It's not that I can't provide a reply. It's just clear as day that you are only concerned with seeming correct. Therefore, agree to disagree.
What in the world are you talking about? Team Passing rankings = yards only. you dont rank QBs by yards. things like touchdowns, interceptions, QB rating, completion percentage and yards per attempt all factor in much more. Team passing rankings have little to do with who the top 10 QBs are. there really is no debate. you took an article that has nothing to do with quarterbacks, and used it to say the stats show you can win a superbowl without a top 10 QB. your data is completely irrelevant to the point you are trying to make. show me which superbowl winning QBs during the 03-12 stretch in that study were NOT top 10 QBs that year.
in other words, we exposed your riddiculous statements and showed you the facts and since you cant debate them you simply wont reply. fair enough
yes, that's surely it. it is I who has been making ridiculous statements and ignoring facts. Absooooolutely.
You are ignoring the facts... pretty literally by refusing to address them. FACT: that study does not rank quarterbacks, it does not list any quarterback statistics FACT: that study uses only 1 statistic even related to passing, Team passing yards per game FACT: the top 10 passing offenses during the studies duration ('03-'12) did not have the top 10 QBs on their team (regardless of if you rate QBs by rating, TDs, td:int, ypa or a cobination) FACT: of the 10 superbowl winning quarterbacks in the course of that articles study, only 2 of them finished outside the top 10 quarterbacks that year in QB rating, Touchdowns, or TD:INT ratio (Brad Johnson in '03, Eli Manning in '07) 8 of the 10 QBs during those seasons the article tracks where top 10 qbs the year they won the superbowl. Please tell me which of these FACTS you are not ignoring, or which I am 'twisting"
his defense stunk after he elevated the O to score almost a TD more per game despite playing the tougher portion of the sched than Foles played against.
The Eagles went 5-4 down that stretch including a game against GB where he threw 2 int's and fumbled 3 times (losing 2). His other performances weren't much better. The Eagles had a legit shot at the playoffs had it not been for a 4th qtr interception against the Redskins in the final 90 seconds while driving into field goal range tied 23-23. They would go on to lose by 3 points. They missed the playoffs after a 9-3 start.... If he wasn't throwing int's he was fumbling. He literally had a turnover in every game but 2. That is one way to ensure an early offseason.
Whatever dude. Stop looking at fantasy numbers and start evaluating QBs the way junc does. He is the be all end all.
Turk: I already embarrassed you the other day w/ your lact of facts and excuses about Fitz in Buffalo. I'd prefer not to keep doing it so please don't make me.
That's not an attack. I'm just pointing out that you have absolutely no retort to facts other than some mythical dog shit strawman response of "stop paying attention to fantasy numbers".
His TOs were in garbage time in that GB game, did you watch the game or are you just looking at the boxscore? The team sucked that day, he was the least of their problems. They went 5-4 against a much tougher sched than they faced w/ Foles and they averaged almost a TD more per game on O. The same Redskin game his K missed 2 chip shots? and he still led his O to 27 pts(by the way, that INT should have been overturned but it wasn't and the D allowed Wash to go right down the field and win it- couldn't they get a stop? Clearly you didn't watch and are looking at boxscores. when you actually watch football get back to me instead of wasting your time just hurling insults when you have nothing.
Yep, like when I destroyed Turk's phony excuses for Fitz? like when I just destroyed the misinformation rexonthebeach just posted that you took the time to b ash me over even though info was out context as always.
You just keep proving my point. You're also delusional. You're so absurd sometimes that you don't even deserve anything more than one sentence responses. Have fun thinking you're the best at everything.
Keep attacking rather than actually discussing points. I don't think I am the best at everything, I do think I present arguments better than most and especially better than those that do nothing but attack other posters b/c they have nothing.
This is laughable. People present you with STATS and FACTS and all you can do is respond on your high horse about how they only care about numbers and you are the one that REALLY knows how to dissect a QB. Then you proceed to do nothing other than give your opinion. Who is the one that has nothing?
