Ignorance Mark Twain wisely spoke regarding nationalist, tribal, jingoism, that accommanied the American Invasion of Spanish territories in 1898 by stating; "It isn't what you don't know that get's you into trouble. it's what you know for sure, that just ain't so!" :wink:
OMG I said the last 9 years are a trend for SB champion QB's 2009 2008 2007 2006 2007 2006 'this is a trend people' 2005 2004 2003 2002 and 2001 Oh, and I'm not talking about SB losing QB's. And yes there are always 'exceptions' to every new 'trend' or 'rule'; but you should see the trend and go with the bigger, smarter more athletic taller QB's who can see; rather than the smaller, high-anxiety ones who struggle to see. Oh, and by the way, there hasn't been an exception to 'the trend' since the wise 'ol grocery clerk was found to win one for the Rams.
I am now firmly on the Manute Bol for Jets 2010 QB bandwagon. Why settle for a 6'6 QB when we can have a 7'6 QB. We would never lose!!!!!! Ever!!!!!!
You said modern- Kurt Warner won with the Rams in 2000, yes the 99 season, but why go back only 9 years? He went back last year and if the Cards "D" holds GIGANTIC BEN the tiny QB wins again. Dumbass argument, Drew Brees certainly sucks huh?
Warner won in 2000! I'm tallking about the Championship QB 'size trend from 2001 through 2009. All were 'at least' 6'4"...seven of the last nine championship WINNING quarterbacks were 6'5"+. ALL were 'at least' 6'4" NOT the Losers in the last nine years, the WINNERS were all 6'4"; most were 6'5" or slightly bigger! See the "Championship QB's size trend or don't". Just do not expect Mark Sanchez to WIN a Superbowl. And Jets Fans he is the highest paid Jet ever. How do the 'Veterans,' who do most of the real work feel? How to the 'fans feel' watching a 'little kid looking guy', making $50 Million bucks, running the show? Crappy.... Peyton-1 ring-6'5", Eli-6'4"-1 ring, Big Ben-6-5"-2 rings, Tom B.-6'4"+-3 rings, B. Johnson-6'4"+-1 ring, T. Dilfer-6'4"-1 ring... "There are the "LAST NINE CHAMPIONS!"
So your argument here is obviously that a 6'3 or less QB would have been unable to win the Super Bowl in 2000 instead of Trent Dilfer? Or in 2002 instead of Brad Johnson? Or in 2007 instead of Eli Manning? Players are getting bigger and there's no question about that, but it is an accident that all of the winning QB's over the last 9 years were 6'4" or taller. 3 of them played with great defenses, which won those respective Super Bowls and 3 of them played for great organizations which invested appropriately around the QB and had the accumulated talent to win Super Bowls as a result. The argument that you must have a 6'4" or taller QB to win a Super Bowl is no different than the argument that would have been advanced in 1981 that the QB had to be at least 6'3" to win the big one. 7 winners in a row had been 6'3" or taller at that point. Then Joe Montana won at 6'2", Joe Theismann won at 6' flat, Montana again at 6'2", Jim McMahon at 6'1", etc. For all we know Drew Brees will win 3 of the next 4 Super Bowls at 6' flat. He's the guy I'd most like to have in a good weather game at this point at the end of the season. Must haves based on physical attributes are almost always wrong, because what makes a championship caliber player often resides elsewhere. Elvis Dumervil has just become the first player since they started keeping sack stats to register 10 or more sacks in a season at under 6' tall. He's on a 20 sack pace. By your logic there's no way he can do that because he's too short. The vast majority of the people on that single season leader list are 6'4" or taller. That doesn't change the fact that Dumervil is likely to be looking down at all but a few of them by the end of the season at an "impossible" height of 5'11".
has any new info been released on sanchez.. the last i heard was that Sanchez had a sprained PCL and he can play if he can handle the pain.. any word on how he has been feeling??
