QB's Part 2....

Alrighty, well I'm going to respond to each of the QB articles everyone wrote. Thanks again to each of you guys, you did an awesome job. I'll preface this by saying, like most New Englanders, I want to be on Tom Brady. I love the man as much as any heterosexual possibly could. He's a huge part of, really, the changing of the sports culture here in New England. Nonetheless I am going to take my Patriots blinders off and look at each of these objectively. I agree with some of your points, I disagree with others, and there are some here that are just made outta sheer hate.

In some cases this was obviously intentional and very funny - Dan talking about Brady's pregame headbutts for instance. There were others made that the writer tries to justify but that's where I come in to boot them in the ass.

I like how Trent Dilfer is a common theme in all of these. People comparing Eli, Big Ben, and Brady to Trent Dilfer. COME ON!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, Trent Dilfer won a super bowl on the coat tails of an all time defense. Yes, he was a game manager and asked to not eff things up but the three aforementioned QB's are leaps, bounds, miles, back flips, and any other general jumping motion ahead of Trent Dilfer. It's really a poor argument and seems to be the "go-to" material when anyone thinks a QB is undeserving of any credit. These guys are NOT the 2000 Baltimore Ravens Trent Dilfer and I'll explain more as I go on.

I like how Mike Vick found his way onto three of these articles too, funny stuff.

---------------------

First off Peyton Manning... Glassman, Glassman, Glassman, Glassman.... (sigh) Glassman.

Peyton Manning is a great quarterback. Come on. Since 2003 he's either been 1a or 1b in the NFL and the level he plays at compared to just about any other QB isn't even close.

Although I agree with much of your playoff conclusions you come off sounding like a Patriots homer yelling at someone at a bar as to why Brady is better. The approach I would take here - like in most debates - would be to first build Manning up, which is more credible and ultimately drives home his playoff chokenicity more. To just call him "good".... it would make your average reader stop right then and there because we all know damn well he's better than good.

Let's face it, Peyton Manning could very well be the BEST regular season QB ever. Every season he throws for 4,000 yards, he throws 25-35 TD's, has only 10 interceptions, and goes 12-4 or better. Peyton scares the bijesus out of you in late 4th quarters and I believe he has more control of his offense than any other QB has ever had.

Most Patriot fans will scoff any time these regular season numbers are brought up (since they trump Brady's) but we are quick to jam playoff numbers down everyone's throats (since they favor Brady). Can you really have it both ways? I don't think you can. If you are going to trash his playoff numbers you have to applaud the regular season. Peyton Manning is a great QB and - shit I'll say it - probably the best regular season QB I've ever seen when all things are factored.

This season he's throwing to some dude named Garcon and another named Collie. He has a rookie RB in Donald Brown as well & he's off to the best start of his career. Tom Brady had 1 year with no receivers: 2006. Other than that though, David Givens, David Patten, Deion Branch, Troy Brown, etc - shit man - they did the job. They were great receivers for that system. It's their own damn fault that Givens & Branch went for the money and to places they didn't fit in. I don't feel sorry for Brady having these receiving corps (2006 aside). Eff the pro bowl - shit's political anyway - ESPECIALLY at the skill positions.

However, Manning's lack of playoff success is unquestionably something I would attack. For someone who wins 12+ games every year, who has won 3 MVP's (and counting), who is an all-time great player, you HAVE to give me more in the playoffs! Manning has had waaaaay too many first round inexcusable losses. In 2005 they were 13-0 and were the best team all season long. To lose to the Steelers - #6 seed - at home in the first round, awful. Simply awful. The 2007 loss to San Diego, however, is so brutal. It has to be his worst. They lost, at home, to San Diego who lost their starting QB Phil Rivers to a partially torn ACL, their staring RB LT to a sprained vag, and their all pro TE Antonio Gates to a dislocated big toe. Essentially Billy Volek came in to win this game. Sure, Peyton Manning doesn't play defense but he threw an interception at the 1 yard line and didn't close out drives that could have won it. He needs to smell blood and attack. He needs to finish off a team that is flailing around. That's what all time great QB's do. I hate the Chargers but they showed more balls than the Colts & Manning ever have on that day. In 2008 the Colts won their final nine games. They were screaaaaaming into the playoffs. The Colts played the 8-8 Chargers and lost AGAIN.

Seriously... 2006 is the exception. Whereas 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008 are the rule. Peyton Manning plays tighter in the playoffs. He and Tony Dungy's respective butt holes would clench up and it seems they play not to lose. If you are an all time great QB you raise your game to the next level. If you don't, then you're going to face the music, and justifiably so.

As for the Dan Marino comparisons - the fact is we only talk about Marino and Manning because they are SO GOOD. We don't talk about middle of the road QB's who never won anything. The comparison is definitely a solid one. I will say though that I didn't get to follow Marino's career like I did Manning's. The Miami Dolphin teams I saw from 1990 or so until 1999 didn't hold a candle to the Colts teams (from top to bottom). It does seem that Marino's best years in the mid 1980's were wasted, however, it was a time where the NFC was just sooooooo dominant over the AFC so I don't think much would have changed had Miami advanced to a few more super bowls. He'd be 0 for whatever. BUT - 1 appearance Marino? 1!!?? Well I guess it's 2 if you count Ace Ventura...

For Patriots fans & Manning haters - Peyton Manning has 1 super bowl. Tom Brady has 3. The debate as to who is better is very valid. Imagine if Peyton Manning had 3 super bowls and Tom Brady 1. There wouldn't *BE* a debate. That means something, doesn't it?

For Colts fans & Manning lovers - The playoff criticism is sharp and deserved. To quote the great Herm Edwards, "You play to win the game! Hello??!! You play... to win... THE GAME!!!" Don't give me any bull shit that he ran into better teams. With the success the Indianapolis Colts have had this decade, to only win 1 Super Bowl, to only really be in the running for 1 other (2003), and to have SIX first round losses is just pathetic and inexcusable.

--------------------------

Eli Manning.... I agree more with what you wrote on Eli than Peyton. I will give Eli the benefit that the jury is still somewhat out on him. Since late 2007 he does seem to have raised his game into the good to very good level.

Being a Manning is also a double edged sword. Sure you have the gay little family thing but Eli's also someone who has probably been told every day that he can't hold his older brother's jock. That can't be easy to deal with.

Prior to that 2007 run, Eli definitely was overrated. The biggest thing with him is his completion percentage was always farting around in the 50's - as you noted. In today's football, that is bad. That is inaccurate. Eli would have a tendency of throwing off his back foot. His mechanics blew. To his credit he's raised his game up some and that completion percentage is now in the 60's. Mike Vick's is in the 50's because he is just flat out inaccurate. Eli had awful form, but the talent is there.

One big thing with Eli, in my opinion, is that he just doesn't have the look of a quarterback. He's always sulking, has awful body language, and looks more like a pubey Little League baseball coach who has his striped tube socks up to his knees and his shirt tucked in way too high. He's not exactly someone who instills confidence in me or whom I could see firing up his team.

You mentioned the talent around Eli. I would argue to Eli's credit to look at this season. People questioned his skill position players - particular his receivers. However, Steve Smith, Mario Manningham, and co. are doing a great job and the QB needs to get some credit for that. Takes two to tango.

I would have probably left off the Tyree thing. It makes you sound like a bitter Pats fan again, haha. I don't think anyone chalks that up to why Eli Manning is great.

However, I do agree about the Super Bowl MVP. You HAVE to give that to a Giants defender. I don't care what the stats say; use your effing eyes people. Who won that game for them? Who was most VALUABLE??? For christ's sake they held the 18-0 all time scoring offense to 14 points!! Ray Lewis won an MVP with nothing great for numbers, Richard Dent as well. I'm sick of this QB bull shit. The same could be said for Super Bowl XXXVI & Tom Brady. Ty Law all day IMO (really coulda been a number of Pats defenders but Law wins out with the pick 6).

The way he weaseled his way out of San Diego was beyond gay. Reminds me of a gay horse-toothed QB who weaseled his way out of Baltimore (Colts). None other than John Elway- douche bags.

As for the hall of fame - as I stated in the intro - the jury is still out. See me in 10 years.

--------------

Philip Rivers.... I'm not a huge fan of his but I don't really have much hate for him. I think in my mind he's just not there yet and hasn't crossed the Patriots path in a threatening way. I guess that could be an insult though. Phil Rivers (yes I'm talking to you), I don't take your ass seriously yet.

BUT, yes the San Diego Chargers are a bunch of bitches. Honestly, what have they done to warrant that attitude? They are paper champs. They are told how awesome they are each preseason and they never live up to their expectations. I think that window is slowly closing too. Sure, they'll be very good, but LT was a once in a generation talent. He's crested and now on the back 9 of his career. Hell he's on the back 3. They wasted those years.

According to a Bill Simmons mail-bag I read some time ago, Rivers doesn't even swear either. How is it possible to talk as much crap as he does and not swear? Granted I swear a ton, but even a normal person has to think it's pretty damn hard to get riled up and not bark out a few F bombs.

I think I read his lips last year though when he got into an altercation with former Broncos QB Jay Cutler: "Hey Jay Cutler, you are a stinky qb! You are so bad and when I get out there I will kick your team's gosh darn butts! I will bring this type of performance to you and your team all day. You better believe that you jerk!" ... what a pussy.

-----------------

Big Ben.... Ah, Dustin, you aren't going to like me. I actually like Roethlisberger. The guy's a winner. I think some players just have an uncanny ability to make plays when needed. Of course they need to be surrounded by talent but Roethlisberger is, in my opinion, the best of the famed QB Class of 2004. Nonetheless, you wrote an awesome article. I laughed, you made some awesome points, and your hatred of "Ben" came through really well.

A lot of QB's definitely seem to get sucked off by NFL "experts" but the first name "Ben" thing is really lame, I agree on that. It's not even like they use his first name just to mix things up. They *DO* seem all chummy about it. This isn't surprising, though. I'd say a solid 90% of analysts are a complete joke. They are afraid to be critical and hold their homer roots close to the heart. A lot of these shows, NBC I'm looking your way, are just UNWATCHABLE.

Off the top of my head the following athletes are referred to by their first name: Tiger, Kobe, Shaq, Lebron, and Nomar. There are probably more out there too. Each of those guys though has a pretty distinct name. Nothing like Ben. When I think Ben I think of that gay little Michael Jackson song or Ben the talk show host bear from The Simpsons. Also, aside from Nomar the other four athletes are mega super duper all stars. So, shit, could it really be the monosyllabic thing??? Had Todd Marinovich been good would we be listening to Terry Bradshaw giggle about how he caught up with "Todd" and they tickled each other's ball bag on every NFL pregame show?

Roethlisberger does play on a great team. He was drafted to play for the Steelers. I mean shit-fuck that's a blessing, make no mistake. At the same time though he fills that role perfectly. They like to run the ball down people's throat and play solid defense. This is a strategy the Steelers have used since 1907. They have been a perennial contender since Bill Cowher took over in 1992. Look at the QB's he rolled out though: Neil O'Donnell, Mike Tomczak, Kordell Stewart, Tommy Maddox. This team was always just a QB - who could make a few plays per game on his own - away from winning titles. I'm not saying Roethlisberger is an all time great, but he is very good, and he certainly fills this role.

His Super Bowl XL performance was anemic, dreadful, pitiful, woeful, I could hit SHIFT + F7 and put in every other adjective for shitty. However, the man played his tits off in all three ROAD playoff wins to get them there. He also made the greatest tackle I've ever seen by a slow dopey QB vs. the Colts in the divisional round. I also thought he should have been Super Bowl MVP last year against the Cardinals. His ability to scramble and make plays (especially in the final drive) was ABSOLUTELY the difference in that game.

The Fran Tarkenton comparisons are awesome. Tarkenton really was the Grandfather of scrambling. If anyone ever gets the chance to see old footage of him, the shit's impressive. Like you said, he was 0 and 4 in the big game. Before we had the Buffalo Bills and ugly Super Bowl beat downs we had the Minnesota Vikings of the late 60's/early 70's. You credit Roethlisberger being victorious while Tarkenton getting smashed due to: 1. Pitt's D > Minn's D, 2. WR's with horse shoes wedged up their ass, 3. Woeful opposition. I'm not sure I agree with 1. I didn't get to watch the Purple People Eaters but everything on profootballreference indicates they were a top 5 defense in their era. I'm not sure I agree on 2, but I do think that Holmes is WICKED inconsistent as a play maker. He shows flashes like Super Bowl XLIII and he has a ton of clunkers too. However on point 3... you have hit the nail square on the head my friend.

Roethlisberger played the Seahawks in Super Bowl XL and the Cardinals in XLIII. The sad part is the Seahawks were the best the NFC had to offer in 2005. The Steelers were the AFC #6, the Seahawks the NFC #1, yet Pittsburgh was favored by 7. Plain and simply: The NFC was rotten that year. Last season... shit man, I wish I could explain last season. The Cardinals appearance (and near victory) of Super Bowl XLIII was some of the strangest shit I've ever seen. I guess I would say it's a team that showed flashes of being very good, but it's probably one of the three or four worst teams to make it to a Super Bowl.

Whereas the Vikings played and lost to four POWERHOUSES. They lost to the Chiefs in Super Bowl IV, the Dolphins in Super Bowl VIII (year after they were undefeated), the Steelers in Super Bowl IX, and the Raiders in Super Bowl XI. Point being here that if Roethlisberger rolled out a 9-21, 123 yards, 0 TD's-2 INT game against a team like this he'd have a big fat 30 point loss to deal with. On the flip side, had Tarkenton played against these cream puff NFC foes then he undoubtedly would have a handful of rings to boast. Those kinds of things are just flukey.

I would say at this point in time that Roethlisberger is a very good quarterback. Like him or not he does have two rings and his early success parallels Troy Aikman and Tom Brady. Moving forward I guess we'll have to see if he takes the path of Aikman, a very good quarterback but never really the focal point of that team, or if he can grow into a player like Brady who *IS* the identity of perennial Super Bowl contending teams.

------------------

Tom Brady - On to the biggest challenge for me here. Talk some sense into Dan where it needs to happen but not sound like a flag-waving, face-painted homer. Let me first say that I really enjoy talking football with this guy. It's not that he knows the game any more or less than other friends of mine but Dan utterly fucking hates the Patriots with every bone in his body. It's fun to talk to someone who just isn't a 'ya guy, Pats can't do no wrong' fan.

The arcade analogy is pretty solid. Even the biggest Pats fan has to see that Brady really has had a lot of breaks go his way, but let's not forget where he came from. This guy was the 199th selection of the 2000 draft. He was slow, skinny, and uncoordinated. Mel Kiper said he had the worst vertical jump of any QB he's ever seen at the combine. Brady was the 4th string QB in 2000 and people wondered what he was doing wasting a roster spot. Give Brady his due in that the man worked his tits off to bring his game up a level pretty quickly. To start 2001, for instance, he beat out Damon Huard to become the 2nd string guy. Yes he caught a break that Bledsoe was injured, but make no mistake, Tom Brady was going to overtake Bledsoe quickly anyway. Belichick has always hated Bledsoe's game.

Brady did start his career dinking and dunking a lot but why did it take plugging him into the lineup to get this team jump-started? Had Bledsoe played that year I would bet my net worth, that the 2001 Patriots wouldn't have even made the playoffs. I won't say it was Brady's terrific play but he energized this team and guided them to wins. Yes, Dan, basically he was asked not to fuck up and at the time that's all that team needed.

In the AFC Divisional game against the Raiders Brady had a great second half. He marched them up and down the field hitting Patten and Wiggins seemingly every play. Brady was not playing like a 2nd year guy. He then got smoked on a cornerback blitz and was bailed out by the infamous "tuck rule." The tuck rule is a stupid rule. It's not a rule I agree with, but it's a rule. The same play happened in week 2 of that season vs the Jets and the same call was made. It occurred again the next year to Carolina and was called the same. It just happened to be on an enormous stage this time. The refs job is to enforce rules as the committee has drawn them up. If you think the rule sucks huge balls point to those who create them! (btw that happened with under 2 mins to go so Fagichick didn't challenge, but had there been 2:02 left OF COURSE he'd challenge as a last ditch effort!)

As for the system, the Patriots definitely became a pass heavy team with a spread offense starting in 2007. Brady runs it well to say the least. Christ he was 16-0 with 50 TD passes. Those are unprecedented numbers. Your Cassell analogy proves yes it's a QB friendly system but c'mon, the guy threw 21 TD's and went 11-5 with the same offensive team. That's a five win drop. Sure 16-0 to 11-5 doesn't sound bad but how does 11-5 to 6-10 sound? That doesn't even mention that the Patriots (and your Miami Dolphins) had a tit schedule in 2008. They played the NFC Werst (Arizona, Seattle, San Francisco, and St. Louis). They played the AFC West (Denver, Oakland, Kansas City), and of course they played Buffalo twice that year which are basically bye weeks. That's 9 wins right there against teams who finished 51-93 last year. Toss in a split with the Jets & Dolphins and that's not the most impressive 11 wins ever.

Your point is well taken though. It's a system that turns average QB's into good ones, but it turns Stars into Mega Stars.

Not to mention, Brady won his three Super Bowls pre Moss & Welker. Buuuuut, I'm not going to argue that those Super Bowl players were untalented. Nobody came up bigger in big games than Deion Branch & David Givens. They just both followed the money right out of town. They probably both thought the same thing half way into their first season with the Seahawks and Titans respectively: "I love my fat new wallet, my new cars, my new mansions, my new jewelry, and the security for my family, but fuck me.... I miss Tom Brady and I will REALLY miss Tom Brady come January."

You are definitely correct on the roughing the passer. It appears the NFL sat the officials down and told them we need our star QB's healthy. They get higher ratings and sell a better product with their best, most recognized talent out there. Sunday Night Football intro: (Shows millions of clips of Colts - Patriots battles throughout the years. Shows Brady winning playoff games in 2003 & 2004. Shows Manning winning in 2006) "It's Matt Cassell and Peyton Manning, coming up next!!!" Your casual fan flips the channel.

It would take for me to be a complete idiot or a homer caught in denial to not understand the most general reasons for the hatred of the Patriots. Your last paragraph sounds a lot like what I could of written with regards to my hatred of team X. You just find every little gay thing pisses you off to no end.

First off, for any AFC East rival you play twice a year which will always lead to some level of hatred. The next thing, and this is the one that gets the ball rolling... people hate the Patriots due to their success. As a kid I fucking hated the Dallas Cowboys. I was so sick of them winning, I hated their cocky players, the America's Team bull shit, and all their retard fans.

The questions is, would I have hated them if they were 7-9 every year? Of course not! I mean once the hate was established, if they HAPPENED to go 7-9 I'd rejoice, but if they hadn't had success to start with... I wouldn't have given two shits about the Cowboys.

My guess is besides the general AFC East hatred (and that Dan is surrounded by yahoos) the 1993 to 2000 Patriots didn't bother you one bit compared to the 2001 to present version.

Add into the fact that the team definitely is a bunch of robots, Brady does gay things like pose for magazine covers and act all Hollywood, Belichick is a surly dick, the spygate story, and national pundits sucking them off left and right, and I can't legitimately argue any point in your final paragraph.

As for the National Media thing. Let's be real. Patriots fans only recognize when someone sucks off Manning, Roethlisberger, Favre etc. Colts fans only recognize when Brady, Roethlisberger and Favre are given a stroke job and Steelers fans cry to how much everyone loves Manning and Brady. Fact is that we all share a hatred of Favre, and furthermore, all of theses QB's get equal HJ's. As a fan you just hear what you want to hear and then get offended when someone isn't in love with your guy.
--------
Trent Dilfer: The man will always be known far and wide as the QB who did the least (arguably) to win a Super Bowl. Do we forget just *how* little this guy did? Here are his numbers in the Ravens four playoff wins in 2000:

9-14 130 yards 1 TD
5-16 117 yards
9-18 180 yards 1 TD 1 INT
12-25 153 yards 1 TD

He hardly even threw! He never threw for more than 180 yards, never had 2 TD's and only completed double digit passes 1 time. To his credit though he hardly turned the ball over either.

Roethilsberger: 2005

14-19 208 yards 3 TD's
14-24 197 yards 2 TD's 1 INT
21-29 275 yards 2 TD's 1 Rush TD
9-21 123 yards 0 TD's 2 INT's 1 Rush TD<---- Yes, this one even makes Dilfer blush

2008: 17-26 181 yards 1 TD
16-33 255 yards 1 TD
21-30 256 yards 1 TD 1 INT

Eli Manning: 2007

20-27 185 yards 2 TD's
12-18 163 yards 2 TD's
21-40 251 yards
19-34 255 yards 2 TD's 1 INT

Tom Brady: 2001

32-52 312 yards 0 TD's 1 INT 1 Rush TD
12-18 115 yards
16-27 145 yards 1 TD

2003:

21-41 201 yards 1 TD
22-37 237 yards 1 TD 1 INT
32-48 354 yards 3 TD's 1 INT

2004: 18-27 144 yards 1 TD 1 Rush TD
14-21 207 yards 2 TD's
23-33 236 yards 2 TD's

I haven't even brought up the 2000 Ravens defense either which was a once in a decade team. It was 1985 Bearsian. They had 4 shutouts over the course of the year. They allowed a league low 165 points that year. The 1985 Bears allowed 187. In four playoff games they allowed 23 points. What do the 2001, 2003, 2004 Patriots, 2005, 2008 Steelers, and 2007 Giants defenses all have in common? They couldn't stand in line to hold the plastic box the 2000 Ravens jock was shipped in.