I would hope the last two are pretty obvious, {if you score more points you win?})

[BMahoney]

McNabb was ranked 4th qb that year as well, him and the D were also ranked #1 in the playoff stats. I noticed you quoted me saying "McNabb carried them to the superbow" when what I said was he led them, they give off very different meanings. And yes a qb does lead his team, you never hear Julius Peppers, Shawn Merriman lead the Panthers/Chargers to the superbowl. That will just never be said.

[Passizle]

No see this is what Im talking about with your argument. I originally stated that W-L record is a good judge if not the best of a qb, since they are a field commander. Football is a team sport, obviously there are other things that come into play that would have an affect on a qb's W-L record. However a qb is the field commander and needs to be able to control the pace of the game as well as the clock, which are very determining factors on the W-L. However there are obviously instances as their are for any circumstance when a QB does extremely well, and he just can't win the game, there just those few plays that don't go there way. However for the most part a good judge of a qb is there W-L record, I also believe that a qb can "start with a bang" based on every other stat of theirs other than W-L, much like McNabb did. It's like you don't look at a general picture, you look at one instance and because of a instance you feel you have proved me wrong for some reason. Top 5 qb's make it into the playoffs this is no coincidence, the teams that have the highest ppg make it to the playoffs, and like Passizle said teams that allow the fewest points make it deep as well (I would hope the last two are pretty obvious, {if you score more points you win?})

Wrong again Mahoney. As I stated in rebutal to your original statement to begin the argument...

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3952690&postcount=41

To which bubba replied

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3952978&postcount=53

just scroll down from there to see what was replied. Did you honestly forget your argument?

Do you need any other reminders. If the mods dont get pissed, I will quote you from now until hell freezes over. How long do you need to be beaten over the head with actual facts for you to see the light?

[BMahoney]

You just showed me an argument of why, Bubba thinks W-L is not a telling stat of a qb and I do. I don't really understand what that was suppose to prove I have already read what Bubba posted to me. So I will repeat like I did when I argued with Bubba, I feel that W-L is a good judgment of a quarterback. I am having trouble seeing where I forgot my argument here. Are you saying that you agree with what Bubba says here? I am not really clear on what you are trying to get across.

[Passizle]

Despite what Bubba may say, IMO one of the best ways to judge a qb is by their W-L record. Look at every elite team in the NFL, with the exception of the chargers every single team had a proven qb, that is one of the best in the league.

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?

When we posted stats to show our opinion that W/L does not matter as much as you think it does, you ignored it and said that W/L is the most important. Then when you made the statement about McNabb having the best 8 game series in NFL history, you used stats instead of W/L record.

So... which is it?

Enough said.

[BMahoney]

No see this is what Im talking about with your argument. I originally stated that W-L record is a good judge if not the best of a qb, since they are a field commander. Football is a team sport, obviously there are other things that come into play that would have an affect on a qb's W-L record. However a qb is the field commander and needs to be able to control the pace of the game as well as the clock, which are very determining factors on the W-L. However there are obviously instances as their are for any circumstance when a QB does extremely well, and he just can't win the game, there just those few plays that don't go there way. However for the most part a good judge of a qb is there W-L record, I also believe that a qb can "start with a bang" based on every other stat of theirs other than W-L, much like McNabb did. It's like you don't look at a general picture, you look at one instance and because of a instance you feel you have proved me wrong for some reason. Top 5 qb's make it into the playoffs this is no coincidence, the teams that have the highest ppg make it to the playoffs, and like Passizle said teams that allow the fewest points make it deep as well (I would hope the last two are pretty obvious, {if you score more points you win?})

-I posted this earlier did you read it?

[Passizle]

No see this is what Im talking about with your argument. I originally stated that W-L record is a good judge if not the best of a qb, since they are a field commander. Football is a team sport, obviously there are other things that come into play that would have an affect on a qb's W-L record. However a qb is the field commander and needs to be able to control the pace of the game as well as the clock, which are very determining factors on the W-L. However there are obviously instances as their are for any circumstance when a QB does extremely well, and he just can't win the game, there just those few plays that don't go there way. However for the most part a good judge of a qb is there W-L record, I also believe that a qb can "start with a bang" based on every other stat of theirs other than W-L, much like McNabb did. It's like you don't look at a general picture, you look at one instance and because of a instance you feel you have proved me wrong for some reason. Top 5 qb's make it into the playoffs this is no coincidence, the teams that have the highest ppg make it to the playoffs, and like Passizle said teams that allow the fewest points make it deep as well (I would hope the last two are pretty obvious, {if you score more points you win?})

-I posted this earlier did you read it?

Yes I did. And you keep changing you colors. Like a chameleon.

So.. you believe W/L record when it supports your argument and you believe straight stats when it supports your argument. This way you are always covered and never wrong.

How dumb of me. Sorry I missed that.

Look kid... you win. I will just chalk this up in the "lost cause" department.

See ya.

[BMahoney]

Are you being serious? I just explained I believe W-L is a great judge of qb, however there are some extreme circumstances when a qb does extremely well and there team still falters? Does these happen frequently? No almost never, but McNabbs case earlier this season he lost a few games that could have gone his way, and even though he was 4-4 he still started with a bang. However as I have proven thoughout this entire thread, the teams with the better qb's have better W-L records, there is a clear correlation. Please find me another case where a qb has gone that lights out and had an even record. As far as the kid comment, I would much rather be a 21 yd old (kid) who has nothing to do at his internship, then a man who sits on a web site all day at there low end job and has nothing to do when he leaves work because he goes home to his studio apt where he can't afford a computer. I cannot wait for this season to start and our bet to begin, you will be sporting the best sig in here as of next years off season.

[Passizle]

Are you being serious? I just explained I believe W-L is a great judge of qb, however there are some extreme circumstances when a qb does extremely well and there team still falters? Does these happen frequently? No almost never, but McNabbs case earlier this season he lost a few games that could have gone his way, and even though he was 4-4 he still started with a bang. However as I have proven thoughout this entire thread, the teams with the better qb's have better W-L records, there is a clear correlation. Please find me another case where a qb has gone that lights out and had an even record. As far as the kid comment, I would much rather be a 21 yd old (kid) who has nothing to do at his internship, then a man who sits on a web site all day at there low end job and has nothing to do when he leaves work because he goes home to his studio apt where he can't afford a computer. I cannot wait for this season to start and our bet to begin, you will be sporting the best sig in here as of next years off season.

Whats with the insults there chump? Feeling a little touchy?

You need to watch your tone around here and show a little respect. Kid is not an insult, and by your margin of response is dead on.

FYI, I am a director of an IT department in NY. I make a very decent living to be able to afford to live here. My mother does not do my laundry every other weekend and I happen to own a house in Huntington, am happily married and pay for three automobiles as well as every other bill and utility while my wife finishes her masters at Hofstra.

So when you are done with your little internship, feel free to send your resume. I might have a job for you cleaning my garbage.

BTW. Bets off. I dont associate with babies.

Welcome back to my ignore list.

[elkabong82]

Seahawks did have an MVP Alexander, but they had a 16th ranked D, and Hasslebeck was the #4 qb.

Steelers Roethlisberger was ranked 3rd, Rushing attack 12th, and D 4th

Bears were a total fluke and everyone knows it.

Tom Brady is an elite qb who knows how to win, he absolutely dictates the pace of the game and the D was ranked 9th overall just like Tom.

McNabb an elite qb, and got his team to the sb. He messed up there might have been the pressure, who knows but he did take his team far.

So the Bears are a fluke because it proves you wrong? You still won't address Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

Tom Brady works because his system works. I won't argue that he's not elite, but I do believe that system helps him a lot.

Seahawks got there thanks to Alexander, not Hasslebeck.

Again, a high passer rating one year doesn't mean you are elite, especially not when you are 4th in a weak NFC.

[BMahoney]

Hasslebeck was 4th in the NFL not the weak nfc (good attempt at mocking me though), I never said an elite career or year that was no specification between the two. Bears is not a fluke because they prove me wrong they are a fluke because thats what they are, never would have had that record if Rex Grossman didn't start lights out or if they didn't play in the NFC north, they get to play detroit, gb, and minny twice a year. As far as Brad Johnson, he was 4th in yards and 3rd in TDs. D was 5th overall that year. Dilfer I got nothing, he came in halfway through the season, didn't make many mistakes that was all that was reqd of him. So of the past about 10 superbowls there has been one team to win it without an elite qb, and you don't see the correlation between winning teams and elite qbs.

To clarify since you all seem to think by elite I mean HOF bound, when using the word elite it only means a group of people at the time who are in a class above everyone else. Are the large majority of the qb's who get into the playoffs every year the best qb's in the nfl, yes. So lets say top 10 qb's are the elite class. 99% of the qb's we have discussed here have been one of the top 10 qbs, all I would say other than Dilfer. So pretty much since 03 one bad qb has made it to the playoffs (not on fluke). So out of a possible 48 qb's 1 has been bad, one has been a fluke giving us 46. Please no one jump on me being nit picky and say theyre are 12 teams in the playoffs and only top 10 qbs are elite there should be atleast 2 non-elite qbs in the playoffs every year. I was only using top 10 for a easy ball park. Now back to the point out of a possible 48 only 2 were not up to elite status. 46 out of 48 is about 91%. So 91% of the time the teams with elite qb's are the teams in the playoffs, yet some of you choose to believe there is no correlation here. I just don't get this.

[BMahoney]

Got bored before dinner, here are the numbers for amount of teams making the playoffs that are elite defenses (top 12 based on pa) because Passizle says that is the best way to judge a D:

2006:

Baltimore - made it

NE - made it

CHI- made it

Jax - didn't

Miami - didn't

NYJ - made it

SD - made it

DEN - didn't

CAR - didn't

BUF - didn't

KC - made it

PIT - didn't

6 of the 12 elite defenses in the NFL made the playoffs. So 50%.

2005:

CHI - made it

IND - made it

DEN - made it

PIT - made it

CAR - made it

JAX - made it

SEA - made it

TB - made it

WAS - made it

BAL - didn't

CLE - didn't

DAL - didn't

9 of 12. So 75%

2004:

PIT - made it

NE - made it

PHI - made it

NYJ - made it

WAS - didn't

BAL - didn't

JAX - didn't

BUF - didn't

DEN - made it

TB - didn't

SD - made it

ARZ - didn't

5 of 12 made playoffs, around 44%.

-I know I will not get though to you guys and don't care but these numbers don't lie.

[BMahoney]

For qbs real quick

06: 9 of 12

Bulger, Carson, Losman

05: 9 of 12

Delhomme, Brees, Green

04: 9 of 12

Delhomme, Green, Griese

-Thought I would give the numbers for the qb a little more accurately then I previously had. But as you see the numbers remains static about 75% of the elite qb's in the nfl make it to the playoffs. Around 57% of elite defenses make it to the playofffs (defense based on pa). So from these numbers I myself have drawn to the conclusion that elite qb's take you further then elite D's.

[BMahoney]

Wow just read this over again, and you two really somehow don't believe that QB's and W-L record are correlated. For some reason the best qb's just end with the best W-L record, and you say this is because of there D. Yet top D's year in and out only make it to the playoffs maybe 50% of the time, while top qb's are there 75% of the time.

[Passizle]

Its alot more than two people and no one wants to argue with someone who isnt worth arguing with. Not only have you made outrageous claims (the McNabb setting a record was classic) you completeley overlook your mistakes, do not take ownership of anything you say, spew insults when you are called on something and if I showed you a polaroid of a picture of blue sky, you would look at it and probably tell me its green, find some green enhaced photo and yell... Ha! I told you so.

You have proven absolutley nothing except that you are not open to debate. You prefer trying to burn people instead of educate. you will make a lot of friends this way. Keep it up.

I am pretty sure no one will be coming to this thread much more or debating with you when you make your comments.

Have a nice day.

[BMahoney]

Ummmm I believe I was the one who showed you how many good qb's there were that made it deep, and that the large majority of the time a good qb equals a good team. That is why I believe a good way to judge a qb is on there W/L record. I showed you countless quarterbacks to prove my point, you would then say well hey what about Dilfer and then say Ha told you so. You really have this one twisted up.

[Riggo#44]

Ummmm I believe I was the one who showed you how many good qb's there were that made it deep, and that the large majority of the time a good qb equals a good team. That is why I believe a good way to judge a qb is on there W/L record. I showed you countless quarterbacks to prove my point, you would then say well hey what about Dilfer and then say Ha told you so. You really have this one twisted up.

"All day long [he] talks...each word more useless then the one before it!"