Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Sporting Events
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 01-05-2006, 11:44 AM
mmbt0ne mmbt0ne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Back in ATL
Posts: 12,169
Default Re: Lienart, Bush are both better than V Young

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2k1 7-9
2k2 9-6-1
2k3 5-11
2k4 11-5
2k5 8-8

[/ QUOTE ]

As a starting QB, Vick has one of the highest winning percentages of any QB in the league. Last I checked, he was behind only Brady and McNabb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think that a team has a good chance of going deep with Vick at QB? A QB who generally only relies on physical ability has little upside and will only go so far as his supporting cast takes him. The NFL is too fast of a league to rely on a QB who has to scramble on every other 3rd and 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike Vick didn't lose many of those games for the Falcons this year. The defense did or kicking game did.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-05-2006, 12:01 PM
vulturesrow vulturesrow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Right
Posts: 7,937
Default Re: Lienart, Bush are both better than V Young

[ QUOTE ]
A QB who generally only relies on physical ability has little upside and will only go so far as his supporting cast takes him

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Talk about a non-statement. Has there ever been a Super Bowl champion QB that didnt have a good supporting cast? I cant think of any offhand, but there are a lot of a people in the forum who have a better knowledge of sports history that might be able to make a case that a team won a Super Bowl with a great QB and a mediocre team surrounding him.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-05-2006, 12:10 PM
Kneel B4 Zod Kneel B4 Zod is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nobody roots for Goliath
Posts: 11,725
Default Re: Lienart, Bush are both better than V Young

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A QB who generally only relies on physical ability has little upside and will only go so far as his supporting cast takes him

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Talk about a non-statement. Has there ever been a Super Bowl champion QB that didnt have a good supporting cast? I cant think of any offhand, but there are a lot of a people in the forum who have a better knowledge of sports history that might be able to make a case that a team won a Super Bowl with a great QB and a mediocre team surrounding him.

[/ QUOTE ]

in the modern NFL, it's more likely a great team (great defense, running game, not prone to mistakes, etc) carries a mediocre QB to a title. there really aren't a lot of 'great' QB's in the league.

Think of the best QB's of the last 20 years or so:

John Elway didn't get his titles until his team had a great running game.

Marino was an exceptional talent who obviously never won a SB.

Montana was great, but had great WR's, RB's, and usually a very good defense and coaching staff when he won.

Tom Brady has a great defense, one of the best coaches/gameplanners ever, and (more recently) good talent at WR, RB, and OL.

Peyton Manning is worse this year than either of his previous 2 years, but his team finally is the favorite b/c of the defense and overall balance.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.