Hey ram29jackson...

[Hasselbeck]

the 1st sentence is not done well. My comprehension surpasses everyone who visits this site. I possess wisdom. most of you just possess childish rants.

:jonesy:

 

[steeljake]

So quarterbacks do better on good teams than bad ones?

NBC needs to hire you ASAP.

beside being the head engineer on the single sack express i am also known as captain obvious.

 

[Youk]

I never said he was best ever. He was by no means mediocre.
I never said level of players is weaker. I said no cohesive units translate to not a high qualiity of execution. So, youll get rookie QBs doing better than they would be in a more competative league. Parity means weakness all the way around, not strength.

manning and brady are great QBs but their stats are bloated due to weaker competion and rules that favor the passing game.

:jonesy:

Do some spell check before you post, oh might great one.

Parity means weakness all the way around, not strength.

So the players aren't weaker, but there's parity meaning "weakness all the way around" and there is weaker competition. Did you see how I spelled that? It's not competion. Competition.

Your "educated" opinion is coming from the mind of someone who obviously did not graduate high school. If you had an educated opinion, you would be able to explain your point of view without using the word parity.

This guy has to be Lupe's dad.

 

[DJ Fog]

3-0, especially in a league like this today, is impressive. It's even more impressive to go 3-0 with a rookie quarterback.
.

Actually, it's a first.

 

[riley420]

The reason passing QBs are succeeding more today is because the game is geared towards the passing game? Then how do you explain Adrian Peterson running wild with Favre as QB? Or Tomlinson/Stokes with Rivers? Or Emmit with Aikman?

Or is it, perhaps, that the pass complements the run? And that it opens up the pass when there is an effective run game? Just because we're not playing in the 70's with the vanilla offenses running out of the I every play, doesn't mean that the play is worse....if anything, the athletes today are 100x better than they were 30 years ago and that makes what Sanchez is doing all the more impressive.

Oh, and BTW, the shift key is located next to your space bar. The next time you want to correct someone's sentence structure or grammar, I suggest you fix your own first.

 

[steeljake]

Actually, it's a first.

ben did it.

 

[Prodigal Son]

ben did it.

Ben Started 3-0. The Steelers did not start 3-0. The record talks about a rookie who starts from day one leading his team to a 3-0 start.

 

[ram29jackson]

:jonesy:

Do some spell check before you post, oh might great one.



So the players aren't weaker, but there's parity meaning "weakness all the way around" and there is weaker competition. Did you see how I spelled that? It's not competion. Competition.

Your "educated" opinion is coming from the mind of someone who obviously did not graduate high school. If you had an educated opinion, you would be able to explain your point of view without using the word parity.

This guy has to be Lupe's dad.

haha, all youre doing is insulting . Without being able to comprehend what i have said haha.

Players are better individually. But parity causes a weaker quality of team play. Its very simple to evaluate.

 

[ram29jackson]

I already proved this one wrong...

not in any way shape or form have you proved it wrong. just surface level stats, nothing more.

 

[ram29jackson]

The reason passing QBs are succeeding more today is because the game is geared towards the passing game? Then how do you explain Adrian Peterson running wild with Favre as QB? Or Tomlinson/Stokes with Rivers? Or Emmit with Aikman?

Or is it, perhaps, that the pass complements the run? And that it opens up the pass when there is an effective run game? Just because we're not playing in the 70's with the vanilla offenses running out of the I every play, doesn't mean that the play is worse....if anything, the athletes today are 100x better than they were 30 years ago and that makes what Sanchez is doing all the more impressive.

Oh, and BTW, the shift key is located next to your space bar. The next time you want to correct someone's sentence structure or grammar, I suggest you fix your own first.

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

 

[steeljake]

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

except for you, when it is convient. please go away.

 

[ram29jackson]

except for you, when it is convient. please go away.

hahahaha

have a nice day steeljake !

 

[Archer]

I don't know what is funnier

The fact that Ram29jackson is making no sense and being proved wrong by everybody or the fact that he thinks he is right .

 

[ram29jackson]

I don't know what is funnier

The fact that Ram29jackson is making no sense and being proved wrong by everybody or the fact that he thinks he is right .

The fact is I am right. I make no sense to you because you don't possess critical thinking skills and are only able take what you are given without being able to look deeper.

Stats dont prove anything in the realm of this topic.

 

[Youk]

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.

 

[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.