National Football League 2017-18

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 62590
Infinitus Corsair
BigwigWhat's the point? You could argue several QBs as the best ever. It's a dumb sports argument so of course a New England fan would take it seriously.

It's not a dumb sports argument.

It's too difficult to say any of the all-time greats are definitively number one. It's easier just to make a group of QBs who were clearly above the rest, and leave it at that. The game has changed significantly over different eras, and the ring argument... ugh.
May 14, 2017 4:27 AM
0 0
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 11414
Bigwig
Infinitus Corsair
BigwigWhat's the point? You could argue several QBs as the best ever. It's a dumb sports argument so of course a New England fan would take it seriously.

It's not a dumb sports argument.

It's too difficult to say any of the all-time greats are definitively number one. It's easier just to make a group of QBs who were clearly above the rest, and leave it at that. The game has changed significantly over different eras, and the ring argument... ugh.

The fact that it can't be solved definitively is one of the reasons that it's appealing and returned to so often. Some arguments--rings--are dumber than others.
May 14, 2017 4:29 AM
0 0
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 62590
Infinitus Corsair
Bigwig
Infinitus Corsair
BigwigWhat's the point? You could argue several QBs as the best ever. It's a dumb sports argument so of course a New England fan would take it seriously.

It's not a dumb sports argument.

It's too difficult to say any of the all-time greats are definitively number one. It's easier just to make a group of QBs who were clearly above the rest, and leave it at that. The game has changed significantly over different eras, and the ring argument... ugh.

The fact that it can't be solved definitively is one of the reasons that it's appealing and returned to so often. Some arguments--rings--are dumber than others.

But these discussions are never nuanced, even if they are appealing. Not among sports fans, anyway. Here's my hot take: I'll choose Aaron Rodgers over both Manning and Brady. All of you suck it.
May 14, 2017 4:33 AM
0 0
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 62590
Also, I hate how all the greatest QB discussions simply dismiss 2/3 of football history. Or more. Like, everyone has already forgotten Steve Young and Joe Montana. And older QBs like Roger Staubach and Fran Tarkenton. And forget Sonny Jurgensen, Len Dawson, Otto Graham, etc. Those guys don't even get a mention.
May 14, 2017 4:38 AM
0 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 13081
BigwigWhat's the point? You could argue several QBs as the best ever. It's a dumb sports argument so of course a New England fan would take it seriously.

What's a non-dumb sports argument, Bigwig?
May 14, 2017 4:44 AM
0 0
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 62590
Moses
BigwigWhat's the point? You could argue several QBs as the best ever. It's a dumb sports argument so of course a New England fan would take it seriously.

What's a non-dumb sports argument, Bigwig?

The Cavaliers chances of beating Golden State in the finals this year.
May 14, 2017 4:48 AM
0 0
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 11414
Bigwig
Moses
BigwigWhat's the point? You could argue several QBs as the best ever. It's a dumb sports argument so of course a New England fan would take it seriously.

What's a non-dumb sports argument, Bigwig?

The Cavaliers chances of beating Golden State in the finals this year.

It would feel weird to me to care about sports in the present but not to want to put the present in context or to keep these memories alive through these sorts of discussions.
May 14, 2017 4:52 AM
0 0
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 62590
Infinitus Corsair
Bigwig
Moses
BigwigWhat's the point? You could argue several QBs as the best ever. It's a dumb sports argument so of course a New England fan would take it seriously.

What's a non-dumb sports argument, Bigwig?

The Cavaliers chances of beating Golden State in the finals this year.

It would feel weird to me to care about sports in the present but not to want to put the present in context or to keep these memories alive through these sorts of discussions.

I'm fine with that in certain discussions. The QB one is just impossible. Year after year we are presented with new evidence that shows how important all things around a QB can affect their performance. And that's in one single year. Let alone careers across different eras. I'll take Aaron Rodgers and Steve Young as the best QBs I've ever seen. If you want to claim Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, I can't object. They're fine choices. And that to me is where the conversation dies.
May 14, 2017 4:55 AM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 19575
I don't see the complaint with Polian's comments. Because the Patriots are so consistently good and have won so many championships, people do talk about them like the have a near invincible aura. But outside of 2007, they've never been that good. They're consistently a very good team. That's partly why all the Super Bowls they've won have been close. His comment is correct and worth being reminded of from time to time.

Of course Boston fans would get all uptight about such an innocuous observation.
May 14, 2017 9:07 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 19575
I was reading some mini-camp news recently and was reminded of something we see every year.

Without fail, every year a few late round rookies here and there distinguish themselves in practice where it is clear to the coaching staff that they have special talent. These reports usually leaks out fairly quickly and they're usually right. I remember Lance Briggs being reported as really good within the first few days he joined the team as an example. The same happens with bad players who were drafted high, but we're less apt to hear about it until well after the fact.

What's interesting about this is how shallow it reveals scouting and draft analysis to be. If a few days playing in practice with the coaches can yield better assessments than what goes into draft ordering, it implies they're working off of some very sketchy info in a lot of cases, does it not?
May 14, 2017 9:15 PM
0 0
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 62590
Esoteric AllusionI was reading some mini-camp news recently and was reminded of something we see every year.

Without fail, every year a few late round rookies here and there distinguish themselves in practice where it is clear to the coaching staff that they have special talent. These reports usually leaks out fairly quickly and they're usually right. I remember Lance Briggs being reported as really good within the first few days he joined the team as an example. The same happens with bad players who were drafted high, but we're less apt to hear about it until well after the fact.

What's interesting about this is how shallow it reveals scouting and draft analysis to be. If a few days playing in practice with the coaches can yield better assessments than what goes into draft ordering, it implies they're working off of some very sketchy info in a lot of cases, does it not?

This is one of the main reasons I do not like the draft. The people who are paid millions to know what's best are far from perfect. That isn't their fault. It's just the nature of sport. But if they don't know, we don't know. And nobody will know until years later. I'd actually be far more interested in a show that airs today that examines the 2012 draft of every team, than the 2017 draft itself.
May 15, 2017 2:59 AM
0 0