gabbert

and Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, and Neil O'Donnell

 

o'donnell yes. marino and kelly are in the HallofFame, so no

 

Which is why the Pro Football Hall of Fame is a joke. Most of the guys you listed clearly were not "stud" quarterbacks. Most of them were "game manager" types whose teams won because of defense and running the ball. Montana, Elway, & Brady are legitimate studs who led their teams to long-term success.

 

But that's not what I was debating. I was responding to the statement that "you cannot win with a medoicre QB". I pointed out that about 30% of all SB's have been won with mediocre talent. That's all.

 

Count Joe Namath among the mediocre ones. I never realized how bad he was until someone mentioned it and I looked at the numbers. Ugh.

 

Collin, you're a fuckin idiot! If you wanna believe a DT is more important than a QB, go for it. Who am I to stop you. Obviously you are stuck in an era of football that doesn't exist anymore. Out of the last 10 Superbowl winners, 7 teams had a top 5 QB. As much as you would like to prove Dareus would have been better for us than Cam, you have nothing to back up your argument other than childish insults about a man you've never met. Aside from your lack of understanding business and marketing, I do believe you have some decent opinions about football, regardless you're wrong about this. By the way, we had a stud DT and DE on the same team with a mediocre QB. Do you remember how that worked out?

 

ah... Steve McNair & Kenny Anderson

 

No, they didn't. Roethlisberger wasn't anywhere close to a top 5 quarterback in 2008, and you could argue it but I don't think he quite was in 2005 either. Brady also clearly was not a top 5 guy back in 2001, and although he got closer, he still wasn't at that level in 2003 either. Even 2004 is debatable.

Why hasn't Brady won a playoff game since 2007? Why does Peyton Manning have a losing record in the playoffs, and why has he been knocked out in their first game seven times? Why does Philip Rivers have a losing record in the playoffs? Having a great QB is a huge help in making the playoffs, but after that it doesn't seem to have much statistical correlation with winning once you're there. Hell, Mark Sanchez is 4-2.

You mean the parts where I made you look like an ass when you talked about ticket sales instead of PSLs, and then suggested that teams get more TV money if their ratings improve? You said dumb things, dude. Live with it.

I'm pretty sure that produced this franchise's only Super Bowl appearance.

 

Jake's 106.1 passer rating in the playoffs that year had nothing to do with that appearance, or was that mediocre QB play?

 

Jake played well, but that's kind of the point. In the playoffs you don't need a quarterback who is "elite" or "stud" or whatever you word you want to use. You need a guy to get hot at the right time. Mark Sanchez didn't suddenly become a good quarterback during the playoffs, he just played well in those short stretches.