Hey ram29jackson...

[ram29jackson]

I believe I can see where you're coming from at this point. There aren't any "dominant" teams like the 49ers, Cowboys, and Steelers of old (just to name some from my knowledge). The talent isn't worse, but it is more spread out. The Patriots were the closest thing we have had in awhile, but they are not even invincible. There will be amazing rookie quarterbacks once in awhile, but I can see where you say having so many so quickly isn't typical. I looked up stats for Montana and Unitas, and based off of stats, since I never saw either play personally, they were great QB's at a young age. Can you say that Mark Sanchez or Matt Ryan will be the next Montana and Unitas, or be even considered in the top? Truthfully, probably not.

Do I agree with you? Not really. But I think I understand a bit more now what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Generally speaking, yes.

But I will also add- thats why the Patriots could dominate in a weaker league. one of the couple franchises that could get guys to by into a cheaper long term contract while buying into the team concept and dominating free agent laden teams. I am not saying brady isnt a good/great QB by any means. he is quality. But I do believe the stats he he has gotten are bloated from playing parity era teams.

[riley420]

the pass complementing the run has nothing to with how parity causes play to be weaker on the whole.. no one is comparing players from the 70s to now. Its irrelevant

But YOU are comparing teams in the 70s and 80s to today, which I find irrelevant.

If the league was so much better "back in the day", then why did it take 34 years to get another undefeated team? By your logic, the 49ers and Steelers should have had at least one of these seasons...but they never did.

The Patriots did, in a league with better athletes, smarter athletes and faster athletes....in a league where the salary cap and free agency makes it harder to get a cohesive unit for longer than 4 or 5 years. The credit there goes to coaching, to the players and to the teams in general for doing it in this era.

Your logic is flawed.

[steeljake]

the pats cheated.

[ram29jackson]

But YOU are comparing teams in the 70s and 80s to today, which I find irrelevant.

If the league was so much better "back in the day", then why did it take 34 years to get another undefeated team? By your logic, the 49ers and Steelers should have had at least one of these seasons...but they never did.

The Patriots did, in a league with better athletes, smarter athletes and faster athletes....in a league where the salary cap and free agency makes it harder to get a cohesive unit for longer than 4 or 5 years. The credit there goes to coaching, to the players and to the teams in general for doing it in this era.

Your logic is flawed.

this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic what so ever. You are focusing on the wrong thing entirely. I am not comparing teams or decades at all.

[St. Francisco]

this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic what so ever. You are focusing on the wrong thing entirely. I am not comparing teams or decades at all.

You're saying the NFL now is weaker than it used to be...you're comparing it to earlier years.

[ram29jackson]

You're saying the NFL now is weaker than it used to be...you're comparing it to earlier years.

No, you are missing the target entirely. I am not comparing players or era's in that sense.

[Archer]

Who can somebody who has been consistently wrong throughout this whole thread be telling people they are off-target

:confused2:

*waits to hear about how he knows more than me because he is about 95 years old and has been watching football since my father was in his mothers stomach*

[ram29jackson]

Who can somebody who has been consistently wrong throughout this whole thread be telling people they are off-target

:confused2:

*waits to hear about how he knows more than me because he is about 95 years old and has been watching football since my father was in his mothers stomach*

you obviously have no clue what the discussion was to begin with.

[MRN]

Who can somebody who has been consistently wrong throughout this whole thread be telling people they are off-target

:confused2:

*waits to hear about how he knows more than me because he is about 95 years old and has been watching football since my father was in his mothers stomach*

This fucker was in one of my PS2 NCAA Football leagues. Bitched about ZAN running the score up while running dives. LMAO, he couldn't stop the dive so when ZAN ran it straight up the middle, he bitched cuz he shit his pants on the sticks, the proceeded to complain. Also bitched about "User-blitzing" because it's cheap to control the player you blitz with apparently. Also used the "I'm older, therefore I know more" shit all the time.

[Archer]

you obviously have no clue what the discussion was to begin with.

Well at least you are changing up your comments

I mean they are still false but I respect the fact that you are mixing it up now

[SHOGUN]

Alright, so I figured I'd do everyone a favor. I just wasted about 20 minutes of my life lol'ing my way through this thread, and I figured I'd post a quick synopsis.

Ram29Jackson: Mark Sanchez sucks because the league isn't anything like it was when my second-cousin on my mom's side Harold Jackson was playing. Granted, he only played 2 games for the Rams, but we'll claim credit for him. About the same as a Colts fan saying they drafted John Elway, ya'know?

Timmy: Plenty of crafty stats and quotes.

Ram29Jackson: Look here son, I been living and breathing in this world for a long while; I've been watching the NFL since before it was even drawn up and I know the league well. You're just proving my point in the exact opposite way I was trying to anyways.

Timmy: Plenty of crafty stats and quotes.

Ram29Jackson: parity, parity,parity, parity, parity, young, younger than me, younger than him, harold jackson, parity, parity, parity, young, younger than me, younger than him, harold jackson, parity, parity, parity, young, younger than me, younger than him, harold jackson, parity.young, younger than me, younger than him, harold jackson.

/thread

[ram29jackson]

/thread

and of course putting embellished comments I never made accentuated by a picture of illiterate black people laughing really disproves anything i have said or makes it untrue.......that would be a -no-

[Archer]

and of course putting embellished comments I never made accentuated by a picture of illiterate black people laughing really disproves anything i have said or makes it untrue.......that would be a -no-

They are illiterate? You can tell that soley from a picture?

And all your "theorys" got shut down along time ago by stats .

Stats > Theorys

ZOMG I USED AN ARROW !!!! MY ARGUMENT IS INVALID

I AM SO YOUNG!!!!!

[Woy]

and of course putting embellished comments I never made accentuated by a picture of illiterate black people laughing really disproves anything i have said or makes it untrue.......that would be a -no-

Stop putting those damn -'s on a word you want to emphasize. You can bold, italicize, and underline your pointless statements, oh great one.

[Archer]

This sounds awfully racist to me...how do you know they are illiterate?

Because they are clearly under the age of 55

Duh