T1B

Posted: **Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:02 am**

Up by 6 with under three minutes left and you're throwing?

Posted: **Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:09 am**

It's games like tonight that make me glad I quit bettin on sports a long ass time ago.

Imagine the horror of all those who had their dime on the Eagles nose, breathing easy, feeling good, game's well in han........WHAT THE FUCK????

God I don't miss that shit.

Posted: **Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:20 am**

Oh Eagle fan is pissed.

Hate to be a wife/stepchild/dog in Philly tonight. :)

Posted: **Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:22 am**

The Eagles were running well all night and they throw that shit on 2nd down. Terrible coaching.

Posted: **Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:23 am**

Jsc810 wrote:HOLY SHIT Who the FUCK is Mike McMann?

McMahon should be a starter in the NFL. The liopns fucked up by letting him go. I've watched him for years, he's a White man's Michael Vick. If McNabb is doen for the year, McMahon is not a bad option.

Posted: **Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:24 am**

Roofer wrote:Oh Eagle fan is pissed.

Hate to be a wife/stepchild/dog in Philly tonight. :)

You should see the ER rooms in Wisconsin after a Packers loss.

Posted: **Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:24 am**

Next week is Green Bay v Minnesota? UGH

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:14 am**

0-2 since the banishment of T.O.

Can you just picture that jackass and his girlffriend Rosenhaus sitting in the hottub laughing at the pool side HDTV?

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:26 am**

Roofer wrote:It's games like tonight that make me glad I quit bettin on sports a long ass time ago.

Imagine the horror of all those who had their dime on the Eagles nose, breathing easy, feeling good, game's well in han........WHAT THE FUCK????

God I don't miss that shit.

What about the people betting Dallas?

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:27 am**

McMann threw a strike that would have put them in EASY field goal range to pretty much seal the deal. In other words, had his receiver actually hung onto the ball after that long pass, the domestic crime rate in Philly wouldn't have skyrocketed overnight.

But, scoreboard is all that matters and Philly completely choked away their win and cost me even more positions in the confidence game.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:30 am**

The Assassin wrote:0-2 since the banishment of T.O.

Can you just picture that jackass and his girlffriend Rosenhaus sitting in the hottub laughing at the pool side HDTV?

Somehow, I don't think TO is laughing

Sin,

400K per Game

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:17 am**

Dumbass wrote:
Roofer wrote:It's games like tonight that make me glad I quit bettin on sports a long ass time ago.

Imagine the horror of all those who had their dime on the Eagles nose, breathing easy, feeling good, game's well in han........WHAT THE FUCK????

God I don't miss that shit.

What about the people betting Dallas?

More than likely, they didn't find out they won until this morning.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:27 pm**

mvscal wrote:
frodo_biguns wrote:I've watched him for years, he's a White man's Michael Vick.
Absurdly inaccurate and incapable of reading an NFL defense?

Sounds great...

Why are you talking about Kordell Stewart?

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:10 pm**

mvscal wrote:Mike Vick...Kordell Stewart same thing.

racist.....

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:13 pm**

mvscal wrote:Not all black QBs suck. Just the vast, overwhelming majority of them.

I agree!

Sin,

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:24 pm**

mvscal wrote:Not all black QBs suck. Just the vast, overwhelming majority of them.

For every Joe Montana and John Elway there are twenty Tommy Maddoxes and Joey Harringtons.

So you're not sayin much.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:41 pm**

mvscal wrote:Quite honestly, the vast and overwhelming majority of black QBs can't even hang with Harrington or Maddox.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:52 pm**

mvscal wrote:Quite honestly, the vast and overwhelming majority of black QBs can't even hang with Harrington or Maddox.

Which black QBs can't hang with Maddox or Harrington? Name them.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:53 pm**

Michael Vick, Daunte Culpepper, Aaron Brooks and Byron Leftwich are all head and shoulders above either Maddox or Harrington. The rest of the guys you named have been busts. Like there aren't a whole bunch of white QBs who don't pan out?

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:03 pm**

Wunderlich scores? I'm sure Michael Vick really gives a shit about his Wunderlich score when he consistently wins games for the Falcons. The only knock against him is his inability to stay healthy all season long. When he's on the field, the Falcons win. Plain and simple. They win games. Harrington never has. Maddox never has. Of course you'll say it has nothing to do with Vick. How is anyone supposed to argue with a guy like you when that will be your natural response? There's no winning that argument.

And if you're telling me you'd start Tommy Maddox over Vick or Culpepper, then you REALLY need to retire from football discussion. Maddox is fucking terrible. Bill Cowher's worst nightmare is to have that guy on the field.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:05 pm**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Wunderlich scores? I'm sure Michael Vick really gives a shit about his Wunderlich score when he consistently wins games for the Falcons. The only knock against him is his inability to stay healthy all season long. When he's on the field, the Falcons win.

I would also say his accuracy and unwillingess to see the play through without running is bad. They win b/c he is a hell of an athlete- but he is a Shit QB.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:14 pm**

Any NFL coach will say game planning against Atlanta is extremely difficult due to Vick's ability to improvise. Vick simply being on the field puts a team's entire defense in jeopardy. If he sucks as much as mvscal seems to believe, why are most NFL coaches not able to implement a defensive scheme to stop him? Better question, why should I believe mvscal knows more than NFL coaches who seem to think Vick is a great player? Vick simply playing a style of ball that is not stereotypical to the QB position does not make him a nonproductive player. Since when did playing the QB position "like the way it should be played" become more important than winning games?

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:26 pm**

mvscal wrote:Total bullshit. Harrington has virtually indentical numbers to Vick and Culpepper. I already said Leftwich and Brooks were a little bit better than Harrington, but neither of them are better than Maddox.

OK, discussing football with you is simply not possible. To say that Tommy Maddox or Joey Harrington are better QBs than Leftwich or Brooks is freaking insane.

And Harrington has "virtualy identical numbers to Culpepper and Vick"?????

WTF???

I have come to the conclusion your racisim has totaly clouded your judgement.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:35 pm**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Any NFL coach will say game planning against Atlanta is extremely difficult due to Vick's ability to improvise. Vick simply being on the field puts a team's entire defense in jeopardy. If he sucks as much as mvscal seems to believe, why are most NFL coaches not able to implement a defensive scheme to stop him? Better question, why should I believe mvscal knows more than NFL coaches who seem to think Vick is a great player? Vick simply playing a style of ball that is not stereotypical to the QB position does not make him a nonproductive player. Since when did playing the QB position "like the way it should be played" become more important than winning games?

A quarterback should be able to throw the ball and lead his team. Vick can't do that. When his first read breaks down- he tucke ths ball and runs- that is a not QB. A QB's job is to get his receievrs/RB/TE the ball- not treat them as accessories to help you run.

There's not doubt he is difficult to game plan for- and I'm not denying he is one hell of an athele.. but as a QB- I don't even think he is top 10 in the league today.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:51 pm**

How very "white" of you to only include this year's stats in your argument.

Could it be because your argument would get blown to shreds if you looked at the totality of their careers?

I think so.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:51 pm**

mvscal wrote:

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:58 pm**

BSmack wrote:How very "white" of you to only include this year's stats in your argument.

Could it be because your argument would get blown to shreds if you looked at the totality of their careers?

I think so.

Career numbers-

* Removed to assist with MVS' experiment. :D

Not too much of a difference. I didn't include Culpepper b/c I think he is decent- not great (and was helped by a GREAT receivers presence- something neither Vick or Harrington has ever had). Stands to reason- Vick is a lousy QB- not b/c he is white, black or yellow- just b/c he is.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:07 pm**

mvscal wrote:
(edit) DAMMIT BB!!!

I took it out! :D

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:10 pm**

BBMarley wrote:Career numbers-

Harrington, 54.5 CP, 9513 yards, 56 TDs, 60 INT
Vick- 54.3 CP, 7779 yards, 44 TD, 32 INT

Not too much of a difference. I didn't include Culpepper b/c I think he is decent- not great (and was helped by a GREAT receivers presence- something neither Vick or Harrington has ever had). Stands to reason- Vick is a lousy QB- not b/c he is white, black or yellow- just b/c he is.

Not much of a difference?

In almost the same number of games Harrington has nearly twice as many INTs as Vick.

Also, Vick has scored 17 rushing TDs to Harrington's ZERO.

Yes, that's right. Joey Harringotn has not even so much as scored on a QB sneak ONCE in his career. Anybody remember that goal line stand during the Lions-Ravens game this year? Yea, with 7 cracks at the end zone from the one yard line, not ONCE did Mooch even think about calling Harrington's number.

But yea, he's a superior QB to Michael Vick.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:19 pm**

mvscal wrote:
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Since when did playing the QB position "like the way it should be played" become more important than winning games?
They might think he's a great athlete, but they're laughing their asses off watching this retarded monkey try to read an NFL defense.

Fortunately, they have some good players around Vick who can compenstate for his shocking incompetance.

If you think Vick is a good QB, you are a dumbfuck. No two ways about it.

It doesn't matter whether Vick is a "good QB" according to your crieteria, or anyone elses, you stupid fuck. He wins games. Maddox doesn't. Harrington doesn't. And quit feeding me this "their teammates bail them out" bullshit. The QB position requires way too much responsibility for you to tell me Vick is just coasting by on the strength of his teammates. Come on. Come up with something deeper, more intelligent. You're better than that.

Actually, I doubt it. But I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:22 pm**

BSmack wrote:
BBMarley wrote:Career numbers-

Harrington, 54.5 CP, 9513 yards, 56 TDs, 60 INT
Vick- 54.3 CP, 7779 yards, 44 TD, 32 INT

Not too much of a difference. I didn't include Culpepper b/c I think he is decent- not great (and was helped by a GREAT receivers presence- something neither Vick or Harrington has ever had). Stands to reason- Vick is a lousy QB- not b/c he is white, black or yellow- just b/c he is.
Not much of a difference?

In almost the same number of games Harrington has nearly twice as many INTs as Vick.

Also, Vick has scored 17 rushing TDs to Harrington's ZERO.

Yes, that's right. Joey Harringotn has not even so much as scored on a QB sneak ONCE in his career. Anybody remember that goal line stand during the Lions-Ravens game this year? Yea, with 7 cracks at the end zone from the one yard line, not ONCE did Mooch even think about calling Harrington's number.

But yea, he's a superior QB to Michael Vick.

I never said superior- they are about equal. In addition to more INT's- Harrington also has almost 2000 more yards than Vick. Vick has less INT's b/c he does not throw the ball. Hrrington had 1600+ attempts, Vick 1100+. Ratio of INT to Attempts- Harrigton .035, Vick- .029. Not too far off- hard to throw INTs when you're not throwing the ball.

As far as the rushing TD's- thats not what I look at for QB's. Vick is one hell of an athlete b/c he can do that- but he needs to learn to throw first then run second. He is not a QB- as I said earlier- when the coverage breaks down, a QB should read his other recievers and look for a way to get him the ball. Until he does that- he'll never be considered a good QB

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:24 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:Not much of a difference? In almost the same number of games Harrington has nearly twice as many INTs as Vick. Also, Vick has scored 17 rushing TDs to Harrington's ZERO.
Meaning that Vick has a whopping five more total TDs than Joey Blue Skies. Harrington has also thrown for almost 2,000 more yards in only two more games and he's taken 55 fewer sacks.

I guess that explains why Harrington has twice as many INTs. If I've gotta choose between INTs and sacks, I'll take the sack every time.

I never said he was superior, you lying dirtbag. I said he was comparable not to mention that isn't even the point. The point is that people think Vick is some kind of awesome QB while Harrington puts up the same numbers and is working on updating his post-football resume.

They are not comparable. Vick wins games and moves the chains. Harrington turns the ball over and loses games. Vick is, at this stage in their careers, superior to Harrington.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:24 pm**

mvscal wrote: I never said he was superior, you lying dirtbag. I said he was comparable not to mention that isn't even the point.

Uhh, then how do you explain this?

My question to you on page 1:

Which black QBs can't hang with Maddox or Harrington? Name them.

Your response soon after:

Kordell Stewart, Akili Smith, Anthony Wright, QuINTcy Cokenose, Michael Vick, DoneTe Culpepper (without his security blankie), that gimpy backup New England used to have etc. etc.

To say those guys can't "hang" with Maddox and Harrington is not suggesting they're "comparable". Can't hang does not equate to "comparable".

Doesn't it suck to get caught lying, you slutbag spinster?

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:25 pm**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
mvscal wrote:
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Since when did playing the QB position "like the way it should be played" become more important than winning games?
They might think he's a great athlete, but they're laughing their asses off watching this retarded monkey try to read an NFL defense.

Fortunately, they have some good players around Vick who can compenstate for his shocking incompetance.

If you think Vick is a good QB, you are a dumbfuck. No two ways about it.
It doesn't matter whether Vick is a "good QB" according to your crieteria, or anyone elses, you stupid fuck. He wins games. Maddox doesn't. Harrington doesn't. And quit feeding me this "their teammates bail them out" bullshit. The QB position requires way too much responsibility for you to tell me Vick is just coasting by on the strength of his teammates. Come on. Come up with something deeper, more intelligent. You're better than that.

Actually, I doubt it. But I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I didn't say they bail him out- I said he uses them accessories to help him run the ball. And I never said he didn't win games- its obvious he does. His presence on the field is huge, but as a QB- he is substandard.
Based on stats and ability- he is not even in the top 10.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:27 pm**

mvscal wrote:
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: He wins games.
All by himself does he? Amaaaaazing.

I didn't suggest that. You said that for me. I merely noted that you ignored the stat completely, as if it means nothing, when it certainly means something. You have to search far and wide to find bad QBs on winning teams. MAYBE Trent Dilfer on that Ravens team. Maybe, but even then, he wasn't bad, he just wasn't asked to do much.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:29 pm**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
mvscal wrote:
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: He wins games.
All by himself does he? Amaaaaazing.

I didn't suggest that. You said that for me. I merely noted that you ignored the stat completely, as if it means nothing, when it certainly means something. You have to search far and wide to find bad QBs on winning teams. MAYBE Trent Dilfer on that Ravens team. Maybe, but even then, he wasn't bad, he just wasn't asked to do much.

David Woodley on the 82 Dolphins was the worst QB ever to QB a good team. But he is the exception that proves the rule, as Don Strock had to be kept on the team just to bail his sorry ass out.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:31 pm**

Of course, there are always exceptions. If you search back through the history of playoff teams, you will probably only need one hand to count all the "bad QBs".

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:36 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:Vick wins games and moves the chains.

When he isn't getting sacked or overthrowing wide open receivers, right?

Seriously, he's one of the worst QBs in league. He's right down there in the shitter with clowns like Harrington.

I can name a bunch of guys worse than Vick who are starting right now.

Kurt Warner
Alex Smith
Trent Dilfer
Joey Harrington
Kyle Boller
Chad Pennington
JP Losman
Kyle Orton
Drew Brees (Give Vick Gates and Tomlinson and he'd be in the Pro Bowl)
Kerry Collins

That's just what I can think of off the top of my head. Time to hit the gym.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:38 pm**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Of course, there are always exceptions. If you search back through the history of playoff teams, you will probably only need one hand to count all the "bad QBs".

What is considered a bad QB?

Thinking off the top of my head of the Super Bowl's in the last 15-20 years- Dilfer, ODonell, Chris Chandler, Jeff Hosteler. Then poss- Stan Humphries, Tony Eason, Doug Williams... But those last 3 depend on what you consider bad

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:53 pm**

BSmack wrote: I can name a bunch of guys worse than Vick who are starting right now.

Kurt Warner

Even with his career weaning into the autumn years- he can still throw the ball much better than Vick can. Bad comparison as an overall now b/c Warner is 34, Vick is 25. Compare Warner's best year to Vick's best year- and Warner is much better.

Alex Smith

Rookie in his first year on an offense that sucks-' Nuff said

Trent Dilfer

I'll put him about the same level as Harrington- he has played in twcie as many games as Vick- divide his numbers in half- and he looks Harrington. So as aq QB- about the same as Vick

Joey Harrington

See prior comments

Chad Pennington

Better QB than Vick- but injury prone. That will kill his career

JP Losman

Rookie QB who is starting his first games this year. Not enough data to compare yet

Kyle Orton

yeah- gotta agree with this one

Drew Brees (Give Vick Gates and Tomlinson and he'd be in the Pro Bowl)

That is assuming Vick could get them the ball. He would have the same problem with them now- if they don't get open right away he'll run. And there is still his accuracy problem

Kerry Collins

I hate Collins- but as a QB- I think he has more talent than Vick does- but obviously Vick is a better athlete. Do you want me to put a list of QB's starting today that are better than Vick? I think that's a more telling list than this.

T1B

WTF Eagles??

WTF Eagles??