Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

[bgeno]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

You're making my point for me. Situations breed talent. Those "freaks" you're talking about would start playing QB. Did you know that Jevon Kearse played some QB in high school? Because of how hard it is to play defense in the NFL, offenses are losing the talent arms race. The biggest and strongest nearly all play on defense, but that is only the case because you don't need as much talent to effectively play offense under the current rule structure.

I don't agree with this.

Kearse didn't start playing defense-only at the NFL level, so your logic is flawed off the bat. And high school football is just a totally different game. You put your best athlete at quarterback so he has the ball in his hands every play. You don't have 53 guys on the roster who are incredible talents; the typical high school team doesn't have ONE pro talent on it.

We're getting to the point where the game and its positions are becoming very specialized. Coaches want to maximize a player's talent, and someone at the college level (take not, not the pro level) thought Kearse's talent would be best used chasing quarterbacks, not being one.

There is a breed of QB that has never been developed. They are huge, fast, strong guys who can throw the ball a mile. Most of them end up on defense or in the NBA. Change the rules and there will be a place for them at the pro level, but more importantly you will start to balance out the talent pool which is heavily weighted toward defense in the NFL.

Like I said before, why waste these guys at QB? These are the same guys that turn into Kearse or James Harrison. It's about maximizing talent.

Even in the pre-modern days (which you allude to often), QB's that weren't insanely large and insanely athletic (like your "huge, fast, strong" guys) were very successful. QB is a different position than any other and has been since the advent of the forward pass.

Sure, if you want to go back to the pre-forward pass days, yes, I could see Kearse at QB dominating.

But since the forward pass, QB has become a much more cerebral position that relies on the mind as much as the body.

(And, shotgun styles, I know your argument that QBs simply need accuracy and route anticipation. Route Anticipation is cerebral. And with the complexity of NFL defenses today, I disagree that it's all you need. You need to study and know what's coming next. Why are rookie QBs so rarely competetive? They've got accuracy, they've got route anticipation. It's because they haven't yet studied the game.)

The current system is anti-competitive. Cheating should never be allowed. It's like the intentional foul in basketball to stop the clock, or the intentional walk in baseball to get to the next batter. It's cheating, just as much as steroids are cheating. If you made steroids legal for the offense and not the defense, wouldn't you call that unfair?

You have such a strange definition of cheating. No one does anything outside the rules. If the NFL made steroids legal for offense and not defense, there'd be no cheating and it wouldn't be unfair. Those would be the rules. Quite simply, it may not be as entertaining because one would dominate the others. But to say the offense is cheating because it is following the rules is quite absurd.

Pro football today is very competitive from team to team because of the salary cap and free agency. The NFL did that part very well, and every team seems to have a shot at the top. But the games themselves are watered down, with one silly penalty after another. Football is SUPPOSED to be violent. Players are SUPPOSED to get hurt. Injuries are part of the game.

Please, Oh Football God, oh knower of all...

Who are you to say what football is SUPPOSED to be? What do you know that I don't? I'm pretty damn sure that the game wasn't invented so people would get hurt... lol... that's one of the most ludicrous statements I've ever read.

The NFL is not boring to watch, but college football games are MUCH more exciting because of all the different kinds of players you get to see there. You get to see option offenses and 46 defenses, you get to see lots of trick plays and variation from game to game. This is because even though they have the NFL's silly rules, the talent level in college is much lower. Thus teams have to do more with less, and have to really innovate in order to succeed. NFL games are almost all the same. That's why everyone made such a big deal out of the Wildcat, because someone actually did something different.

I can't disagree with this. In respect of playing styles, college football is much more interesting. There are a lot more different types of offenses and defenses and, yes, it is based a lot on the talent pool/level.

And, yes, that's why the Wildcat got so much attention... it was so different.

But as long as the NFL has 32 teams and the talent pool is the way it is, you're not going to see anything different here.

The NFL is great, but has yet to reach it's real potential. This leaves the door open for another league. So far all those leagues have failed. But, if someone ever decided to go after 18-21 year olds the NFL would have a real competition on their hands. There is no law that says 18-21 year olds can't play pro ball. If an upstart league decided to take some of these kids who want to skip college and get their money now, they could put some really talented teams together.

That's an interesting concept.

Of all the things you've said, this probably makes the most sense and is the honest-to-god truth.

However, I still think you'd see the basic NFL positions utilized... i.e. quarterbacks would likely be more cerebral and not your typical "athlete." It's the way the game has evolved, regardless of rules. Defenses have become so complex (as have offenses) and you can't just throw some huge, fast guy out there and tell him to wing it. And if you try to teach this huge, fast guy the mental portions, you're going to lose some of that hugeness and fastness because he's not going to be able to spend time in the gym and on the track.

[Fox1994]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

^It's a stalemate in a moot argument... So, how did we get this far off topic? lol...

[shotgun styles]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

I don't agree with this.

Kearse didn't start playing defense-only at the NFL level, so your logic is flawed off the bat. And high school football is just a totally different game. You put your best athlete at quarterback so he has the ball in his hands every play. You don't have 53 guys on the roster who are incredible talents; the typical high school team doesn't have ONE pro talent on it.

We're getting to the point where the game and its positions are becoming very specialized. Coaches want to maximize a player's talent, and someone at the college level (take not, not the pro level) thought Kearse's talent would be best used chasing quarterbacks, not being one.

Like I said before, why waste these guys at QB? These are the same guys that turn into Kearse or James Harrison. It's about maximizing talent.

You're talking about maximizing talent in a flawed system. I'm talking about FIXING THE SYSTEM. You have to start with rules that allow QB's to cheat:

Grounding the ball out of bounds
Grounding the ball at a HB or WR's feet.
Sliding to avoid a hit

And rules that allow offenses an unfair edge:

The forward progress rule
The 5 yard chuck rule
Uneven enforcement of Pass Interference
Offensive pass interference only being a 10 yard penalty.

These rules give pass offenses an unfair advantage, and thus dilute the talent on offense THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION. It's not about just picking an athlete to play QB, and throwing him in there. It's about the rules that protect an untalented QB.

If I'm the coach, and I have two guys who can both play QB (one is a talented athlete, one isn't) you want to "maximize" the talent on your team as you say. So the talented kid moves to WR, and the hack plays QB and gets all the credit. But you get the most out of your roster. The problem is, this is not competitive sport. In competitive sport the best player gets the job, and this is why the QB protection rules need to go. We need more talent and less hacks at the QB position.

Even in the pre-modern days (which you allude to often), QB's that weren't insanely large and insanely athletic (like your "huge, fast, strong" guys) were very successful. QB is a different position than any other and has been since the advent of the forward pass.

Sure, if you want to go back to the pre-forward pass days, yes, I could see Kearse at QB dominating.

But since the forward pass, QB has become a much more cerebral position that relies on the mind as much as the body.

Back in the old days you didn't HAVE to be huge and fast because defenders were not huge and fast. Now they are. And if you're going to compete on equal footing with them, you will need to be more talented to play QB. Again, you're not addressing the same issue I am. You're making excuses for the current system of QB protectionism, and I'm advocating for ABOLISHING THAT SYSTEM.

I'm not saying that we should demand that coaches put great athletes at QB just to do it. I'm saying we should level the playing field and make QBs compete for real. If there are no more QB protection rules coaches will start putting more talented guys in their on their own. Why? Cause the hacks will be getting killed. They can't throw it away because the rules won't let them, and they can't make a play because they're not real athletes, so they just get HAMMERED for giant losses. It won't take long for coaches to adjust fire and put in more talented QBs.

(And, shotgun styles, I know your argument that QBs simply need accuracy and route anticipation. Route Anticipation is cerebral. And with the complexity of NFL defenses today, I disagree that it's all you need. You need to study and know what's coming next. Why are rookie QBs so rarely competetive? They've got accuracy, they've got route anticipation. It's because they haven't yet studied the game.)

Media hype. Rookie QBs are rarely competitive because most of them are recruited and drafted to the NFtL based on their physical traits (size, arm strength, running ability) rather than their developed skills. Favre and Marino kill your argument. These guys don't read ****, don't watch film (by their own admission mind you) and basically just chuck it to the guy they like on a given play.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen Favre and Marino throw TD passes through double coverage. They accomplish this feat not be being "cerebral" but by being accurate enough to get the ball into tight spaces.

You have such a strange definition of cheating. No one does anything outside the rules. If the NFL made steroids legal for offense and not defense, there'd be no cheating and it wouldn't be unfair. Those would be the rules. Quite simply, it may not be as entertaining because one would dominate the others. But to say the offense is cheating because it is following the rules is quite absurd.

Legislating cheating into the rules does not make it fair play, and if you thing roiding out one side of the football is fair just because the rules make it legal, then I'm not sure you understand the CONCEPT of fair play. Right now the RULES ARE NOT FAIR, and thus I cannot respect the players who succeed based on being allowed to cheat. I cringe every time I see someone throw the ball away. THAT'S INTENTIONAL GROUNDING. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts, about it, the NFL rules allow cheating. And they should not.

Please, Oh Football God, oh knower of all...

Who are you to say what football is SUPPOSED to be? What do you know that I don't? I'm pretty damn sure that the game wasn't invented so people would get hurt... lol... that's one of the most ludicrous statements I've ever read.

It ain't me saying it. I will refer you back to Butkus, Deacon, Chuck Bednarik, Art Donovan, and the rest of the old timers who have said they are ashamed of what the game has become. Football was designed to be violent. That's why it is a tackle sport, played with protective equipment, and not 2 hand touch. If you don't know that, I'm not sure you understand the history of the game. AMERICAN FOOTBALL IS SUPPOSED TO BE VIOLENT. It was built from the start to be that way.

I can't disagree with this. In respect of playing styles, college football is much more interesting. There are a lot more different types of offenses and defenses and, yes, it is based a lot on the talent pool/level.

And, yes, that's why the Wildcat got so much attention... it was so different.

But as long as the NFL has 32 teams and the talent pool is the way it is, you're not going to see anything different here.

Oh yes you would. Change the rules for the 2010 NFL season, just as an experiment. You'd run Manning, Brady, Brees and the rest of these no talent hacks out of the NFL by MID SEASON. Plainly stated, they could not function. Natural selection would rule the day, and more talented players would have to replace them.

That's an interesting concept.

Of all the things you've said, this probably makes the most sense and is the honest-to-god truth.

However, I still think you'd see the basic NFL positions utilized... i.e. quarterbacks would likely be more cerebral and not your typical "athlete." It's the way the game has evolved, regardless of rules. Defenses have become so complex (as have offenses) and you can't just throw some huge, fast guy out there and tell him to wing it. And if you try to teach this huge, fast guy the mental portions, you're going to lose some of that hugeness and fastness because he's not going to be able to spend time in the gym and on the track.

Again, you're missing the point. I'm not advocating the changing of American football on a structural level. I'm only advocating for taking out all of the fake rules put in the game since 1978 to handcuff defenses.

You also either don't watch any other sports, or have a very low opinion of players' intelligence. Basketball players don't have a "sacred position" like football players do. They manage the intellectual side of the game just fine, and yes, still make it to their workouts on time. Middle linebackers have to be every bit as intellectually involved as QBs. Guess what, they make it to the gym and the classroom without any trouble. They don't get credit, largely because the media does not talk about how hard it is to play MLB.

For the record the game has not evolved. It has been tampered with. If the game had evolved, QBs would have become stronger and faster in order to keep up with the growing talent level on defense. Instead, the league stepped in and gerrymandered the rules to hamstring defenses and coddle QBs. That's not how evolution works. Evolution is about survival of the fittest, and today's QBs are anything but "the fittest".

[JerzeyReign]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

This is an easy one: Eagles/Patriots


NFC: What other team is their to challenge the Mighty Eagles of Philadelphia. Cowboys? No, Romo will struggle without TO. Giants? No, Eli has nobody to throw to. Bears? Possibly but that defense is getting old and is not nearly as dominant. Vikings? Not a chance in Lucipher's Palace. Even if they get Farve, he makes to many mistakes and that mighty defense would be on the field alot wearing them down before December. Falcons? Only if they open up their playbook a little more for their young QB? And do I even have to mention anyone from the rebuilding NFC West??


AFC: Their is only maybe four main teams to talk about. Anybody has a chance in the AFC because talent is well diversed. But who sees any of these four teams not making it to THE GAME: Patriots, Colts, Steelers, Chargers. I will only elaborate on these four to prove my point.
Patriots: Brady's back, if he returns to normal, 'nuff said.
Colts: I wasn't sure about this one with all the coaching changes, but Peyton Manning is arguably the greatest player/coach (even though he doesn't have the title we all know he calls the shots) of our generation, possibly ever.
Chargers: I like Rivers spunk, he's a fighter. With LT in the backfield and Merriman back watch out for the Lightning Boltz! Still wondering why a team would fire a 14-2 coach and keep one that backpedals into the playoffs. But hey I think they are still buzzing from last year.
Steelers: This team is going to be a power for a long time. They are never rebuilding, they just replace parts as you need them. Offense and Defense both are filled with young but experienced players. Plus your the champs until someone else lifts your trophy.

[shotgun styles]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

This is an easy one: Eagles/Patriots


NFC: What other team is their to challenge the Mighty Eagles of Philadelphia. Cowboys? No, Romo will struggle without TO. Giants? No, Eli has nobody to throw to. Bears? Possibly but that defense is getting old and is not nearly as dominant. Vikings? Not a chance in Lucipher's Palace. Even if they get Farve, he makes to many mistakes and that mighty defense would be on the field alot wearing them down before December. Falcons? Only if they open up their playbook a little more for their young QB? And do I even have to mention anyone from the rebuilding NFC West??


AFC: Their is only maybe four main teams to talk about. Anybody has a chance in the AFC because talent is well diversed. But who sees any of these four teams not making it to THE GAME: Patriots, Colts, Steelers, Chargers. I will only elaborate on these four to prove my point.
Patriots: Brady's back, if he returns to normal, 'nuff said.

'Nuff said? REALLY? The homerism of this post if laughable. He's coming back from major knee surgery and EVERY other team in the division has improved since his departure. The Patriot defense is still old. Yes, they will try to blow teams out again, but look for more teams to follow the KC model and try to get as many hits on Brady as possible to knock him out again.

His backup is who again?

Colts: I wasn't sure about this one with all the coaching changes, but Peyton Manning is arguably the greatest player/coach (even though he doesn't have the title we all know he calls the shots) of our generation, possibly ever.

You know, I've got some bridges out here in CA I'd like to sell you. You'll believe ANYTHING the ESPN/NFL hype machine is telling you. Manning does NOT run that team, nor does he run that offense. He does not call plays, he does not coach other players. He's just another overpaid and overrated image conscious bonus baby QB.

He is productive, and we should talk about that. He no longer has the big deep threat anymore, so teams will be able to head hunt some of the shorter routes he'll have to throw. However, if that defense plays well they are still better than any other team in that division. The Titans were a fluke.

Chargers: I like Rivers spunk, he's a fighter. With LT in the backfield and Merriman back watch out for the Lightning Boltz! Still wondering why a team would fire a 14-2 coach and keep one that backpedals into the playoffs. But hey I think they are still buzzing from last year.

I'm not going to comment on the highlighted portion, other than to say: don't say things like this. It looks...bad.

The Chargers will compete if healthy. They are as good as any team in the NFL, but I don't trust Norv Turner at all. If they had a better coach, I'd be picking them higher.

Steelers: This team is going to be a power for a long time. They are never rebuilding, they just replace parts as you need them. Offense and Defense both are filled with young but experienced players. Plus your the champs until someone else lifts your trophy.

We are constantly rebuilding. You don't seem to remember the pre-Roethlisberger era. Kordell, Maddox, and Kent-friggin-Graham. We've gone 6-10 TWICE in the last 10 years.

Right now we've got a strong young core and a dynamic young head coach. But anything could happen. I think both the Chargers and Steelers have a better chance at the SB than the Pats because defense wins championships and our teams have more heavy hitters on that side of the ball than NE.

[CW McGraw]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

Football is not supposed to be insanely violent. Right from it's inception, the goal has been to make the game as safe as possible while maintaining the spirit of competition. Hell, the way American football was originally conceived, it was a downless rugby variant, but after too many people died playing it, Teddy Roosevelt helped write up rules to make the game less brutal.

You say you want football to be played as it was supposed to be played in "the old days," but you pick and choose when those old days begin. It's completely backwards and savage to say "Weed out the wusses. Just let'em get killed." If you're willing to watch people get mauled for your own entertainment then there's no point arguing with you.

What makes the opinions of Deacon Jones and Art Donovan so valuable anyway? Not only did they play in an era where they were allowed to cheat, but because they're old they suddenly have valid opinions on a game that has changed greatly from when they last played?

[z Revis]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

The Colts have "no shot".... ? Really? You could AT LEAST say they have "a very slim shot" at getting to/winning the Super Bowl. Saying that they have no shot is quite an over exaggeration...assuming that you are exaggerating. They have Peyton Manning dude. The talent is still there. They just lost coaches. Oh well. Manning is the only thing that truly matters anyways. Without Peyton, then you could say they have no shot. But they still have him... They have as good of a shot as anyone.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

The Homerism levels on this page are ridiculously high.

[shotgun styles]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

Football is not supposed to be insanely violent. Right from it's inception, the goal has been to make the game as safe as possible while maintaining the spirit of competition. Hell, the way American football was originally conceived, it was a downless rugby variant, but after too many people died playing it, Teddy Roosevelt helped write up rules to make the game less brutal.

You say you want football to be played as it was supposed to be played in "the old days," but you pick and choose when those old days begin. It's completely backwards and savage to say "Weed out the wusses. Just let'em get killed." If you're willing to watch people get mauled for your own entertainment then there's no point arguing with you.

What makes the opinions of Deacon Jones and Art Donovan so valuable anyway? Not only did they play in an era where they were allowed to cheat, but because they're old they suddenly have valid opinions on a game that has changed greatly from when they last played?

Stop right there. There is NO COMPARISON between today's game and the dirty tactics of the old days. Yes the headslap was legal. But that's nothing compared to today's free-for-all on offense.

It's not like Deacon was allowed to run freely to the QB because no one was allowed to block him (the five yard chuck) or like he was allowed to line up offsides to avoid a double team (QB grounding out of bounds to avoid a hit).

Today's rules are stupidly unfair, and today's QB's are frauds. Every stat they hold is A FAKE because they had to cheat to achieve them. The NFL didn't even KEEP TRACK OF SACKS during Deacon Jones' career.

THERE IS NO COMPARISON. None. Not even a slight one.

[shotgun styles]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

The Homerism levels on this page are ridiculously high.

True, but I'm not usually a Homer. I don't really have a choice this year, we're the Champs and we're returning almost all of our starters.

If we sucked, or were on the decline I would says so. But we have a legit shot at a repeat.

[CW McGraw]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

Stop right there. There is NO COMPARISON between today's game and the dirty tactics of the old days. Yes the headslap was legal. But that's nothing compared to today's free-for-all on offense.

It's not like Deacon was allowed to run freely to the QB because no one was allowed to block him (the five yard chuck) or like he was allowed to line up offsides to avoid a double team (QB grounding out of bounds to avoid a hit).

Today's rules are stupidly unfair, and today's QB's are frauds. Every stat they hold is A FAKE because they had to cheat to achieve them. The NFL didn't even KEEP TRACK OF SACKS during Deacon Jones' career.

THERE IS NO COMPARISON. None. Not even a slight one.

Offensive linemen were supposed to block guys without even using their hands! If you consider throwing forearms at Doug Adkins blocking then you're crazy. There is a comparison between what defenses were allowed to do in the dead ball era and what offenses are allowed to do today. You just refuse to acknowledge it because you think the new rules were what ended the Steelers dynasty. Changes in physique aside, Art Donovan and Deacon Jones couldn't compete today because offensive linemen are actually allowed to play a fair game against them.

[bgeno]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

Shotgun Styles,

1. Your first mistake is blaming the QBs. It's not their fault. Saying they're "cheating" is putting the blame on them. Don't blame the QBs if you don't like it. They did nothing wrong (by your standards) and are simply playing by the rules.

2. Things evolve, man. Deal with it. Changes happen. If you choose to live in the 1960's and whine about today's QBs and NFL rulesevery chance you get, then I feel sorry for you.

... and you do whine about it every chance you get. Just look at your last post in the "Really, He played for them?" thread. You took a post that had nothing to do with this argument and made a back-handed comment about how running QBs have no place in the game, essentially trolling and attempting to turn the thread into V2.0 of this very thread. This is the third time I can actually remember you hijacking a thread and turning it into a "Today's NFL isn't fair... QBs are wimps... wah wah wah."

3. Don't take offense, but you're slightly delusional. You choose to believe that the NFL is something it's not and, quite frankly, never has been. By what you're saying about football being the way it was intended to be, there should be a soccer/rugby-type game in which you advance the ball with your feet and fists... I mean, that's how it was originally designed.


I'm pretty sure I've had this argument with you before, and I can see where it's going. I actually entirely regret replying to you in the first place as I simply accelerated your trolling and gave you an outlet for your delusional points.

[shnuskis]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

Shotgun Styles, I have to laugh. I love your passion for what you believe, even though I don't agree with you. You sound like me about baseball and how they ruined the game for me. I hate to say it but you might have to let the game go. It isn't what you want and it will never change back the way you want it to.

I gave up mlb this year on principle this year. I am not missing it. And I used to read every box score every morning in the paper before espn and knew every prospect in every system. I still enjoy lower level ball because I love the atmosphere, but I don't need mlb.

[ANDROMADA 1]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

The Colts have "no shot".... ? Really? You could AT LEAST say they have "a very slim shot" at getting to/winning the Super Bowl. Saying that they have no shot is quite an over exaggeration...assuming that you are exaggerating. They have Peyton Manning dude. The talent is still there. They just lost coaches. Oh well. Manning is the only thing that truly matters anyways. Without Peyton, then you could say they have no shot. But they still have him... They have as good of a shot as anyone.

Agreed...How many Football heads thought the Lame Az Cardinals would make it to the SB last Year?

[shotgun styles]

Re: Super Bowl 44 - The Super, Way TOO-Early Prediction: Vikings/Patriots

Offensive linemen were supposed to block guys without even using their hands! If you consider throwing forearms at Doug Adkins blocking then you're crazy. There is a comparison between what defenses were allowed to do in the dead ball era and what offenses are allowed to do today. You just refuse to acknowledge it because you think the new rules were what ended the Steelers dynasty. Changes in physique aside, Art Donovan and Deacon Jones couldn't compete today because offensive linemen are actually allowed to play a fair game against them.

I've said before that I agree with the changes to the O-line rules. I disagree that the rules changes ended our dynasty because we won two more Superbowls after the changes.

Overall, I don't think the NFL will ever go back. We live in a celebrity culture and the NFL wants those celebrity dollars. Just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and the fact that today's superstar QBs are a fabrication. They're pretty and they sell alot of tickets, and at the end of the day football is a business. Profits are more important than the integrity of the sport. I know that, understand that, and can live with that. I'd just like to see another league try to go another direction.

Shotgun Styles,

1. Your first mistake is blaming the QBs. It's not their fault. Saying they're "cheating" is putting the blame on them. Don't blame the QBs if you don't like it. They did nothing wrong (by your standards) and are simply playing by the rules.

2. Things evolve, man. Deal with it. Changes happen. If you choose to live in the 1960's and whine about today's QBs and NFL rulesevery chance you get, then I feel sorry for you.

... and you do whine about it every chance you get. Just look at your last post in the "Really, He played for them?" thread. You took a post that had nothing to do with this argument and made a back-handed comment about how running QBs have no place in the game, essentially trolling and attempting to turn the thread into V2.0 of this very thread. This is the third time I can actually remember you hijacking a thread and turning it into a "Today's NFL isn't fair... QBs are wimps... wah wah wah."

3. Don't take offense, but you're slightly delusional. You choose to believe that the NFL is something it's not and, quite frankly, never has been. By what you're saying about football being the way it was intended to be, there should be a soccer/rugby-type game in which you advance the ball with your feet and fists... I mean, that's how it was originally designed.


I'm pretty sure I've had this argument with you before, and I can see where it's going. I actually entirely regret replying to you in the first place as I simply accelerated your trolling and gave you an outlet for your delusional points.

You tried tactic A: Attack my argument.

Tactic A failed.

Now you're trying tactic B: Attack me personally.

Tactic B has also failed because I see right through it. I'm sorry your feelings (ego) have been hurt. I'm sorry you can't debate factually without resorting to intellectually dishonest tactics like ad hominiems. But I'm not about to stoop to your level, son.

I come to talk football, not trade insults. If you can't stand the fire, stay out of my kitchen.