Kapolani Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Peyton is the only other QB to have lead his team to the playoffs every year since 2005. Over that same span, Peyton and Brees are the only other QB's to have thrown at least 20 TD's in every season. Correct. But, it still disproves that INTs are what keeps teams out of the playoffs and superbowls. That was the point of contention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cwoolery Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Do you ever quote a fact? Can you point out who thinks Campbell is better than Romo sits to pee? Then respond to that fan, b/c fact is, not all Redskins fans think that. I don't. You gotta give us something better than that. Did you not see the original post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapolani Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Hardly.I'd venture to say that in games where there are very few to no turnovers, the final score is within 6 points. Just a guess on my part, btw. Yes. And a bad guess at that. I can count off the top of my head where there have been blowouts where there are very few to no turnovers. I don't think you want to go do this path to prove your point. Just FYI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 Did you not see the original post? Dear lordie, they're all out today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 Yes.And a bad guess at that. I can count off the top of my head where there have been blowouts where there are very few to no turnovers. I don't think you want to go do this path to prove your point. Just FYI So, if it's a bad guess, give me some examples instead of a knee-jerk response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapolani Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Well, he had a 'remarkable' year, last year.Wasn't he the missing piece? :rotflmao: I'd venture to say that any player not named Jerry Rice would have a hard time coming to a team midway through the season and performing admirably. Can you prove where a player has done that mid season and put the team over the edge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 I'd venture to say that any player not named Jerry Rice would have a hard time coming to a team midway through the season and performing admirably.Can you prove where a player has done that mid season and put the team over the edge? Hey, I didn't give up all that cash and three picks for him. :rotflmao: Jerruh and about 100 puke fans in ATN thought he was the savior. Silly them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapolani Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 So, if it's a bad guess, give me some examples instead of a knee-jerk response. Wait a minute. Since when are you worried about facts and examples? But, if I must. Stats like this probably aren't that easy to find, but If I had to I bet I could pull a few games out of the season where the Pats went 16-0 and find games that had low turnovers but were blowouts - or at least NOT within 6 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapolani Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Hey, I didn't give up all that cash and three picks for him. :rotflmao: Jerruh and about 100 puke fans in ATN thought he was the savior. Silly them. No you gave up many picks on players named: Campbell B Lloyd and that running back who's name escapes me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 Wait a minute.Since when are you worried about facts and examples? But, if I must. Stats like this probably aren't that easy to find, but If I had to I bet I could pull a few games out of the season where the Pats went 16-0 and find games that had low turnovers but were blowouts - or at least NOT within 6 points. Typical. If you want to play the game, you must dispute statements with facts. Waiting. (BTW, I said my impression was just a guess...I didn't care to do the research...but if you are SURE I'm wrong, I'll be here waiting for your facts.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 No you gave up many picks on players named:Campbell B Lloyd and that running back who's name escapes me. Oh dear lordie...let's not go down the bust trades of each organization because we'll both be here for a long time. In the end, the result is just about the same, eh? Nothing to gloat about. There's nothing superior about your team. Come to the light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 There's nothing superior about your team. Come to the light. Except a better record the past 3 years, a better QB and a nicer stadium. Redskins of course have a better RB and defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 ...a better QB... You need to re-read this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfos81 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Pats went 16-0 and find games that had low turnovers but were blowouts - or at least NOT within 6 points. How would this prove Romo sits to pee's turnovers helped the TEAM? I don't think you understand, all TR1 is saying is you got to account the turnovers as a part of the qb grading metric system. You can't say turnovers helped Dallas last year(unless it was a blooper type play) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 You need to re-read this thread. :doh: or you do...I'm still waiting for some facts that show Campbell is as good a QB, because it sure doesn't show by his passing or his winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapolani Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Oh dear lordie...let's not go down the bust trades of each organization because we'll both be here for a long time.In the end, the result is just about the same, eh? Nothing to gloat about. There's nothing superior about your team. Come to the light. Actually the end result is NOT the same. The end result is wins and losses. The end result is the ultimate prize. And we both know you don't want to go down that road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Jones Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Actually the end result is NOT the same.The end result is wins and losses. The end result is the ultimate prize. And we both know you don't want to go down that road. I'd say it's more wins and losses in the Superbowl, and neither team has achieved that in quite a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 Actually the end result is NOT the same.The end result is wins and losses. The end result is the ultimate prize. And we both know you don't want to go down that road. Oh...another historian. In contemporary times, the teams are about equal...though, I could make the case the Skins have a slight edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapolani Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Typical.If you want to play the game, you must dispute statements with facts. Waiting. (BTW, I said my impression was just a guess...I didn't care to do the research...but if you are SURE I'm wrong, I'll be here waiting for your facts.) I would think that could be construed as minimal turnovers. http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/boxscore?game_id=29394&displayPage=tab_box_score&season=2007&week=REG14&override=true In fact, the winning team had more turnovers thus disproving your fact outright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapolani Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I'd say it's more wins and losses in the Superbowl, and neither team has achieved that in quite a while. In a while, but has been done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapolani Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Oh...another historian. In contemporary times, the teams are about equal...though, I could make the case the Skins have a slight edge. You can't pick and choose when comparing histories between teams. It doesn't work that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kapolani Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 How would this prove Romo sits to pee's turnovers helped the TEAM? I don't think you understand, all TR1 is saying is you got to account the turnovers as a part of the qb grading metric system. You can't say turnovers helped Dallas last year(unless it was a blooper type play) . No that's not what he was saying. He was throwing out another falsity and trying to pass it off as fact. It has been proven that a high rate of turnovers does not necessarily keep your team from winning it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfos81 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Its a good argument, who the better qb is, J.C. or Tony Romo sits to pee? We already know who the most overrated team in 08 was. Cowboys We all know who the most overrated qb is out of Campbell and Romo sits to pee. Romo sits to pee B/c we all know who the biggest big game choker is at this point in there careers. Tony Romo sits to pee= Archie Manning w/ much more hype. Aren't you the same guy who said he played the same in 08 as he did in 07? :doh: yep here it is. I asked Do belive Romo sits to pee played better in 08 or 07? and you responded with I would say he played the same. :doh: So at least we can agree that Romo sits to pee didn't get any better from 07-08 :applause: So we can expect much of the same from Romo sits to pee :applause: That clears it all up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfos81 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 It has been proven that a high rate of turnovers does not necessarily keep your team from winning it all. Its also been proven that turnovers do play a part in winning and losing. Just watch games and you'll understand that the team that turns the ball over more, loses a higher pct of those games. I don't see you getting very far w/ this argument. Theres always an exception to the rule, so keep on digging :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 I would think that could be construed as minimal turnovers.http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/boxscore?game_id=29394&displayPage=tab_box_score&season=2007&week=REG14&override=true In fact, the winning team had more turnovers thus disproving your fact outright. Hey, look...if you're going to participate, don't insult us by picking one game to demonstrate a point. Go back, read what I posed as conjecture, and then, make a reasonable argument to dispute my assumption. This stuff is weak. Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.