This guy looks like a moron now

[RashanGary]

LEWCWA makes solid points. Again, I don't agree but at least it makes sense and is backed up with truths.

I think QB's in winning situations tend to look better. Jake the Snake (had he had the #1 defense, #1 ST's and #1 surrounding talent on offense) may have been able to get a SB too. It's tough when you're never on a SB caliber team.

I think some of the things Favre has done are amazing (the consecutive starts record, the long career, etc. . )

I don't buy into the hype that great QB's make great teams. I don't buy that Brett brought us a SB. I think it's the other way around. I think a good, stable QB (Aikman, Starr) can win more SB's than spectacular but inconsistent QB's (Favre, Cutler). I especially believe it if the surrounding team is better with the stable QB.

I'm not here go get in a huge fight about it. If anyone wants to disagree with what I said, great. Do it. Anyone who wants to make it into a big fight, I will not respond.

[PlantPage55]

Partial only runs into problems where BF and AR get discussed. Short of that he is a solid contributor to the forum. Unfortunately all we have atm is BF and AR stuff.

At some point he will mature (as will others) and admit TT did the right thing last year.

I agree. Partial has some awesome insight on most things. I find myself agreeing with him on most things. I just can't figure out how he can miss on this particular topic so badly.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Actually you sticking up for another poster this vehemently is kinda nuts.

It is the point of the discussion Zool, not partial. Try to follow along.

(That's my best Tyrone impersonation)... :P

Actually, you should try and follow along.

The guy in the video said Arod would be a bust in 08, and it was in relation to Fantasy.

The guy was wrong. There is no argument.

What about that don't you get? Arod was not a bust.

Partial makes ridiculous statements, and is getting called on it.

You, yourself, have stated that the oline was bad the past 3 years...partial thinks the line is good.

Partial thinks we have "unbelievable talent" on offense. We have "phenomenal" receivers.

Partial has said that Arod's success was due to this talent and compared his success to Randall Cunningham's...that he was a journeyman until he got great receivers (blue chip), Moss, etc. This is factually incorrect.

Cunningham was first a pro bowler in 88, with such a rookie Cris Carter catching 39 and rookie pro bowler TE Keith Jackson catching 81. No other receiver had more than 22.

In 89: leading receiver was FB Byars, Jackson had 63, and Carter had 45. No other receiver even had 20 catches. Yet, Cunningham was pro bowl.

In 90: leading receiver was FB Byars, jackson had 50, and 23 and 24 year old receivers Fred Barnett and Cal Williams had 37 and 36. Carter didn't play for the eagles. So, another pro bowl year without blue chip receivers.

Do i really care about Cunningham. No. But, this is the type of BS that he lays down to support his arguments.

Yet, if last year's pack had unbelievable talent that made Arod...shouldn't we then say the same thing about Brett? Especially during the SB run(s)? If last year's rost had unbelievable talent what would we call a crew that consisted of Chewy, Jackson, Brooks, Free, Rison, Edgar, Dorsey, Desmond?

Would ANYONE ON THIS BOARD SAY THAT THE SB TEAMS HAD WORSE TALENT THAN LAST YEAR'S TEAM. Come forward, please.

No. That would be because of Brett. You can't use that criteria on Brett.

It is Partials flopping and moving criteria that gets him in trouble.

Stats are used to support a position, but only when it suites him. QB rating means nothing...wins and losses are what defines a QB, cept when he doesn't want it to....clearly Rex Grossman led his team to the SB...he must be a great QB...nope, look at his stats.

[falco]

uh oh, kool aid man is on his high horse again

[Tyrone Bigguns]

uh oh, kool aid man is on his high horse again

Are you suggesting at some point in time he dismounted?

[ThunderDan]

The real problem is that Partial will never admit to when he is wrong. In fact to prove he isn't wrong he was willing to argue the definition of "grooming". Until some one quoted him from Websters.

Couldn't that be said about a lot of folks on your side of the aisle too Dan?

Seriously. Think about that. That's my whole point. Again, you guys talk about Rodgers like it's "past tense". You got 16 games, THAT'S IT.

Are you positive you want to stand on that mountain with 16 games of data? Really?

He argued about a definition of a word. Not Rodgers stats in that thread a definition of a word.

Do you now understand? A word!!! Not until Vince (I think it was Vince) posted the Webster's definition did he admit anything.

[Scott Campbell]

...... but personally I would rather watch Brett for 2 years than Jake for 6!

Yeah, if it's 2 years in the late 90's I would too. But Brett Favre circa 2009?

[Scott Campbell]

I agree. Partial has some awesome insight on most things. I find myself agreeing with him on most things. I just can't figure out how he can miss on this particular topic so badly.

I don't think this is so hard to figure out.

Aaron Rodgers is the guy that made Brett Favre expendable. He will never get a fair shake from some people because of that.

[Partial]

Wow, just wow. Thanks for having the voice of rationality of RG.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Wow, just wow. Thanks for having the voice of rationality of RG.

We are all awaiting your defense of the blue chip WRs in philly when cunninngham was an all-pro.

[Lurker64]

It is obvious, however, that the claim that Rodgers would be a bust (in fantasy) was absolutely, and laughably wrong.

Looking at my league, Rodgers was good for 369 fantasy points. Looking at the top 5 fantasy QBs of last year, by total fantasy points we have:

1- Drew Brees: 422
2- Phillip Rivers: 372
T3- Kurt Warner: 369
T3- Aaron Rodgers: 369
5: Jay Cutler: 366

Anybody who followed the advice of the guy in the linked video and avoided Rodgers in fantasy, made a bad decision.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It is obvious, however, that the claim that Rodgers would be a bust (in fantasy) was absolutely, and laughably wrong.

Looking at my league, Rodgers was good for 369 fantasy points. Looking at the top 5 fantasy QBs of last year, by total fantasy points we have:

1- Drew Brees: 422
2- Phillip Rivers: 372
T3- Kurt Warner: 369
T3- Aaron Rodgers: 369
5: Jay Cutler: 366

Anybody who followed the advice of the guy in the linked video and avoided Rodgers in fantasy, made a bad decision.

If you aren't top 3, like partial's def of elite..you are a BUST.

[Partial]

Wow, just wow. Thanks for having the voice of rationality of RG.

We are all awaiting your defense of the blue chip WRs in philly when cunninngham was an all-pro.

I never watched Randall Cunningham. Too young. Only his year in Minne. Beyond that, how did I make a single thing up as you claim? What did I make up? I took every data point directly from his NFL.com stat sheet.

Sure, he may have been a great player, but look at his passing numbers. Historically poor outside of years with elite wideouts like Moss.

[Scott Campbell]

Sure, he may have been a great player, but look at his passing numbers. Historically poor outside of years with elite wideouts like Moss.

1990
30 TD's
13 Int's
3466 Yards
91.6 QB Rating


Historically poor passing stats? Vince Young would kill for these numbers. There weren't any elite receivers on that team. His top pass catcher was Fullback Keith Byars with a whopping 819 yards.

[Bretsky]

1990
30 TD's
13 Int's
3466 Yards
91.6 QB Rating


Historically poor passing stats? Vince Young would kill for these numbers. Dayum.

Shall we start calling your Mobb Jr?